TERFs crash London Pride

Sex isn't a spectrum. The fact that a tiny tiny tiny minority of cases are exceptions to the rule (only really requiring a rule change) doesn't mean that there is now a wide spectrum of possibilities.

Now, many scientific terms have low resolution definitions that work 99% of the time, with others needed for the edge-cases. The edge-cases here would be anything different from functioning XY. The base case is "XX = female, XY = male"

One expanded definition that would categorize all cases "any amount of Y = male" (ex/ XXY, X, XXXXXXXY, XXXXX... etc.)

I think another definition is whether or not there is a functioning SRY gene, and this then accounts for cases where the SRY gene is found on the X chromosome.

Full disclosure: I am nowhere near being an expert in the topic. You may disagree with me on whether this constitutes a "spectrum" but I'd personally rather not categorize something that is 99%+ a binary system (under the most basic definition) as a spectrum. A slight definition change makes that 100% or near 100% a binary. Ultimately this is largely pedantic

I did generalize, yes. X and Y are the two sex chromosomes, though added sex chromosomes don't appear to affect the outcome beyond XXY (Kleinfelter) and are more common than expected (which is why my college stopped having undergraduates genotype themselves).

The expression of those genes, the primary sexual characteristics that humans can see and which typify sex for laypeople and throughout history, those do appear on a spectrum. The 80s and 90s were full of surgeons 'correcting' a baby's genitals to more closely match the ideal sex appearance (the ends of the spectrum) as a matter of course that they didn't always bother to consult the parents on. Now they do have to tell the parents and bring them in on the decision, but it's still considered important for a baby to be as close to the edge of the spectrum as possible. Having XY genes fully expressed (so no androgen insensitivity or anything else that blocked the male formations) doesn't guarantee a boy will have more than a micropenis or that a XX baby will not be so virilized as to appear to have one herself. And every size and shape in between the intersex and the edge of the spectrum are born every day. Most will be close enough in appearance to be easily classifiable, some will be designated 'correctible' and a few will be intersex. The numbers are nowhere near as 99% as those hoping for an easy answer would like. Nothing about biology is easy or simple.
 
Ok but primary and secondary sex characteristics != sex. Of course there is huge overlap but I don't think it's reasonable to see that since some babies have ambiguous genitalia that we should label sex as a spectrum. Genital size, shape, etc. is a spectrum, sure. Hormone levels, too, because these characteristics lie on a smooth gradient
 
Ok but primary and secondary sex characteristics != sex. Of course there is huge overlap but I don't think it's reasonable to see that since some babies have ambiguous genitalia that we should label sex as a spectrum. Genital size, shape, etc. is a spectrum, sure. Hormone levels, too, because these characteristics lie on a smooth gradient

What are primary and secondary *sex* characteristics but the outward indicator of sex? Are they not the sole piece of evidence bigots point to as the immutable defining feature forming the basis of our character and how we may interact with each other?
 
Sure they are. You just don't want them to be.

This sort of rhetorical bait and switch as a cover tactic is depressingly common when someone wants to demonize an entire class.

Recognize this example?

"I know the good ones, I know the bad ones, I know the overrated ones. You got ... They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.”.​


Nice company you're keeping.

That is also the view on straight white men at the moment. This view is not trump fan exclusive.
 
I did generalize, yes. X and Y are the two sex chromosomes, though added sex chromosomes don't appear to affect the outcome beyond XXY (Kleinfelter) and are more common than expected (which is why my college stopped having undergraduates genotype themselves).

The expression of those genes, the primary sexual characteristics that humans can see and which typify sex for laypeople and throughout history, those do appear on a spectrum. The 80s and 90s were full of surgeons 'correcting' a baby's genitals to more closely match the ideal sex appearance (the ends of the spectrum) as a matter of course that they didn't always bother to consult the parents on. Now they do have to tell the parents and bring them in on the decision, but it's still considered important for a baby to be as close to the edge of the spectrum as possible. Having XY genes fully expressed (so no androgen insensitivity or anything else that blocked the male formations) doesn't guarantee a boy will have more than a micropenis or that a XX baby will not be so virilized as to appear to have one herself. And every size and shape in between the intersex and the edge of the spectrum are born every day. Most will be close enough in appearance to be easily classifiable, some will be designated 'correctible' and a few will be intersex. The numbers are nowhere near as 99% as those hoping for an easy answer would like. Nothing about biology is easy or simple.

So for a small fraction of people it doesn't work (numbers plz btw).

That's like saying we diesel and gasoline don't work to differentiate fuel because stream powered vehicles exist.
 
Wait, what?

Did this really happen, or did you just imagine it?

(It strikes me that you may not have much idea of who Elton John is. He's a popular singer, composer and pianist.)

I assume Rolf meant Eddie Izzard, as I can't think of anyone else relatively famous and British that's stated this. I'm also assuming Elton John saying he was a woman would have generated at least a few headlines that I would have noticed.
 
Last edited:
"Dame Edna" (Comedian Barry Humphries) and "Divine" (Performance artist Harris Glenn Milstead) probably the two most "mainstream" crossdressers here in the State's pop culture, were both fairly adamant that they were straight and gender confirming, with Humphries I believe actually saying some pretty nasty things and transgenders.

Divine was not straight.
 
Ok but primary and secondary sex characteristics != sex. Of course there is huge overlap but I don't think it's reasonable to see that since some babies have ambiguous genitalia that we should label sex as a spectrum. Genital size, shape, etc. is a spectrum, sure. Hormone levels, too, because these characteristics lie on a smooth gradient

Exactly being able to reproduce is really all that matters, and so we need to lump all sterile people together as other. It makes the whole thing much more simple. Gets rid of the going Hmm this individual has some mix of characteristics what do they count as? Well they are sterile and so don't count at all.
 
I assume Rolf meant Eddie Izzard, as I can't think of anyone else relatively famous and British that's stated this. I'm also assuming Elton John saying he was a woman would have generated at least a few headlines that I would have noticed.


Thanks. I must have been having a senior moment there. I did have a crawling suspicion I'd got that wrong. Sorry.
 
"Crossdresser" means one thing. "Transvestite" means something different.

"Transgender" means something else entirely, and is less related to those two terms than they are to each other.

I confess that I have become very confused with this sort of thing.

In particular, Eddie Izzard used to describe himself as a 'transvestite' (specifically, an 'action transvestite - running, jumping, climbing trees, putting on makeup while you're there')

These days, he describes himself as 'transgender'. I'm not clear whether he now views himself differently, or if the vocabulary has changed and he has just updated with linguisitc shifts. I'm not aware that he's any kind of surgery or hormone treatments etc.

Then again, I am a bear of very little brain.
 
I confess that I have become very confused with this sort of thing.

In particular, Eddie Izzard used to describe himself as a 'transvestite' (specifically, an 'action transvestite - running, jumping, climbing trees, putting on makeup while you're there')

These days, he describes himself as 'transgender'. I'm not clear whether he now views himself differently, or if the vocabulary has changed and he has just updated with linguisitc shifts. I'm not aware that he's any kind of surgery or hormone treatments etc..


There are a number of terms that have gotten confused over the years. Most of the problem is simply that they are technical (medical/psychological) jargon, or "underground" code words from times when such things were less socially and legally acceptable, and the meanings have become distorted when said terms were discovered, picked up, and used more popularly. Sometimes deliberately so. Nothing unusual there, happens all the time, just look at the constant misuse of "quantum".

I'll explain a few of these terms; but keep in mind that these definitions are from a US-centric viewpoint, and other regions may have slightly different definitions or connotations.

A "crossdresser" is a cis-gendered person who dresses up in attire stereotypically attributed to the "opposite sex", predominantly for reasons of fashion. Cis men who dress up in clothing culturally assigned to women, and cis women who dress up in clothing culturally assigned to men. This was essentially an "underground" term, and has been used more broadly to also refer to transgendered/transexual persons, transvestites and drag queens/kings. Sexual preference varies widely, homosexuality is common, particularly among female crossdressers.

A "transvestite" is a cis-gendered person who dresses up in clothing culturally assigned to the opposite sex for the purposes of sexual gratification. It is a paraphilia, and was originally medical/psychological jargon that was adapted into popular use. The overwhelming majority of transvestites are male, most likely due to the fact that females wearing stereotypically male attire have not been as highly stigmatized historically. The term appears to have developed a somewhat different meaning in the UK idiom, used more similarly to "crossdresser", or to refer to transgender/transexual persons.

A "drag queen" is a cis-gendered homosexual male who dresses in an exaggeratedly stereotyped attire culturally assigned to the opposite sex, for the purpose of entertainment. A "drag king" is a similarly a cis-gendered homosexual woman dressing as an exaggeratedly stereotypical male. Drag queens/king is also sometimes used to refer to heterosexual performers as well, but some prefer to refer to them as "drag performers" instead, reserving "queen/king" for homosexual performers ("queen" is also a slang term for a gay man).

A "transsexual" is a person whose internal body image does not match their biological birth sex, and who typically has or intends to have (not many can, given the expense) hormone treatment and corrective surgery to transition to the sex that they identify with. This is, again, a medical term of art, but one that took on a slightly different meaning when adapted for popular use. At one point, the terms "transexual" and "trangender" were used to differentiate between those non-cis-identified persons who intended to physically transition to their identified gender, and those who did not intend to do so. The term has since been de-emphasized in favour of simply using "transgender" for non-cis-identified person, regardless of transition status.

"Transgender" refers to any person whose internal body image does not match their biological sex at birth. Originally it meant only those who identified as the "opposite" biological sex; but the term has since been expanded to include those whose internal body image does not strictly match either their birth biological sex, or the "opposite" biological sex, aka "non-binary" transgenderism. The term has also been more recently expanded to accommodate differences in cultural expressions of gender as well as internal body image.
 
Exactly being able to reproduce is really all that matters, and so we need to lump all sterile people together as other. It makes the whole thing much more simple. Gets rid of the going Hmm this individual has some mix of characteristics what do they count as? Well they are sterile and so don't count at all.

No, a sterile woman is still a woman.
 

Back
Top Bottom