Asklemmy

In general, please don’t ask loaded, third-rail questions on !asklemmy@lemmy.ml, because

1. it’s a PITA for mods, and
2. that’s not what the community is for:. It’s supposed to be a clone of r/askreddit.

Biological sex (male, female, intersex) refers to the physical aspects of your body, such as primary sex characteristics (reproductive organs), secondary sex characteristics (body hair, breasts, fat distribution, etc), hormone levels (estrogen, testosterone), and chromosomes.

Gender (man, woman, nonbinary, other terms) is more about an internal sense of self, how you see yourself and how you want your body to be, as well as what social category you belong in.

A trans woman is a person who was biologically male at birth, but sees herself as a woman/wants her body to align with her gender (woman). Not all trans women medically transition, and that's ok, but for those who do, it can change various aspects of their biological sex, such as hormone levels and secondary sex characteristics, so it may not be entirely true to say that trans women (post transition) are biologically male either.

who cares

if someone asks to be called she/her/susan then just do it. it doesn't need to be so complicated

conservatives ranting about biology are attacking a straw man. nobody actually gives a shit

"You're biologically a loser lmao"

It’s extremely hairy to define biological sex. Whoever wants to argue has a middle school level understanding of biology and completely ignores the science.

See

Are eunuchs biologically agender?

Are intersex people with chimerism or cryptorchidism biologically two genders at once?

Are women who have had hysterectomies biologically male?

The answer to all of the above is, and I say this with all the respect in the world, a resounding 'no.'

1: Yes.

2: Not really. It's more about self image and social presentation.

3: Best response I have is, "And?" Covers a lot of bases.

4: Same way you get any title like Doctor, or Fam, you need to be accepted into the community by peers, and not necessarily universally.

In addition to what others have said, I'd like to add a little more information.

Hormones work by changing your gene expression. Every one of us has all the DNA for both typically male and typically female traits. Hormones play a part in deciding what parts of your DNA are active within your cells and what parts aren't. There's a complicated set of interactions that decides what hormones you produce naturally and how your body responds to them. Sometimes something happens in an atypical way with that complex set of interactions and that's how intersex people exist.

(There are examples of people with XY chromosomes who have internal testes but are insensitive to testosterone and grow up female, and even examples of people with XY chromosomes who have functioning uteruses and have given birth naturally. It can get very complicated)

When you go on HRT as part of a medical transition, the instructions your cells are following in your DNA switch to the instructions tied to those hormones. That's how trans people's bodies change. Their cells are actually functioning differently.

A trans women on estrogen for a long enough time will eventually have their blood proteins go to a more typically female profile. They'll also see their risk factor for certain diseases switch. The risk of cardiovascular disease goes down (typically something that affects more males) and their risk for autoimmune disease go up (typically something that affects more females).

So are trans woman biologically men? Eh, not quite. Saying somebody is biologically male/female is a little reductive. It can be complicated.

I wouldn't engage in discussion with people saying that. Nothing good can come from it, and they probably aren't people worth spending time with.

Don't debate with idiots. They drag you down at their level and beat you with experience. - Mark Twain

Seriously, complex question usually requires complex answers, the type that doesn't fit in a 10 words meme. If I learned anything, it's that you won't convinced people who don't care about the truth. People won't change their mind unless they are personally affected by something. They don't deserve the tolerance they refuse to others.

Follow up question:

"And why does it have any importance for you the presence or not of some chromosomes, so you need to be so explicit about it?"

My answer: if we're sat the point that you don't even understand the definitions of sex, gender and sexuality I don't think we have the time to discuss this. Ultimately, regardless of definitions, we should treat humans as humans and be kind to one another.

Because this feels like a loaded statement, I'd respond like this: Biology makes mistakes. Biology is fallible. To frame this about biology is not sufficiently complex to address the issue.

1. Talk to experts.
2. The initial statement seems to me is that of a culture warrior, not a curious mind. Therefore it doesn't matter to me.
3. Compassion doesn't require logic. But if you want sonething slightly logical: I don't understand quantum physics either. I'm reliably informed it exists. Me being unable to grasp the uncertainty principle leaves me feeling uneasy and frustrated. Others may feel in a comparable way about gender identity. It's okay to admit that you don't get it. I don't fully understand it either. It's not okay to be an asshole about it.
4. Apples to rotten pears.

Aight, you asked multiple questions, so you're going to get some strange answers, possibly including this one.

To your title question, the only time I've heard anyone say that, they were being a douche. My response online is mostly of the "down vote, report if appropriate, and move on" variety.

In meat space, my response is usually either an eye roll and walking off, or a "fucking moron" and walking off.

I have big dude privilege in meat space, and roll well armed, so have no need to pretend to be nice to douche nozzles spewing bullshit.

The other questions are harder.

1: for a given value of factual, sure, I guess. But it's using imprecise language that's been weaponized, so I would be dubious of someone stating it until there was more context. "Biological" isn't as definitive and limited in usages as to be without question in that context.

2: don't matter. If a guy says he's a guy, he's a guy. If a gal says she's a gal, she's a gal. End of fucking story, and I will gladly tell anyone fucking with my trans homies that they're a fucking moron and be willing to either walk off, or fuck them up if they insist. IDGAF about sometimes XY or XX status, or any of the other possible combinations (remember when I said "Biological" isn't that useful or definitive? Yeah, biology ain't a binary). I care about the person's expressed self. It's about basic human decency and respect.

3: I wouldn't respond logically. It doesn't merit any effort on my part. I'm not in the business of convincing anyone that everyone has human rights, should have equal acces to all civil rights, or that someone else's gender is none of their fucking business. It isn't about logic. Anyone at this point trying to frame gender as some kind of science debate is a douche and can go fuck themselves. The debate at this point has nothing to do with "biology". It's about human rights. And yes, I will fight on that hill.

4: it would only contradict if the person trying to bring "biology" into a conversation is being a douche instead of just missing the point. I don't automatically assume a person trying to frame the subject in those terms is acting with malice. So they may not be contradicting the fact that trans women are women. They may just be exploring the language of transness in an attempt to better understand the matter. And that's okay. It isn't a built in part of language, so everyone has to absorb the concepts over time.

Alas, assholes and morons use that language to denigrate trans people. So I also can't assume someone isn't doing so. I have to wait for context, or be proactive in stating that I ain't putting up with bigotry, so if that's where they're going, it won't end well.

Me? The debate is over. What's still in play is people finding their path to internalizing the subject. We don't get to debate what is a fundamental human experience. Trans people exist. It isn't imaginary on their part, it isn't bad parenting, it isn't trauma. They're trans, and that's it.

Why respond to it. If someone's already recognised someone as a trans woman what's the problem

There are about 20 different ways of assigning someone a description of "male" or "female" - examples are the gametes someone produces, their genitals, and how their brains are wired. Other species can have more than 2 genders or change from one gender to another, and it could be argued that mushrooms have hundreds of them. There are also organisms which have both male and female characteristics in the same body - in some cases, they have both genitals. The natural world is a messy place when it comes to gender, and there are no rules.

Humans like to define things, give them names and put them in neat little boxes, but nature isn't like that. Nature doesn't give a fuck that humans like to assign people one gender or another. Nature creates people who have some male and some female characteristics because there is no natural rule that says everything has to be one or the other. A person with male genitals can have a brain wired up in a female style. Their brain says they are female, but they were defined as male at birth. These are the people who society fails miserably in its rigid adherence to the philosophy of male/female, in a world where this distinction does not actually exist.

The words "biologically male" are loaded, creating an assumption that such a thing is easily definable, and that a person must be one gender or another. This is simply not the case.

It would depend on the context. The response depends on who is asking, their openness to learn and the reason for the statement. In isolation, it appears inflammatory rather than factual. It can be both.

(My opinion)

1. Yes it is factually correct, but it's not an argument
2. maybe matters (what bathroom do they use I have no idea)
3. I would say they are correct but it doesn't prove anything about trans people being invalid (trans people are valid af, having the courage to change your gender is something I couldn't imagine)
4. There is a difference between gender and sex. Sex is your biology, gender is what you identify as. Your sex can be male while your gender being female.

I want to be clear I'm not queer this is just what I have learnt in school (crazy our school actually teaches us about this), I could be wrong.

Depends on who's saying it. For most people it's just not worth saying anything. Anything you say goes in one ear and out the other

If they seem like they're asking in good faith or I just want to practice my rhetoric, I'll ask what they mean by "biologically male." Chromosomally, maybe. Hormonally? Maybe not. Breast cancer doesn't care about your chromosomes.

Why do I have to have an opinion? Why can't we just let them be.

It's a statement. It needs no response.

1. Maybe.
2. No. Because biology is not a black/white science. There are shades of gray. If you define male as "XY" , then what is a person born "XXY"? What if that person is born with both a penis and vagina?
3. It's not a logical statement to begin with, it's a statement of taxonomy, a classification. It's like saying "How do you argue with someone who thinks red and pink are the same color?" You don't. They see what they see.
4. "woman" is a gender (a sociological term, not a biological classification).

And, of course, I have MUCH more to say on the subject. But, ya know, gotta start the conversation somewhere....

Good questions, keep 'em coming!

Edit: forgot point 3

There are many different perspectives on this. I subscribe to the old Judith Butler perspective that sex=gender and they are both a social construct.

1. No, biological gender is not in the sphere of facts. Chromosomes, genitalia, hormones and biology in general are in the realm of facts. Lumping them together into the category "sex" is social construction and not scientific (at least not part of natural science).
2. I don't think it is.
3. See above.
4. Trans women are simply women who were not designated as such at birth. No need to mix in biology. Therefore no contradiction.

breaking their nose

Factually correct because that's the definition of one, biologically male but transitioned to female.

My response to it is, so what? It also doesn't change the fact that they have transitioned.

I would say that is comparing personal identity to a medical definition, two independent and separate concepts.

Personally, I look at people pointing this out like I look at people that feel the need to point out to others that a woman has breast implants. It's her choice to do what she wants to her own body and pointing it out makes you look like a rude asshole.

"Male and female are ultimately words that humans made up. Transitioning affects most of the ways that we define which is which. If you define male and female solely based on the things that are unchangeable using current technology, that's your fault."