this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
1001 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59596 readers
3524 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yknow what always makes me laugh about certain anti trans folks is that they think "biological sex is immutable" is something that trans people disagree with. Like, yes I'm well aware that I remain biologically male despite transitioning I'm not an idiot. Your sex is immutable - the concept of sex isnt as clear cut as is often implied by this statement, but nothing is going to change your chromosomes or whatever.
So that's actually not true, but for reasons that I think are weirder and more interesting than anything implied by either side of this "debate."
There are actually about 50% more women who have Y chromosomes than originally expected, and also: microchimerism seems to be extremely common in people who give birth, seemingly regardless of whether or not they give birth to children with XY chromosomes. But the genetic remnants of fetuses that have XY chromosomes stay in the body for many years (possibly a lifetime), and this has a fairly significant effect on genetic composition.
I get what you're saying and I don't totally disagree, but I think the main thing that I keep learning is that "biological sex" is just not actually a particularly meaningful concept.
Would you care to elaborate on this, and preferrably add sources for your statements (or pm me) so I can read further?
It's "meaningfulness" is secondary - it is most certainly a highly useful concept in the science and practice of biology and medicine.
Biology actually has a lot of difficulty nailing down words like "species" as there are many useful ways to define a species in biology. Its not surprising that sexuality is a also a concept thats hard to pin down in biology. It is similarly highly useful in biology to define sexuality in multiple different ways - genetically, morphologically etc, but as a concept it doesn't always fit perfectly and its an area where evolution likes to experiment, even in humans.
"Immutable" in a mathematical sense probably isn't true, yeah.
I imagine people forget that biology and evolution will do literally anything that doesn't not work. And the whole male/female thing isn't really a fundamental truth, it's just a really popular answer.
I didn't mean to suggest that sex is easy to define, just that characteristics like chromosomes, gametes and the like cannot be changed by transitioning. There are obviously things we can change (hormonal makeup, appearance), but it doesn't change the underlying biology that you are born with.
Definitely agree that the whole concept of sex becomes shaky in some circumstances - but it remains a concept which has value in fields like pharmacology. There are outliers, but there are also a huge number of people for whom the basic male/female categories apply.
How one defines "biological sex" is important, there could be a definition which is immutable, and there is an equally valid definition that is entirely mutable, but sex like all of nature is on a spectrum and any definition will have edge cases and should only be used as a description not a prescription.
If you take hrt ypur body is estrogen dominated, just like "biological" women's. So where is the difference. Not antagonizing, genuinely curious what you think.
There are many changes HRT doesn't make. Chromosomes, gametes, bone structure, etc. Hormones are a small part of a complicated picture. Like I said, and the other commenter elaborated on, sex is not exactly a straightforward thing to define or to say "you are this or that"... But there are features that I have which relate to what we consider a sex, and they won't change.
Yeah I thought about those features too. Chromosomes are an indicator of sex at best, definitely not a sure sign. Gamete producing tissue can be removed, yet the now gamete-less body would still be, e.g. biologically female, right?
Even bone structure can be changed with FFS and not all afabs have the same bone structure anyways.
The more I think about it, the more I think that "biological sex" is just a red herring.
I really appreciate this like of argument, and I don't exactly diaagree, but at the same time I think you are falling into the same trap as the "simple biology" anti-trans crowd do, and looking for any one thing that defines sex. Sex is a complex collection of features which tend to co-occur. Your primary and secondary sex characteristics are all a part of what defines your sex. I'm not an expert here - the things I've listed are fairly basic in terms of what can/can't be changed.
But there are many aspects that won't change with transition - there is no treatment that will magically make me a cis woman, I will always be trans. I will always need to make new doctors aware that I am - because there are factors affecting some medications that mean I should be prescribed as a male for example.
I think the important thing for us trans people is not to focus too much on the biology. The important part imo is that it shouldn't matter what your biology is - your gender identity is what makes you a man/woman. I'm wary of brain structure/chemistry "justifications" of trans identities for similar reasons. I'm sure there is truth there, don't get me wrong! But I worry about over-medicalising trans identities in general, or even a diagnostic criteria which not all trans people meet...