It is vague, but it does rule out “man in a dress and wig”. I mean men in dresses and wigs is great and all. They are free to do what they want. They just aren’t women, and I will never call them such.
Please form a single file line for the government sanctioned genitalia check. Each one of you could be a man in a dress and wig and it’s super important to me to know which.
It’s not only vague, it’s completely wrong. You can’t over-rule biology with court rulings, and biology doesn’t care what the concept of “male” and “female” means to humans.
Many women have their uterus and/or ovaries removed before or during child bearing years due to complications, cancer, etc. So, I’m sure you would change this to say born with to define it. I will say this: not all women are born with this equipment, but are XY on the genotype. I won’t even go into the complexities of the genetic side of the house…
not sure I understand what you’re saying in the second half, could you elaborate?
edit:
i think i see what you meant. most women are XX, maybe that was a typo. chromosomes are strongly correlated with sex but are not what determines it. that’s why i didn’t mention chromosomes.
you’re right, not all women are born with a uterus, or with ovaries that actually produce eggs. but from a biological standpoint, we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.
again “not always” is the answer to your last note" we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the casethat everything was functioning. - there are individuals born with both sex organs. My point is that this is all exceeding complex and any simple answer is being used to drive another narrative than science.
when you say “both sex organs”, I’d like to clarify that there has never been a recorded case of a human h*rmaphrodite. (NOTE: this is not only an offensive term (when used on humans, as opposed to say, frogs), but also an inaccurate term! just a fun fact for the readers…) to elaborate:
there has never been a recorded case of someone who successfully produces both eggs and sperm (whereas some other animals do). while you are correct that sometimes you may be born with organs that resemble both testes and ovaries, there will only be one that functions, or one that is closer to functioning (one is more dominant). sometimes neither function.
ps - I don’t have a narrative. I just love science! biology is neat. and this is all totally separate from gender identity.
What about true hermaphrodite? That’s a term for a specific type of intersex that has both sex organs fused together. And develop secondary sex characteristics during puberty.
There are only two reasonable definitions. One is: born with genitalia that look female (i.e. female on birth certificate). The other is “identifies as”. Both of these could be important in different contexts.
Your definition has the downside that the government would have to check your medical records to determine gender. That is an insane breach of the medical records.
No? You’ve just invalidated your own original argument by acknowledging you would add the “born with” despite the fact that I said there are women who were NOT born with the reproductive apparatus organized to support production of the large gamete (ova).
In other words, your own argument is not self-supporting. So I don’t feel I need to elaborate further than the point here is that OP is saying “define biological female” is defeatingly complex and requires assumptions to even proceed, and even then any answer doesn’t land in the “definitive” answer you probably want.
can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we’re on the same page, and discussing the same specifics.
women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don’t function for whatever reason.
There is a fairly broad spectrum of answers to this. My point was that there is no neat/definitive answer based strictly on production of OVA, external genetalia, Uterous, ovaries, hormonal levels, hair manifestation on the body, etc. I’m not sure what value there is in discussing specifics. If people add “it’s my opinion” to a comment, then that’s fine - it’s an opinion. But when it’s pushed as “everyone agrees” or “scientific basis” it gets into very loaded territory.
Edit: BTW, I’m not accusing you of presenting it as scientific fact. Just trying to cut through to a common ground understanding that anyone can have an opinion on this, but once it’s “legal” it becomes exceedingly murky to define outside of opinion.
you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well:
do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don’t know enough to confirm or deny it?
this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example.
it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.
there isn’t really a debate there, no one claims that “dogs with long hair are female” or anything stupid like that…
in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing
Is there a scientific answer to this? I believe the answer is only a “qualified” answer. Like I mentioned - any 100% answer cannot be correct. Even “common sense” answers of “I know what a biological woman is” are wrong in several circumstances. I’m not a researcher, only a layperson with a decent amount of of biochem and related coursework under my belt. I get the subtle comment about me not knowing enough to confirm or deny it. I’ll say sure to that one. I’m not an expert.
I question why there’s a debate at all. There are really only 2 “platforms” of concern apparently from all political discourse I’ve read: 1) Bathroom usage and 2) Sports. I would like to change your comment this is just what the scientific methodhasshown to add my own part that you yourself captured: in approximately half of the population (statisticians will forgive me for “half” when it’s a variant ratio over time of women to men (I think 105% of men born to women born).
But let’s take that half the population and pull a number out of the hat to say 99.99% of all people born have an obvious sex assignable at birth (via whatever means). OK, but that leaves 1 in 10,000 as the outlier to which the UK is now attempting to apply a law. Something close to ~370K babies are born daily. That’s 37 people per day world-wide and my ballpark percentage is egregiously conservative. 13,500 people in this ambigous state world-wide per year.
These are people, they have rights and deserve to live life. They should have access to toilets and education. It’s certainly expected in Western societies - you would expect NO LESS for the 99.99% who are clearly identifyable by external/internal/microscopic means. So ultimately all of this is just used to marginalized an already tiny population of people before we even consider gender role, brain phenotypes, hormone production / lack of production, etc. I think it’s fair to say "some people are born different, many of them don’t realize what is “different” until they reach puberty and start to notice “hey, I’m not like the other girls/boys”, perhaps even coming to terms with a stark realization that terrifies them “well shit, I guess I’m trans”. If you think that Trans people make certain Cis people feel uncomfortable, put yourself in the Trans person’s shoes! I doubt any one comes to that internal understanding lightly.
The ONLY reason to treat trans people or even “debate” what sex they are (without them getting any say in that!) is to marginalize them. The VAST VAST majority of humanity does not fall into this situation, and I’d argue are almost to exclusion not impacted by it personally. The notion may make them feel uncomfortable. Perhaps even physically concerned in some cases. But what’s to debate? That a trans woman should not use a female bathroom stall? Lesbians walk girls locker rooms the world over - should they not be able to go to the bathroom with other “biological” women? By the way, even that is easily solveable with lockable individual/family toilets/showers
So, I guess after this long diatribe (and thanks for sticking with me here) I would say, it’s almost completely irrelevent what science “shows” here as any “definitive” answer requires assumptions or exclusion of a small portion of the population to be definitive and the only purpose of the “debate” is to shunt an already fragile population into further inhumanity.
By the way, if science somehow today immeidately said X criteria is definitively a biological female, to what end would that information be any more useful than our passionless view of dogs or other animals? The answer? To exlude anyone not X. It’s the inevitable and only conclusion.
Ninja edit: “answer” to “conclusion” in last sentence
Fair. I think my point was related to what makes sense in any reasonable social setting, not what is the exact biological definition which appears to be more of a scientific question.
Just to be clear on this, in my opinion anyone born with a vagina who wants to identify as a woman, should be treated as such. That’s if you have grown up thinking you were a woman, such an identity cannot be taken away.
Opinion is a whole other ballgame. Glad to support it as an opinion. And logically that’s where this law is going to reside… not in any science. I suppose, upon reflection, that is my underlying message.
I agree that both could be useful in different contexts. I’m only speaking of biological sex in my definition, which is different from gender.
in ~99.9% of cases, doctors can tell from observation at birth what someone’s sex is, and it is noted on the birth certificate. (to clarify, do you consider the birth certificate to be a medical record?).
I do support the amending of birth certificates if the doctors observed incorrectly.
I don’t think think any other medical records would have to be shared with the government, but (beside the point: ) you should assume they always are anyway.
but doctors could never “check medical records to determine gender” anyway, as gender and sex are not the same.
Just to be clear, such a change to the birth certificate should NEVER happen if the person involved does not agree with it. It would 100 percent violate the Hippocratic Oath, as it can be very harmful.
Now define “biological female”.
Right? Is this phenotypic or genotypic?
phenowhazzle?
Is it the DNA or T and A?
DNA or TNA he says, that’s gold! 😂
Total Nucleic Acid (mixed DNA and RNA extracted from a sample together)
“Annoying outgrowth around the pussy”
It is vague, but it does rule out “man in a dress and wig”. I mean men in dresses and wigs is great and all. They are free to do what they want. They just aren’t women, and I will never call them such.
Please form a single file line for the government sanctioned genitalia check. Each one of you could be a man in a dress and wig and it’s super important to me to know which.
It’s not only vague, it’s completely wrong. You can’t over-rule biology with court rulings, and biology doesn’t care what the concept of “male” and “female” means to humans.
Removed by mod
Many women have their uterus and/or ovaries removed before or during child bearing years due to complications, cancer, etc. So, I’m sure you would change this to say born with to define it. I will say this: not all women are born with this equipment, but are XY on the genotype. I won’t even go into the complexities of the genetic side of the house…
right, “born with”.
not sure I understand what you’re saying in the second half, could you elaborate?
edit: i think i see what you meant. most women are XX, maybe that was a typo. chromosomes are strongly correlated with sex but are not what determines it. that’s why i didn’t mention chromosomes. you’re right, not all women are born with a uterus, or with ovaries that actually produce eggs. but from a biological standpoint, we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.
XX/XY was typo, yes.
again “not always” is the answer to your last note"
we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.- there are individuals born with both sex organs. My point is that this is all exceeding complex and any simple answer is being used to drive another narrative than science.when you say “both sex organs”, I’d like to clarify that there has never been a recorded case of a human h*rmaphrodite. (NOTE: this is not only an offensive term (when used on humans, as opposed to say, frogs), but also an inaccurate term! just a fun fact for the readers…) to elaborate: there has never been a recorded case of someone who successfully produces both eggs and sperm (whereas some other animals do). while you are correct that sometimes you may be born with organs that resemble both testes and ovaries, there will only be one that functions, or one that is closer to functioning (one is more dominant). sometimes neither function.
ps - I don’t have a narrative. I just love science! biology is neat. and this is all totally separate from gender identity.
What about true hermaphrodite? That’s a term for a specific type of intersex that has both sex organs fused together. And develop secondary sex characteristics during puberty.
No problem - good call-out and you’re correct as far as I’m aware.
There are only two reasonable definitions. One is: born with genitalia that look female (i.e. female on birth certificate). The other is “identifies as”. Both of these could be important in different contexts.
Your definition has the downside that the government would have to check your medical records to determine gender. That is an insane breach of the medical records.
No? You’ve just invalidated your own original argument by acknowledging you would add the “born with” despite the fact that I said there are women who were NOT born with the
reproductive apparatus organized to support production of the large gamete (ova).In other words, your own argument is not self-supporting. So I don’t feel I need to elaborate further than the point here is that OP is saying “define biological female” is defeatingly complex and requires assumptions to even proceed, and even then any answer doesn’t land in the “definitive” answer you probably want.
can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we’re on the same page, and discussing the same specifics. women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don’t function for whatever reason.
There is a fairly broad spectrum of answers to this. My point was that there is no neat/definitive answer based strictly on production of OVA, external genetalia, Uterous, ovaries, hormonal levels, hair manifestation on the body, etc. I’m not sure what value there is in discussing specifics. If people add “it’s my opinion” to a comment, then that’s fine - it’s an opinion. But when it’s pushed as “everyone agrees” or “scientific basis” it gets into very loaded territory.
Edit: BTW, I’m not accusing you of presenting it as scientific fact. Just trying to cut through to a common ground understanding that anyone can have an opinion on this, but once it’s “legal” it becomes exceedingly murky to define outside of opinion.
you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well: do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don’t know enough to confirm or deny it?
this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example. it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.
there isn’t really a debate there, no one claims that “dogs with long hair are female” or anything stupid like that…
in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing
Is there a scientific answer to this? I believe the answer is only a “qualified” answer. Like I mentioned - any 100% answer cannot be correct. Even “common sense” answers of “I know what a biological woman is” are wrong in several circumstances. I’m not a researcher, only a layperson with a decent amount of of biochem and related coursework under my belt. I get the subtle comment about me not knowing enough to confirm or deny it. I’ll say sure to that one. I’m not an expert.
I question why there’s a debate at all. There are really only 2 “platforms” of concern apparently from all political discourse I’ve read: 1) Bathroom usage and 2) Sports. I would like to change your comment
this is just what the scientific method has shownto add my own part that you yourself captured:in approximately half of the population(statisticians will forgive me for “half” when it’s a variant ratio over time of women to men (I think 105% of men born to women born).But let’s take that half the population and pull a number out of the hat to say 99.99% of all people born have an obvious sex assignable at birth (via whatever means). OK, but that leaves 1 in 10,000 as the outlier to which the UK is now attempting to apply a law. Something close to ~370K babies are born daily. That’s 37 people per day world-wide and my ballpark percentage is egregiously conservative. 13,500 people in this ambigous state world-wide per year.
These are people, they have rights and deserve to live life. They should have access to toilets and education. It’s certainly expected in Western societies - you would expect NO LESS for the 99.99% who are clearly identifyable by external/internal/microscopic means. So ultimately all of this is just used to marginalized an already tiny population of people before we even consider gender role, brain phenotypes, hormone production / lack of production, etc. I think it’s fair to say "some people are born different, many of them don’t realize what is “different” until they reach puberty and start to notice “hey, I’m not like the other girls/boys”, perhaps even coming to terms with a stark realization that terrifies them “well shit, I guess I’m trans”. If you think that Trans people make certain Cis people feel uncomfortable, put yourself in the Trans person’s shoes! I doubt any one comes to that internal understanding lightly.
The ONLY reason to treat trans people or even “debate” what sex they are (without them getting any say in that!) is to marginalize them. The VAST VAST majority of humanity does not fall into this situation, and I’d argue are almost to exclusion not impacted by it personally. The notion may make them feel uncomfortable. Perhaps even physically concerned in some cases. But what’s to debate? That a trans woman should not use a female bathroom stall? Lesbians walk girls locker rooms the world over - should they not be able to go to the bathroom with other “biological” women? By the way, even that is easily solveable with lockable individual/family toilets/showers
So, I guess after this long diatribe (and thanks for sticking with me here) I would say, it’s almost completely irrelevent what science “shows” here as any “definitive” answer requires assumptions or exclusion of a small portion of the population to be definitive and the only purpose of the “debate” is to shunt an already fragile population into further inhumanity.
By the way, if science somehow today immeidately said X criteria is definitively a biological female, to what end would that information be any more useful than our passionless view of dogs or other animals? The answer? To exlude anyone not X. It’s the inevitable and only conclusion.
Ninja edit: “answer” to “conclusion” in last sentence
Beautifully put. This is an excellent summary of the situation.
Fair. I think my point was related to what makes sense in any reasonable social setting, not what is the exact biological definition which appears to be more of a scientific question.
Just to be clear on this, in my opinion anyone born with a vagina who wants to identify as a woman, should be treated as such. That’s if you have grown up thinking you were a woman, such an identity cannot be taken away.
Opinion is a whole other ballgame. Glad to support it as an opinion. And logically that’s where this law is going to reside… not in any science. I suppose, upon reflection, that is my underlying message.
I agree that both could be useful in different contexts. I’m only speaking of biological sex in my definition, which is different from gender. in ~99.9% of cases, doctors can tell from observation at birth what someone’s sex is, and it is noted on the birth certificate. (to clarify, do you consider the birth certificate to be a medical record?). I do support the amending of birth certificates if the doctors observed incorrectly. I don’t think think any other medical records would have to be shared with the government, but (beside the point: ) you should assume they always are anyway. but doctors could never “check medical records to determine gender” anyway, as gender and sex are not the same.
Just to be clear, such a change to the birth certificate should NEVER happen if the person involved does not agree with it. It would 100 percent violate the Hippocratic Oath, as it can be very harmful.