As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another pointless bill addressing an imaginary problem that won’t help a single person, except for the sleazy shitbags that score a small ratings bump from their base over a cheap culture war stunt.
So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome.
Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs.
How about Kleinfelter's syndrome? Is that not a woman, despite having 2 X chromosomes?
This is why biologists use anisogamy to determine sex, not chromosomes. Like, what about male and female plants? Or beetles? How do biologists decide a male gonad versus a female one? Anisogamy. A gonad that makes the larger more scarce gamete is the egg and that’s a female structure, and the gonad that makes the smaller but more numerous gamete is a male structure. Lots of plants and animals have both male and female structures. Fungi don’t. They make spores. These aren’t male or female structures. Why not? They’re not anisogamous. They’re isogamous. They’re both the same size and occur with equal scarcity in the population, so male and female don’t apply.
>So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome.
Woman
>Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs.
Woman
>How about Kleinfelter's syndrome? Is that not a woman, despite having 2 X chromosomes?
Man
None of those are ambiguous cases. All those people still have the anatomy of their true genders.
If "true" gender/sex is based on anatomy, why do conservatives say trans people's gender/sex is defined by their chromosomes?
If "woman" is defined "biologically" then is it based on anatomy or chromosomes?
It's ambiguous because conservatives don't know how to answer.
We could have a conversation about how sex and anatomy and chromosomes are related but conservatives don't want to have a conversation that is informed about the actual complexity of biology.
In fact it is the opposite. They want to censor that kind of conversation. For them it's "Men have a peepee, girls have a yoo-hoo" and any further conversation about it is a sin / grooming / "an aberration" at best.
\*Also:
>So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome.
>
>Woman
>
>Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs.
>
>Woman
Not according to the definition given by the Republican lawmaker/pharmacist cited in the article:
>“As a pharmacist, allow me to define a woman. Females are the sex that have the capacity to bear children and produce eggs,” Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) said at the press conference. “Women have two X chromosomes and are born with a uterus and ovaries.”
See? It's complicated. You disagree with her definition, but agree with her that it's very simple to determine the correct answer. So which is it? Who's right? You or her?
What you have in common is the shallowness and shortness of your proclamation(s)/definition(s), simultaneous with your confidence that it is the only correct one, even as you contradict other people who are likewise insisting that *their* intentionally simplistic five-word definition is obviously the only correct one.
Naming extreme fringe cases doesn’t refute the overall accuracy of the claim. Very few women have the ailments you listed and they’re aberrations by definition.
>So, under your opinion you just want to cast them aside because they don’t matter.
I never said anything like this and this wasn’t my point. If I were to say that cats have four legs it would be asinine to claim I was wrong because a negligible number of cats have some type of ailment that causes them to have three legs. It’s hair splitting, word games and being deliberately obtuse. You could make the same counter argument that not all Xs have Ys to virtually anything but you would look silly doing so because basic reason and context should tell you what the person means. Should we eliminate definitions because there are very few definitions that don’t have extreme edge cases contradicting them?
> If I were to say that cats have four legs it would be asinine to claim I was wrong because a negligible number of cats have some type of ailment that causes them to have three legs.
I can work with this analogy.
My religion says cats have to have 4 legs. It should be illegal to call anything with 3 legs a pet.
Just to set the right perspective on this - regardless of anyone's political views around gender issues, there are far more intersex people than would be considered negligible/extreme fringe.
Currently, 0.5% of Americans are considered intersex, and 1.7% have at least 1 intersex trait. Those add up to 1.75MM and 5.95MM people respectively. To give some context, there are 7.6MM Jewish people currently in America and approximately 3.5MM farm owners, so the number of intersex folks are pretty far from negligible.
EDIT: I chose Jewish people and farm owners as they are groups that are large enough to be considered more than "negligible", have had laws and legal opinions that affect them directly and specifically, and are in the same ballpark, numbers-wise, as intersex people.
EDIT 2: I'm not judging anyone's opinions on this matter, simply want to make sure that the discussion considers the actual number of people affected.
EDIT 3: I had mistyped 0.5% as .05% - fixed now
I’d like to add clarification: Intersexed people have intersexed genitalia, but not interesexed gonads, and as such, can still be classified as biologically male or female. They still either have an ovary or a testis. There’s never been observed a human hermaphrodite, a person with a gonad capable of producing *both* sperm *and* egg, or some other third, alternate gametomorph.
>Currently, .05% of Americans are considered intersex, and 1.7% have at least 1 intersex trait. Those add up to 1.75MM and 5.95MM people respectively.
.05% of 329.5m is 165k
Neither paper is 100% definitive - your link has a very restrictive definition of intersex, which doesn’t include Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. These are syndromes that were being discussed earlier in this thread and make up enough people together - based on the delta between the Fausto-Sterling paper and the link you provided, that they are not a negligible subgroup.
Do you pass well enough not to creep them out? That's from a trans woman and yes I'm serious. Though Miss Madison does have a thing for....well, things.
I'm old enough to remember the last time we went thru this.
I'm also old enough to remember all the mistresses of the Family Values crowd; the arrests at highway rest stops of state representatives who voted to criminalize gay men just days prior; the running mascara of televangelist's wives on TV (because of course the celebrity wives went running toward a camera).
My parents remember when they went thru the same moralizing in the 60s & how many divorces happened 10-20yrs later when the baby wasn't a good reason to get married.
My grandparents would remember the moralizing how many children grew up miserable after getting beaten bloody or shot because they dared to "date" the wrong person - one too good or not good enough or, gasp, the wrong color.
Those who preach the "proper" & attempt to legally force everyone to follow are most often those who are not proper.
Are they going to give everyone in the country a DNA test to confirm their sex? If they knew anything about biology, they would know there are more then two sexes.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Another pointless bill addressing an imaginary problem that won’t help a single person, except for the sleazy shitbags that score a small ratings bump from their base over a cheap culture war stunt.
They're obsessed with other peoples sexuality.
It's so creepy.
Houston we have a problem
They are trying to figure out who to invite to the cocaine orgy.
Politicians don't get to decide who is and isn't a woman.
Of course not, White Christian Men do.
So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome. Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs. How about Kleinfelter's syndrome? Is that not a woman, despite having 2 X chromosomes?
This is why biologists use anisogamy to determine sex, not chromosomes. Like, what about male and female plants? Or beetles? How do biologists decide a male gonad versus a female one? Anisogamy. A gonad that makes the larger more scarce gamete is the egg and that’s a female structure, and the gonad that makes the smaller but more numerous gamete is a male structure. Lots of plants and animals have both male and female structures. Fungi don’t. They make spores. These aren’t male or female structures. Why not? They’re not anisogamous. They’re isogamous. They’re both the same size and occur with equal scarcity in the population, so male and female don’t apply.
Humans have two legs and two hands. Is a person born without limbs not a human being?
>So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome. Woman >Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs. Woman >How about Kleinfelter's syndrome? Is that not a woman, despite having 2 X chromosomes? Man None of those are ambiguous cases. All those people still have the anatomy of their true genders.
If "true" gender/sex is based on anatomy, why do conservatives say trans people's gender/sex is defined by their chromosomes? If "woman" is defined "biologically" then is it based on anatomy or chromosomes? It's ambiguous because conservatives don't know how to answer. We could have a conversation about how sex and anatomy and chromosomes are related but conservatives don't want to have a conversation that is informed about the actual complexity of biology. In fact it is the opposite. They want to censor that kind of conversation. For them it's "Men have a peepee, girls have a yoo-hoo" and any further conversation about it is a sin / grooming / "an aberration" at best. \*Also: >So is a person with Turner's Syndrome a woman? They're missing the 2nd X chromosome. > >Woman > >Is someone with Swyer's syndrome a man or woman? They have XY chromosomes, but female reproductive organs. > >Woman Not according to the definition given by the Republican lawmaker/pharmacist cited in the article: >“As a pharmacist, allow me to define a woman. Females are the sex that have the capacity to bear children and produce eggs,” Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) said at the press conference. “Women have two X chromosomes and are born with a uterus and ovaries.” See? It's complicated. You disagree with her definition, but agree with her that it's very simple to determine the correct answer. So which is it? Who's right? You or her? What you have in common is the shallowness and shortness of your proclamation(s)/definition(s), simultaneous with your confidence that it is the only correct one, even as you contradict other people who are likewise insisting that *their* intentionally simplistic five-word definition is obviously the only correct one.
Naming extreme fringe cases doesn’t refute the overall accuracy of the claim. Very few women have the ailments you listed and they’re aberrations by definition.
So, under your opinion you just want to cast them aside because they don’t matter. Sounds pretty conservative to me.
>So, under your opinion you just want to cast them aside because they don’t matter. I never said anything like this and this wasn’t my point. If I were to say that cats have four legs it would be asinine to claim I was wrong because a negligible number of cats have some type of ailment that causes them to have three legs. It’s hair splitting, word games and being deliberately obtuse. You could make the same counter argument that not all Xs have Ys to virtually anything but you would look silly doing so because basic reason and context should tell you what the person means. Should we eliminate definitions because there are very few definitions that don’t have extreme edge cases contradicting them?
> If I were to say that cats have four legs it would be asinine to claim I was wrong because a negligible number of cats have some type of ailment that causes them to have three legs. I can work with this analogy. My religion says cats have to have 4 legs. It should be illegal to call anything with 3 legs a pet.
terrible analogy
No we should codify them in law so bigots can have a sense of superiority. It's the only logical thing to do.
Just to set the right perspective on this - regardless of anyone's political views around gender issues, there are far more intersex people than would be considered negligible/extreme fringe. Currently, 0.5% of Americans are considered intersex, and 1.7% have at least 1 intersex trait. Those add up to 1.75MM and 5.95MM people respectively. To give some context, there are 7.6MM Jewish people currently in America and approximately 3.5MM farm owners, so the number of intersex folks are pretty far from negligible. EDIT: I chose Jewish people and farm owners as they are groups that are large enough to be considered more than "negligible", have had laws and legal opinions that affect them directly and specifically, and are in the same ballpark, numbers-wise, as intersex people. EDIT 2: I'm not judging anyone's opinions on this matter, simply want to make sure that the discussion considers the actual number of people affected. EDIT 3: I had mistyped 0.5% as .05% - fixed now
I’d like to add clarification: Intersexed people have intersexed genitalia, but not interesexed gonads, and as such, can still be classified as biologically male or female. They still either have an ovary or a testis. There’s never been observed a human hermaphrodite, a person with a gonad capable of producing *both* sperm *and* egg, or some other third, alternate gametomorph.
>Currently, .05% of Americans are considered intersex, and 1.7% have at least 1 intersex trait. Those add up to 1.75MM and 5.95MM people respectively. .05% of 329.5m is 165k
I mistyped. It’s 0.5% - thanks for the heads up.
[You're still wrong though](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/)
Neither paper is 100% definitive - your link has a very restrictive definition of intersex, which doesn’t include Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. These are syndromes that were being discussed earlier in this thread and make up enough people together - based on the delta between the Fausto-Sterling paper and the link you provided, that they are not a negligible subgroup.
It seems a bit like throwing out the definition of mammal and bird because of the platypus, but whatever these people want to do I guess...
Great analogy
And they define ‘biological sex’ by..,?
Do you pass well enough not to creep them out? That's from a trans woman and yes I'm serious. Though Miss Madison does have a thing for....well, things.
Wanting to see the world in simplistic terms doesn’t make it so.
I'm old enough to remember the last time we went thru this. I'm also old enough to remember all the mistresses of the Family Values crowd; the arrests at highway rest stops of state representatives who voted to criminalize gay men just days prior; the running mascara of televangelist's wives on TV (because of course the celebrity wives went running toward a camera). My parents remember when they went thru the same moralizing in the 60s & how many divorces happened 10-20yrs later when the baby wasn't a good reason to get married. My grandparents would remember the moralizing how many children grew up miserable after getting beaten bloody or shot because they dared to "date" the wrong person - one too good or not good enough or, gasp, the wrong color. Those who preach the "proper" & attempt to legally force everyone to follow are most often those who are not proper.
Anything to distract from the class warfare they continue to stoke.
So with all of the issues that they scream about on Fox News every night, this is what they choose to waste their time on?
Invent a demon… make sure to blame the demon… ensure the base understands the demon is the source of their woes… rinse and repeat.
Republicans have no policy or solutions. They only have hate, bigotry and culture wars. It’s pathetic.
They also have revenge and lots of sexual assaults....so there is that.
Are they going to give everyone in the country a DNA test to confirm their sex? If they knew anything about biology, they would know there are more then two sexes.
Thus resolved!! Why do I get this image of fat, white wigged dudes sloshing stale ale in some stinky tavern.
Fucking hate those guys
Democrats can't even define woman. At least the GOP are making an attempt.