• Cethin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    OK, so you recognize intersex people. Good. Let’s start there. So we can have people who appear like men or women who actually have the genitals of the opposite (or both), right? OK, so what caused that development? Usually it’s related to chromosomes, but that isn’t actually the cause. The thing that creates the differentiation is what hormones they have. The chromosomes usually are what controls their output though, so it’s correlated.

    OK, so we recognize that hormones are the thing that actually causes this. What happens when we artificially control what hormones are in the body? Does it matter what could have happened if we subvert that and control it manually? Which part is biologically deciding their gender? Isn’t it the thing actually being expressed? If that’s the case, then aren’t they biologically women?

    There’s more to biology than you learned in your high school bio class (that you probably failed). “Basic biology” is, as the name implies, basic and not a full understanding. Anyone appealing to “basic biology” is admitting they don’t actually understand any more than that.

    (Just FYI so you can know where I’m coming from, I’m a cisgendered straight white man. This doesn’t effect me directly, so I’m not arguing from self preservation. This shouldn’t matter, but some people would probably discount the opinions of trans people as “arguing from emotion” or some bullshit just to ignore them.)

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      If that’s the case, then aren’t they *biologically* women?

      Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct. Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

      that you probably failed

      Sorry to disappoint you but I have never failed a subject and have completed higher education.

      ”basic biology”

      You’re the only person here who has used that term.

      • Laurentide@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

        We already have a far less problematic set of terms for that: Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB) and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB). “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase that bigots invented to slander trans people and it should not be used by anyone.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          “Biological male” is a scientifically misleading phrase

          The phrase seems to be very clear in meaning, could you tell me what you find misleading about it?

          • Laurentide@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            30 days ago

            This was already explained to you earlier in the thread. “Male” and “female” are, biologically speaking, not distinct and mutually exclusive categories in humans. This is the case naturally, and the terms become even less useful once you account for those who modify parts of their biology, whether by surgery or by artificially triggering natural biological processes, to bring those parts into congruence with other parts of their biology.

            “Biological male” is a slur. It has no basis in science. It’s a term coined by bigots to misgender trans people with sciencey-sounding words so their abuse looks reasonable at a glance, in much the same way that proponents of Scientific Racism use pseudoscience in an attempt to legitimize white supremacy.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Which biological process do you think that term refers to? If you can’t pinpoint a single specific one, and have that make sense and have every person agree with you, then it’s clearly not useful.

            The only thing thats useful about it is it allows someone to be a bigot and act like they’re intellectually superior (while also managing to be less precise and generally incorrect).

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Biologically male or female would be more correct as gender is a social construct.

        I’m just using the term they used.

        Also the term is referring to their original status pre-hormonal or other gender affirming care so no.

        AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.

        You’re the only person here who has used that term.

        The logic you’re coming from is what’s taught in basic biology. You didn’t use the term, but you used the knowledge. I bet this politician has used the term though, but I’m not going to dig to find out because I don’t really care.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          AFAB/AMAB is for the original status.

          You’re literally splitting hairs when the phrases mean the same thing.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            No, it’s not. What part makes someone “biologically” male or female? If their hormones are such that they are growing in the manner you’d expect for a male or female then they are biologically that sex, regardless of what they were at birth. Your chromosomes are not your biology. A(M/F)AB is unambiguous and clear. Biologically male or female could be referring to a number of biological processes in their body, many/most of which are associated with their chosen gender if they’re undergoing HRT.