LogFAQs > #878546498

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This is an issue of gender.

No, it's not. As you've already touched on, gender is sociological, sex is biological. None of what you quoted - and very little of what I've talked about in this topic at all - has anything to do with gender.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I chose the source, which when undeterred in a healthy body always produces its set gender.

In other words, you selected an arbitrary property from a group based on what seemed logical to you. Which is what you just said we weren't supposed to be doing.

And I'm assuming you meant "sex" there, not gender. Gender is a product of the mind, sex is a product of the body. You can have a completely healthy, unambiguously male body and still be female-gendered.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If a baseball player had a 100% homerun rate, would you consider their record ruined if when the ball was thrown they were struck by lightning so missed?

Here's a better question: if you built a machine that always hit a baseball the same way and always hit a home run, until one day it suddenly missed despite swinging the exact same way it always has, would you consider that machine to have a 100% home run rate? I wouldn't - I'd say the machine has a very high accuracy rate, but it can no longer be considered perfect.

In the same way, the realities of biology indicate that chromosomes do not always accurately and reliably correspond to "the rest" of a person's biological sex. 99.99% of the time they will (as will genitals, gonads, hormones, and secondary characteristics), but that is not 100%. You can argue "well, theoretically, chromosomes always would be reflective of a person's true sex, assuming nothing interferes with them" and, while that's accurate (side-note: it is equally accurate for every other trait of biological sex previously mentioned), it's also not reflective of reality, because things do interfere all the time. Practically speaking, chromosomes don't always match up to the rest of the body, for a variety of reasons, and we lack the medical technology to correct for that; it is therefore not practical to use them and only them for determining physical sex.

Chromosomal sex is important - you'll never find me suggesting it isn't - but there's a lot more to the body than whether you're 46XX, 46XY, or something else.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The problem here is you see sex being determinant of how much of a woman she is

Where did you get this idea?

Perhaps I need to be more thorough in denoting female as a gender and female as biological sex, but no, I do not - and never have - believed anything like what you're suggesting. All I have said in this topic is that, biologically speaking, she is much more female than male.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!