Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[d4m10n]

More likely he realized that this thread, like all related threads on this forum will be dominated by the transphobes that, for some unknown reason, are obsessed with the topic.

It's not obvious to me why this thread should be related to questions about transgender people who (by and large) don't have DSDs.

 

[theprestige]

Let me see if I understand:

Arth's claim: Science says there are more than two sexes.

Actual science: There are exactly two sexes, with characteristic developmental failure modes that vary in their degree and consequences to sexual development.

 

[Rolfe]

That's about it.

The trans issue is a red herring as regards DSDs, but it's one the TRAs constantly introduce, so the water gets muddied. They have an argument that seems to go, "some people have anomalies in their sex chromosomes and some people have congenital malformations of their sex organs, therefore normal intact men with no anomalies of either chromosomes or sex organs should be allowed to claim the identity of "woman" and enter all women's intimate spaces. Hairy cock and balls and all." No it makes no sense, but it's them saying it.

So don't blame the messenger.

 

[theprestige]

It's not obvious to me why this thread should be related to questions about transgender people who (by and large) don't have DSDs.

That's the whole point. The only reason DSDs come up in debate is in relation to the controversy about transgender accommodations in public policy. Whenever the trans-inclusionists get to a certain point in addressing the issues raised in that controversy, they fringe reset to an appeal to DSDs.

Every single thread on sex and gender in the past few months has been an attempt to try to get to the same controversy, piecemeal and context-free.

 

[Elaedith]

It's not obvious to me why this thread should be related to questions about transgender people who (by and large) don't have DSDs.

It shouldn't, but the main motivation for attempts to 'deconstruct' binary sex is the desire to replace it with self-declared gender identity. A secondary motivation is the desire to say that people can literally change sex because if sex is just constellation of characteristics then you can shift it by changing some of them. It is a case of Lysenkoism.

I was posting during the debacle on Science Based Medicine site last year (which on this topic has turned into another cesspit of narcissistic, morally-grandstanding bullies swaggering around calling everyone transphobic and a bigot if they dispute ideologically-motivated pseudoscience).

It just went on and on like this

'Sex is a spectrum/bimodal distribution'
'No it isn't.....(debunking)...
'Why do you keep going on about sex, you're obsessed, this is about gender not sex...blah blah blah..'

Then a few posts later 'Sex is a spectrum/bimodal distribution' again.


Then the moderator came up with a bizarre statement that the reason people claim sex is binary is that they want to force everyone to conform to gender roles (after having said that sex has nothing to do with gender).

It's at that point that you realise you are basically dealing with people in a cult.

 

[theprestige]

It's at that point that you realise you are basically dealing with people in a cult.

Which is a pretty good explanation of why there's been an increase in young people, who are still developing a mature sexuality, and still struggling to understand what all that means and implies for them, coming out trans and the like: They've been caught up in a cult.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think the cult analogy is particularly on point or on topic.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think the cult analogy is particularly on point or on topic.

It's not an analogy. It's an attempt to accurately describe the social dynamics by which young people are being encouraged in increasing numbers to identify as a wide range of neo-genders and neo-sexualities. But yeah, probably not entirely on topic.

Though since Arth has abandoned the claim on which the thread was premised, and nobody else seems eager to take it up, I guess we're probably done for now, except for the jokes and asides.

 

[d4m10n]

It's not an analogy. It's an attempt to accurately describe the social dynamics by which young people are being encouraged in increasing numbers to identify as a wide range of neo-genders and neo-sexualities.

How does this non-analogy relate to the scientific issue of DSDs?

 

[theprestige]

How does this non-analogy relate to the scientific issue of DSDs?

It doesn't. It's one of those "jokes and asides" that are ostensibly permitted in the MA. I'm done with it now, though.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think he has bowed out. He thinks we're all too dim to understand the "science" he's posting.

Well thank you for your charity.

No, it's more that I find these discussions emotionally draining, and my endurance for sustaining them drains incredibly quickly, especially when this starts to happen:

More likely he realized that this thread, like all related threads on this forum will be dominated by the transphobes that, for some unknown reason, are obsessed with the topic.

My tolerance for transphobic bigotry is low.

I'll see you in other threads.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It shouldn't, but the main motivation for attempts to 'deconstruct' binary sex is the desire to replace it with self-declared gender identity. A secondary motivation is the desire to say that people can literally change sex because if sex is just constellation of characteristics then you can shift it by changing some of them. It is a case of Lysenkoism.

I was posting during the debacle on Science Based Medicine site last year (which on this topic has turned into another cesspit of narcissistic, morally-grandstanding bullies swaggering around calling everyone transphobic and a bigot if they dispute ideologically-motivated pseudoscience).

It just went on and on like this

'Sex is a spectrum/bimodal distribution'
'No it isn't.....(debunking)...
'Why do you keep going on about sex, you're obsessed, this is about gender not sex...blah blah blah..'

Then a few posts later 'Sex is a spectrum/bimodal distribution' again.


Then the moderator came up with a bizarre statement that the reason people claim sex is binary is that they want to force everyone to conform to gender roles (after having said that sex has nothing to do with gender).

It's at that point that you realise you are basically dealing with people in a cult.

Self-serving pretzel logic with no truth to it.

Yes, XY/XX is a binary (if you ignore the unknown percentage of XYY/XXXXX/other duplications). However, that is only a neat and clean delineation for the fertilized egg, the single cell. Once that cell starts dividing to eventually form an adult, with tons of cells of different specializations, all biologists know that biology is messy. Chemical gradients within the developing clump of cells interact with chemicals present in the womb and later the mother's blood direct the expression of the genotype into the externally visible phenotype, and any of a million ways that process can go imperfectly without destroying the developing life.

That phenotype of sex is a spectrum, from complete destruction of the system (as both sexes will develop to a point in each embryo) of the other sex's presence all the way through imperfect destruction of the other sexual system to both sexual setups existing in the same phenotype. We see each other's phenotypes, judge them as being more or less male or female, and build a gender framework of behaviors, abilities, and attitudes on top of what we've judged a individual's sex to be.

As to the snark towards that moderator, of course people who insist all others must conform to the currently binary gender dynamic are conflating sex and gender. Sex comes before gender, and gender uses sex as its foundation to build its entire structure onto, but gender has no control over sex, sexes exist without gender. We have created entire gender concepts based on the phenotype expression of sex, and there are people attempting to impose those gender constructs onto everyone whether they fit or not.

Consider the person who was born with no external genitalia and one internal testicle, genotype XY, who was administered estrogen at the proper age to force female secondary sex characteristics. By genes this person is male, and should be a man, though who all who physically observe see only a fully female woman. Which of the currently binary genders should be imposed on this individual? It is the very existence of fringe cases that can't be accounted for in these rigid structures that show how untenable the constructs are.

 

[theprestige]

Self-serving pretzel logic with no truth to it.

Yes, XY/XX is a binary (if you ignore the unknown percentage of XYY/XXXXX/other duplications). However, that is only a neat and clean delineation for the fertilized egg, the single cell. Once that cell starts dividing to eventually form an adult, with tons of cells of different specializations, all biologists know that biology is messy. Chemical gradients within the developing clump of cells interact with chemicals present in the womb and later the mother's blood direct the expression of the genotype into the externally visible phenotype, and any of a million ways that process can go imperfectly without destroying the developing life.

That phenotype of sex is a spectrum, from complete destruction of the system (as both sexes will develop to a point in each embryo) of the other sex's presence all the way through imperfect destruction of the other sexual system to both sexual setups existing in the same phenotype. We see each other's phenotypes, judge them as being more or less male or female, and build a gender framework of behaviors, abilities, and attitudes on top of what we've judged a individual's sex to be.

As to the snark towards that moderator, of course people who insist all others must conform to the currently binary gender dynamic are conflating sex and gender. Sex comes before gender, and gender uses sex as its foundation to build its entire structure onto, but gender has no control over sex, sexes exist without gender. We have created entire gender concepts based on the phenotype expression of sex, and there are people attempting to impose those gender constructs onto everyone whether they fit or not.

Consider the person who was born with no external genitalia and one internal testicle, genotype XY, who was administered estrogen at the proper age to force female secondary sex characteristics. By genes this person is male, and should be a man, though who all who physically observe see only a fully female woman. Which of the currently binary genders should be imposed on this individual? It is the very existence of fringe cases that can't be accounted for in these rigid structures that show how untenable the constructs are.

None of this amounts to a third sex that does third sex things. It all boils down to two sexes that fail in various modes to do things their sex would do if it succeeded.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

True enough, the presence of intersex is still within the binary gamete system and isn't a discrete contributor to it, but isn't the topic more about the phenotypic expression of the gametes and how it produces a extreme variety of appearances that aren't easily divided into two obviously different sexes?

 

[theprestige]

True enough, the presence of intersex is still within the binary gamete system and isn't a discrete contributor to it, but isn't the topic more about the phenotypic expression of the gametes and how it produces a extreme variety of appearances that aren't easily divided into two obviously different sexes?

There are two obviously different sexes. The vast majority of people develop in ways that make them easily divided into the two obviously different sexes. In some extreme edge cases the division becomes somewhat more difficult.

And, as always, this is about traducing some very rare edge cases into justification for claiming that transsexual identity really does transcend the biological binary of sex.

 

[Rolfe]

True enough, the presence of intersex is still within the binary gamete system and isn't a discrete contributor to it, but isn't the topic more about the phenotypic expression of the gametes and how it produces a extreme variety of appearances that aren't easily divided into two obviously different sexes?

It doesn't do that though. The variety of appearances is very far from being "extreme" and the number of babies born who can't easily be recognised (correctly) on sight as being male or female is estimated at about 0.2%. Of course even that 0.2% can now be diagnosed by chromosome and hormone investigations without an enormous amount of trouble.

 

[Rolfe]

There are two obviously different sexes. The vast majority of people develop in ways that make them easily divided into the two obviously different sexes. In some extreme edge cases the division becomes somewhat more difficult.

And, as always, this is about traducing some very rare edge cases into justification for claiming that transsexual identity really does transcend the biological binary of sex.

Precisely. I wish people would stop doing this, but it seems unstoppable.

No, the existence of rare DSD cases does not entitle you, a genetically and phenotypically normal male, to appropriate women's intimate spaces and categories.

 

[Rolfe]

Well thank you for your charity.

No, it's more that I find these discussions emotionally draining, and my endurance for sustaining them drains incredibly quickly, especially when this starts to happen:

My tolerance for transphobic bigotry is low.

I'll see you in other threads.

I can imagine it's draining to be constantly defending the indefensible, yes.

Women don't have the luxury of saying "I'll bow out because I'm tired" when men are calling them names and insisting that other men must be allowed to invade all their intimate spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My tolerance for transphobic bigotry is low.

I think you have an overly expansive concept of what constitutes transphobic bigotry. So large that it blinds you to the consequences of self-id and renders you unable to consider the impact to females in particular.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Self-serving pretzel logic with no truth to it.

Yes, XY/XX is a binary (if you ignore the unknown percentage of XYY/XXXXX/other duplications). However, that is only a neat and clean delineation for the fertilized egg, the single cell. Once that cell starts dividing to eventually form an adult, with tons of cells of different specializations, all biologists know that biology is messy. Chemical gradients within the developing clump of cells interact with chemicals present in the womb and later the mother's blood direct the expression of the genotype into the externally visible phenotype, and any of a million ways that process can go imperfectly without destroying the developing life.

That phenotype of sex is a spectrum, from complete destruction of the system (as both sexes will develop to a point in each embryo) of the other sex's presence all the way through imperfect destruction of the other sexual system to both sexual setups existing in the same phenotype. We see each other's phenotypes, judge them as being more or less male or female, and build a gender framework of behaviors, abilities, and attitudes on top of what we've judged a individual's sex to be.

As to the snark towards that moderator, of course people who insist all others must conform to the currently binary gender dynamic are conflating sex and gender. Sex comes before gender, and gender uses sex as its foundation to build its entire structure onto, but gender has no control over sex, sexes exist without gender. We have created entire gender concepts based on the phenotype expression of sex, and there are people attempting to impose those gender constructs onto everyone whether they fit or not.

Consider the person who was born with no external genitalia and one internal testicle, genotype XY, who was administered estrogen at the proper age to force female secondary sex characteristics. By genes this person is male, and should be a man, though who all who physically observe see only a fully female woman. Which of the currently binary genders should be imposed on this individual? It is the very existence of fringe cases that can't be accounted for in these rigid structures that show how untenable the constructs are.

OMG, trees are super duper complex, there are all these different cells and leaves and roots and they all do different things and they're affected by a ton of environmental and genetic factors that can cause all sorts of variations in the final outcome... THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TREE AND GRASS IS A COMPLETE MYSTERY AND IT'S REALLY A SPECTRUM.

Yeah, doesn't follow.

Sex is the fundamental means by which we reproduce, and we do so with EXACTLY two sexes. Everything else you're adding on here is obfuscation dressed up with fancy words and a lot of wishes.

The fact that sometimes, in extremely rare cases, development goes awry does NOT in any way at all make sex nonbinary. There is no third gamete, there is no in-between gamete. There are eggs and there are sperm, and that is how it works. There are bodies that have developed along the pathway that normally produces eggs, and there are bodies that have developed along the pathway that normally produces sperm.

Kindly stop using people with real deleterious medical conditions as pawns in your gender-woo fairly tale.