Well intersex could be either, both or none. Some are born with something that looks like a vagina and has balls inside of them so they think they are biologically a woman until they try to have kids and it isn't possible or are together with someone who knows what a vagina "should" look like or it looks kind of like a penis but everyone is a bit unsure. It is a big grey zone, I don't know if you can even call them biologically anything, if biologically means having one type of genitals. I am not sure if bilogical means anything either way (for intersex). It depends what you want to actually know, if you want kids then no, no biologically kids. But that could be true for someone who is what you would call biologically man or woman any ways.

So yeah one day they may discover they can't have kids or that they also have balls inside of them, or they have no balls or they have a mix of both or none. Before (and still in some countries) did the parents pick a gender and then a lot of surgery happened to make it look like a typical penis or vagina.

But it is an interesting topic, what is even sex? What do you wish to actually know? Because if it is about kids then sex doesn't matter instead it would be better to just ask "can you produce x" ( depending on what you produce). Not everyone who is "biologically" can produce what you need anyways. I know many who needed to get a sperm or egg donator (or both) to have kids.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

What do you wish to actually know?

The definition of sex, and where it bleeds into gender or doesn’t. I felt like I had a complete understanding of the difference between sex and gender, but there were a few months, a while back, where the terms were used interchangeably and I began to subtly question whether I actually understood them.

Now, several months later, I thought to ask in a relatively neutral space. You guys confirmed that I just happened to see many people misusing words for a bit, which I appreciate.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

People play real fast and loose with these terms.

My advice is to do what you're doing here, which is learn... But to remember to meet people where they're at.

By these definitions, with sex relating to biological things, you might be tempted to tell someone they can't just "decide" their sex, by this definition. Don't do it.

Not saying you would, but resist the urge to get into a semantic argument. Just ask the specific people what they mean by these words when they say them, and roll with it. Prioritize understanding over being understood.

This advice goes for anything, but this is a particularly spicy meatball.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

This is excellent advice that I wish I could immediately incorporate into my being. You’ve described alchemy, as far as my technical but inarticulate ass goes. I hope to be able to do this in person some day.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Just to add to the excellent responses, even "biological sex" may be complicated, because you can argue based on different criteria. At birth, genitalia is a relatively accessible and unintrusive way to sex humans, but even at birth other criteria may be available, like a chromosomal analysis. There are also genetic tests, which are closely related to chromosomal sexing, but are not the same. Also, from embryogenic and hormonal evidence you could try to make your case. Most people would comply with all of those, but some people don't.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (3 children)

“biological sex” may be complicated

Absolutely, and the level of hair splitting you can get into is maddening. It almost seems worth discarding the word entirely, in the world’s current state, as it relates to people.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

i have yet to see any convincing reason for keeping the concepts of sex and gender, even scientifically it's not useful as you can just actually specify the properties you're basing it on instead and thus be more accurate.

like, not all "women" have a womb, or breasts, or the same levels of estrogen, etc etc... So if you use the term "woman" or "female" you're inevitably going to be inaccurate, whereas if you instead say "people with XX chromosomes, a functional womb, and breasts" you're now actually precisely explaining what group of people you're talking about.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago

During this thread, i started to feel as though sex were, metaphorically, Fahrenheit pretending to be Celsius. It’s still useful in its own way, but an updated lexicon would be helpful as we evolve.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I don't agree. I concur in the personal level if it's bothering you, but a scientist, who is the guy that wants to use that data, will find useful what the statistic mean by "male" or "female". There are statistical differences between both groups. That's very useful.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree, it’s just a lament born of exhaustion. As if any subsequent divisions, alternatives, euphemisms, or specifications wouldn’t immediately be surmised as “woke mind virus.”

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

Alright. That's absolutely understandable.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think of it as relating to “operative definitions” when doing research.

What are we using sex to describe? Labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. It is important to distinguish chromosomal sex in some contexts, or certain traits associated with SRY activation - but ultimately it’s a category that is useful sometimes but doesn’t ultimately govern reality.

Literally no one takes philosophy of science classes lol.

But as a trans man, I am “male” in some presentations. My body processes things differently on testosterone, in ways that may make it appropriate for me to be classed as male in some contexts. There are other contexts where I need to be treated under the “female” healthcare umbrella - eg, gynecological care.

But for the context of my day to day life - what use does the appellation “female” have to me? What useful information about my reality does it give to you? We can be materialists, but our words aren’t material.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I guess it’s fine to accept that there is no single answer to a question, but the absence of concrete definability in a colloquial term is just upsetting on its face. I recognize that there’s no real need for it to be monolithic, but even figuring out how to phrase my question without seeming threatening was a challenge.

In the end, I just want folks to feel safe when I speak to them, and through the answers imparted upon me, I’m inching closer to the level of inclusion that I strive toward. I sincerely appreciate the answer, and if there’s anything that I’ve said here that seems at odds with my stated goal, I apologize.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It’s a complicated problem. We’ve got an epistemological question that’s getting mixed up with medical conditions and psychology and the way that society treats the ways that human bodies can differentiate themselves. Exploring sex and gender is often looking at everything from genetics to anthropology to history to language to societal roles, which is cutting across too many disciplines for anyone to navigate perfectly.

And then we have to look at people. We have to look at the way this uncertainty has been weaponized by the fascist project. This uncertainty is ultimately what transphobic violence is seeking to correct - to force an answer to the question.

It is a scary prospect. We have to consider what it would look like to have a society without mandated gender roles, we have to consider what being “male” or “female” means about us as human beings, we have to figure out what it means to live “as a man” or “as a woman.” Are we really tabula rasa? Is childhood a resolution of the phallic crisis and oedipus complex? Why are some hobbies or professions more dominated by one gender over the other? What about the distribution of household labor?

It’s a Gordian knot - there’s an appeal in just slicing the thing in half.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago

I admit, I do genuinely love the left wing resolution to the question. “Just give people the freedom to harmlessly be themselves, or else” pretty succinctly cuts through the stochastic terrorism. From the outside, it seems like a complete philosophy with room for future development, edges only apparent when we begin to question what’s human or harmless.

Simply absolving people of the need to care about something is a gloriously tantalizing gesture, and simultaneously collectivizing them through a broader umbrella is powerful. It’s religion for atheists.