Quite simple: a person with XX chromosomes. Or are people starting to deny biology now?
This is a really common response, and I do honestly empathise with it because for most people (me included most of the time) in everyday life there's not really any need to think about it too deeply. Like you said in another comment "A child can tell you what a man and woman are."
But can they? Or can they just point at people and guess, with about the same accuracy as you or me? They probably can't _actually_ tell you what a man and woman _are_ in any useful way any more than most grown-ups.
Like you agreed in that other comment too, there are some "extremely extremely rare" cases where a child would probably say they're a man or woman but their chromosones aren't what you'd expect.
That highlights that chromosones aren't really a deciding factor though right? The child isn't using chromosones when they decide, and I've never been asked about my chromosones, or heard of anyone else being asked about theirs outside of a hospital.
So to answer your question, I don't think anyone is denying biology, it's just that biology isn't as relevant as it might seem at first thought.
Think of it this way... in your lifetime of genuine interactions with people (e.g. conversations), how many XX people have you mistaken for XY people, and vice versa? For most people the answer is very close to zero, but why is that?
I would argue it's because billions of years of evolution (a biological process) have already helpfully trained us to detect even the tiniest differences between males and females. We have been a sexually dimorphic species for a very long time. And those differences (whether massive or tiny) are directed in large part by the chromosomes inside our trillions of somatic cells - skin, hair, bones, eyes, brain, etc. etc.
Also, for those rare cases you mention, the chromosomes often are a major deciding factor in how we do the classification, e.g. we might be confused about someone with a DSD because although they were "assigned female" since birth, they continue to show some male characteristics, due to the Y chromosome present in their organs, skeleton, etc. Surgeons can operate on genitals etc., but they can't alter all of the trillions of somatic cells in the body.z
I have no way to know, that's my point.
Most of us have a basic biology education to drawn on that allows us to look back and in hindsight say "The men I know probably have XY and the women XX chromosones" but it's never part of the process any of us actually use.
To me, chromosones just seem like a distraction. It promises to replace all of the messy, political, social uncertainty with a polite, clinical, objective answer if only everyone would realise it's just about the biology.
The trouble is, the biology can't seem to answer the questions that are the most contentious. I have no idea what my chromosones are in reality, but I know how I'd like to live my life and mostly there's no problem, no one checks, no one asks, and if they did, how would that knowledge justify overriding my autonomy?
Forcing radical viewpoints on all of society over extreme outliers is ridiculous.
> Forcing radical viewpoints on all of society over extreme outliers is ridiculous.
"Don't take away basic human rights from people with more than 1 head" doesn't seem all that radical to me, but maybe I'm out of touch.
There are people who prefer a different outward expression of who they are. The underlying genetics are as important as your blood type. Useful for a doctor, irrelevant when choosing shoes.
The morphology, function, and complexity of the modern phone is such that it probably isn't even recognisable as a phone from even thirty years ago. The concept of what a phone is has gone through so many changes, from a device that sends audio down a physical line, to what it is today that very rarely even has a physical line attached, that it probably demonstrates how words and identity can evolve new meanings better than any other example you could have picked.
Do physical conditions exist (XXY, XYY, etc) exist? Yes they do, but what we're seeing today is mass hysteria around a mental issue. What should be done is start looking at the underlying causes. Hormone imbalances? childhood trauma? Depression? Wanting out of the current lifestyle? Lack of religion? People with too much time on their hands that they start inventing problems? All these and more should be investigated
Ah. You have a very limited background. Right.
We have been the same species for thousands of years. And for thousands of years there have been male and female (sex) groups that have presented as men and women (gender), that is not the same as the one you might assign to them. (The galli priests of Rome, the Hijras of India, the khanith of Arabia, etc.)
And no... No, a child is not always able to tell them apart. Nor does a child, necessarily, instinctively call them either man or woman. If you were to ask a child of the Tiwi tribe what one of their ladyboys are, today, man or woman, they would answer "ladyboy". If you press the point - the child becomes confused. The ladyboys have been present in the Tiwi for roughly the last eight to ten thousand years or so ("kirrijamiyagirraga" in Tiwi). They are as much a part of the social fabric as man or woman. Tiwi is a gendered language, and has three genders (kirri - male, makirri - female, rraga - ladyboy), as well as a fourth tense that is used for gender-neutral terms (ramiya). And, well, if you assume that they're all genetic males, you'll get that wrong as well.
I'm very well aware of Arabian culture. khanith is a homosexual and/or effeminate male, and is heavily used as an insult today (almost like "fag" in english). It was never a "third gender" as you're trying to claim. So no, the entire basis is incorrect.
Repeat after me, there are two genders. Everything you described has one of two parts between their legs, barring physical ailments like intersex, which are extremely extremely rare.
As the Tiwi would say today (and have been saying for an order of magnitude longer than most nations have existed - about eight thousand years or so):
> Kirrijamiyagirraga naramiya makirri kirrikirriramiya
To roughly translate into English... "If you cannot see if it is a woman, nor a man, why must it be either?"
It loses a little bit of meaning, as it uses four genders and English is not a gendered language, but you can get the gist. (Naramiya is closer to "bear witness" or "absolutely determine" in a somewhat-legal sense. It's a stronger phrase than English really has.)
You are conflating the genetics of _sex_ with the cultural status of _gender_. No one is denying the genetics side. They have just managed to understand the difference between how one presents oneself, and something else that only their doctor need know.
When you start to introduce other moral issues like whether people under the age of 18 should be allowed to take medication that allows them to transition that's a much more debatable subject.
Who are we to say what people can / can't feel based on two chromosomes? Sure I have an XY chromosome but I'm not going to let that define every decision I make in life.
Is it 10% of the population, 5%, or 0.5%? Why?
In short, the presence of abnormal conditions does not create separate categories nor does it void existing categorisations, it just means that the individual who has that condition differs from the normal in some way.
I might draw a hand with a thumb and four fingers. The fact that some people are born with more or fewer fingers doesn't change the fact I drew a hand.
Everyone knows DSDs exist, but most of the time they are brought into this debate, they are merely a rhetorical device rather than any real attempt to address the specific situation. One of my close relatives has Klinefelter's, and I can assure you he finds this sort of thing extremely upsetting.
Current supreme court nomination can’t define a woman.
https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/supreme-court-nominee-judge-ke...