Poll of the Day > Netflix removes chromosome explanation of sexes from Bill Nye the Science Guy

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

What I don't get is why some people are so violently opposed to the idea that there are some people out there who - biologically or psychologically - do not fit into "male" or "female" classification. Because this isn't just something that is purely philosophical in nature. Intersex and transexual people have medical needs that others do not. It would be like someone saying "Galactosemia is an extremely rare condition; therefore I deny that genetic disorders exist. Everyone is genetically normal and we should stifle all discussion or inferences to the contrary."

Because they are actually male or female, but have an ailment obscuring it. Treat the ailment and the sex reveals itself.

Sweet, glad to know we can start removing chromosomes now.

To those of you so hung up on the single pair of sex chromosomes in humans, I say that the platypus would blow your fucking mind.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because they are actually male or female, but have an ailment obscuring it. Treat the ailment and the sex reveals itself.

I'll humour you for a second. Let's go back to the example I posted earlier - the individual who had female genitals and male chromosomes. What's the "ailment" there? Is the vagina the mistake or the XY chromosome? And what's your treatment for this condition that will allow them to live a healthy, happy life as a sexually unambiguous man or woman?
---

darkknight109 posted...

Oh, snap, sick burn. Surprised you didn't call me a cuck and complete the trifecta.

Cuckknight it is!

darkknight109 posted...

Given that you seem to think eggs come from a vagina and sperm from a penis, I question that.

Interesting. I don't remember saying that. Oh yeah... I didn't!

I think your anger is clouding your judgment. Your showing multiple signs of someone who's argument is falling apart

You're*

Before that gets thrown in the mix

OhhhJa posted...

Interesting. I don't remember saying that. Oh yeah... I didn't!

Man, bad memory on top of shoddy knowledge of biology? Here, I'll even provide the quotes again:

OhhhJa posted...

The bottom line is still that the parts between your legs determine your biological sex.

OhhhJa posted...

Not at all odd to normal people. If you have produce seed you are male. If you produce eggs, you are female. What on earth could be considered odd about that?

I mean, kind of hard to reconcile those two views unless you either have a really poor understanding of which part does what (or just don't know where the ovaries are located).

OhhhJa posted...

I think your anger is clouding your judgment.

You're projecting, bro. Correcting people doesn't make me mad.
---

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Interesting. I don't remember saying that. Oh yeah... I didn't!

Man, bad memory on top of shoddy knowledge of biology? Here, I'll even provide the quotes again:

OhhhJa posted...

The bottom line is still that the parts between your legs determine your biological sex.

OhhhJa posted...

Not at all odd to normal people. If you have produce seed you are male. If you produce eggs, you are female. What on earth could be considered odd about that?

OhhhJa posted...

I think your anger is clouding your judgment.

You're projecting, bro. Correcting people doesn't make me mad.

Lol I'm seeing the (separate) quotes... and I'm failing to see how I said "your dick directly produces seed and your vagina directly produces eggs!" You're reaching fella

OhhhJa posted...

Lol I'm seeing the (separate) quotes

So you're saying what you believe changes from sentence to sentence? I mean, both those quotes were from the same post, so they really should be logically consistent. You sure you're not just making this stuff up on the fly?
---

OhhhJa posted...

Lol I'm seeing the (separate) quotes... and I'm failing to see how I said "your dick directly produces seed and your vagina directly produces eggs!" You're reaching fella

You do, however, say that's it's genitals alone that determine sex, and then also that gametes alone determine sex. The logical conclusion there would be that you believe genitals=gametes, which would indeed call your understanding of human reproductive anatomy into question.
---

darkknight109 posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Lol I'm seeing the (separate) quotes

So you're saying what you believe changes from sentence to sentence? I mean, both those quotes were from the same post, so they really should be logically consistent. You sure you're not just making this stuff up on the fly?

Both of my quotes are true and are not contradictory. Nowhere did I say that sperm is produced in the penis or eggs are produced at the opening of the vagina. Keep pretending if it makes you feel better though

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because they are actually male or female, but have an ailment obscuring it. Treat the ailment and the sex reveals itself.

I'll humour you for a second. Let's go back to the example I posted earlier - the individual who had female genitals and male chromosomes. What's the "ailment" there? Is the vagina the mistake or the XY chromosome? And what's your treatment for this condition that will allow them to live a healthy, happy life as a sexually unambiguous man or woman?

They have a malformed penis, in this case reconstructive surgery would be appropriate to better represent what they are, they won't be functional but that's unfortunate. Chromosomes are the sex decider, excess or insufficient chromosomes are ailed chromosomes of an original binary sex.

Cacciato posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

What I don't get is why some people are so violently opposed to the idea that there are some people out there who - biologically or psychologically - do not fit into "male" or "female" classification. Because this isn't just something that is purely philosophical in nature. Intersex and transexual people have medical needs that others do not. It would be like someone saying "Galactosemia is an extremely rare condition; therefore I deny that genetic disorders exist. Everyone is genetically normal and we should stifle all discussion or inferences to the contrary."

Because they are actually male or female, but have an ailment obscuring it. Treat the ailment and the sex reveals itself.

Sweet, glad to know we can start removing chromosomes now.

An inability to treat an affliction doesn't mean the affliction isn't real, it just means we still need to develop a treatment.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Both of my quotes are true and are not contradictory

You say it's genitals and genitals alone that determine sex, then you say it's whether you produce sperm or eggs, which is a biological function independent of what genitals you have. Those are mutually exclusive statements; both cannot be true (and, as it turns out, neither of them are).

I'm kinda surprised you need these things spelled out for you to this degree.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They have a malformed penis, in this case reconstructive surgery would be appropriate to better represent what they are, they won't be functional but that's unfortunate. Chromosomes are the sex decider, excess or insufficient chromosomes are ailed chromosomes of an original binary sex.

Interesting. I'll be sure to let her know your medical opinion the next time I see her. For the record, she was raised female, has a girl's name, identifies as a woman, uses feminine pronouns and has never expressed any desire to live as a man (and if you ever saw her, you would probably assume she's a sexually unambiguous female). If you ask her (and you seem remarkably cavalier about what the person in question thinks), she's of the mind that her chromosomes were the "glitch", not her crotch.

Also, she does not have excess or insufficient chromosomes; she is chromosomally male - 46XY

Kyuubi4269 posted...

An inability to treat an affliction doesn't mean the affliction isn't real, it just means we still need to develop a treatment.

Well, in the event one materializes, come let us know. But until then, we kind of have to deal with the realities of today, which is that people exist who are not wholly male or female, and nothing in modern medicine's current arsenal is able to change them into unambiguously male or female people.

For the record, it's kind of hard to characterize many intersex traits as "an affliction" that can be "cured". It's like if someone was born with heterochromia, with one blue eye and one brown. It's not medically possible to say "You were supposed to be born with two blue eyes" or "You were supposed to be born with two brown eyes", because there's no way of knowing which colour the person was "supposed" to develop.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Interesting. I'll be sure to let her know your medical opinion the next time I see her. For the record, she was raised female, has a girl's name, identifies as a woman, uses feminine pronouns and has never expressed any desire to live as a man (and if you ever saw her, you would probably assume she's a sexually unambiguous female). If you ask her (and you seem remarkably cavalier about what the person in question thinks), she's of the mind that her chromosomes were the "glitch", not her crotch.

Also, she does not have excess or insufficient chromosomes; she is chromosomally male - 46XY

If you divert the flow of a river at its source, it can flow in a completely different way to the way it always did, that doesn't however change the fact that its original course was completely different before it was interfered with.

darkknight109 posted...

Well, in the event one materializes, come let us know. But until then, we kind of have to deal with the realities of today, which is that people exist who are not wholly male or female, and nothing in modern medicine's current arsenal is able to change them into unambiguously male or female people.

You're placing too much importance on sex. While she is unambiguously male, that doesn't stop her dressing, acting or functioning as female, it doesn't stop straight men being more attracted to her, it doesn't stop her even having children (I think?), she is just fairly arbitrarily a man and could be subject to male only ailments potentially in the future.

It's a marker for what to expect from a unique human being, being male or female needn't influence how you act beyond biological impossibilities.

darkknight109 posted...

For the record, it's kind of hard to characterize many intersex traits as "an affliction" that can be "cured". It's like if someone was born with heterochromia, with one blue eye and one brown. It's not medically possible to say "You were supposed to be born with two blue eyes" or "You were supposed to be born with two brown eyes", because there's no way of knowing which colour the person was "supposed" to develop.

Something being hard doesn't make it false either. I have heterochromia and you can objectively say I am afflicted with mutated eyes, you may not know how it was caused or how to cure it but it's fine objectively speaking to call it an affliction. Being heterochromatic doesn't cause any complications so you'd be hard-pressed to call it an ailment but it really doesn't matter, whatever helps classify information clearly is beneficial and we shouldn't drag emotions in to an issue of objectivity.
---

As ever, the likes of darkknight109 make me indifferent to trans/fluid/donut/whatever's plight.

LeetCheet posted...

Ok this is getting so confusing. I'm not even sure what to call people anymore and if I say the wrong thing I get blasted for it probably : S

Don't worry, dude, you're not alone. Of course, trans/fluid/muffin/whatevers haven't the sense to realise that no-one's going to know what they are when they first meet them, and just use it as an excuse to get pissy. It's like weeaboos getting annoyed that someone who's from an English-speaking country and has only ever known the English language mispronounces something Japanese. No awareness or understanding.
---

I just want people to not get so offended over the smallest things like mistaking what gender someone is.

I know someone at work who is under transition to becoming a girl and she is literally one of the nicest people I've met.
She doesn't even get mad if someone mistake her for a guy. She just politely corrects them and no one has to get angry.
---

LeetCheet posted...

I just want people to not get so offended over the smallest things like mistaking what gender someone is.

I know someone at work who is under transition to becoming a girl and she is literally one of the nicest people I've met.
She doesn't even get mad if someone mistake her for a guy. She just politely corrects them and no one has to get angry.

That's honestly nice to hear. I just wish more would conduct themselves like that.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you divert the flow of a river at its source, it can flow in a completely different way to the way it always did, that doesn't however change the fact that its original course was completely different before it was interfered with.

Very poetic, but I fail to see how that relates to the topic of discussion.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're placing too much importance on sex.

It's the topic being discussed, which is why I'm focused on it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

While she is unambiguously male

I find it very strange that you would call her "unambiguously male", considering that she could be naked in front of you and literally the only way you would know that there is anything male about her is if she told you.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

that doesn't stop her dressing, acting or functioning as female, it doesn't stop straight men being more attracted to her, it doesn't stop her even having children (I think?), she is just fairly arbitrarily a man and could be subject to male only ailments potentially in the future.

She actually can't have children, but let's pretend that she could.

That means she could suffer from complications from pregnancy, postpartum depression, menopause and its various associated afflictions, or ovarian cancer. In other words, this "unambiguously male" individual could suffer from any number of female-only afflictions. Treatments that could work on a man may not work on her due to her biology. And, as you pointed out, the reverse is also true: she could also suffer from male afflictions as well.

This is precisely WHY the intersex designation exists - because trying to pigeonhole someone into "male" or "female" is ignoring the reality of the situation, potentially with disastrous medical consequences.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I have heterochromia and you can objectively say I am afflicted with mutated eyes, you may not know how it was caused or how to cure it but it's fine objectively speaking to call it an affliction. Being heterochromatic doesn't cause any complications so you'd be hard-pressed to call it an ailment but it really doesn't matter, whatever helps classify information clearly is beneficial and we shouldn't drag emotions in to an issue of objectivity.

My point was that it's impossible for me to say which of your eyes you were "supposed" to have, because it's not like there was a master plan for a perfect, homochromatic you that someone came along and messed up; simply, the way you formed resulted in two separate eye colours. In the same way, most intersex people are not "Oh, I'm a man but my dick didn't form properly, so I have weird genitals", it's a mishmash of things from male and female and sometimes a smattering of things that come from both or neither (extra chromosomes, genitals that are neither a penis nor a vagina, gonads that fails to develop into ovaries or testes, etc.). The guy with the malformed penis would be easily treated; someone who has sex traits from multiple sexes is not so easily re-characterized and many are the horror stories from ye olden times when people tried just that - intersex people were often raised female and surgically altered at birth to have female genitals (female being more commonly chosen due to the old "easier to dig a hole than build a pole" surgical adage), which wound up really screwing more than a few people up as a result.
---

Muscle Buster posted...

As ever, the likes of darkknight109 make me indifferent to trans/fluid/donut/whatever's plight.

Pretty sure I don't have quite that level of influence over you, random person on the internet I've never met before. If I do... that's kind of sad, actually.

LeetCheet posted...

I just want people to not get so offended over the smallest things like mistaking what gender someone is.

Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowds, but I've never seen someone get offended over a mistaken gender. Usually people - like your co-worker - will politely ask if they want you to use a different set of pronouns. I can't say I've ever seen someone outside of the internet ever act like a prick when someone gets their gender wrong (especially if they're using non-traditional gender identifiers).
---

darkknight109 posted...

Very poetic, but I fail to see how that relates to the topic of discussion.

Chromosomes are the source. Despite causing a multitude of symptoms, the cause was still a single act from its natural state.

darkknight109 posted...

It's the topic being discussed, which is why I'm focused on it.

I'm not questioning your focus, only the importance you place on sex in regards to what people are socially and personally.

darkknight109 posted...

I find it very strange that you would call her "unambiguously male", considering that she could be naked in front of you and literally the only way you would know that there is anything male about her is if she told you.

Gravity is unambiguously existant, the fact things can be suspended over the ground doesn't make gravity ambiguous. By observing actual criteria of sex rather than presumed trickle down effects of sex you get a very clear binary result.

darkknight109 posted...

She actually can't have children, but let's pretend that she could.

That means she could suffer from complications from pregnancy, postpartum depression, menopause and its various associated afflictions, or ovarian cancer. In other words, this "unambiguously male" individual could suffer from any number of female-only afflictions. Treatments that could work on a man may not work on her due to her biology. And, as you pointed out, the reverse is also true: she could also suffer from male afflictions as well.

This is precisely WHY the intersex designation exists - because trying to pigeonhole someone into "male" or "female" is ignoring the reality of the situation, potentially with disastrous medical consequences.

No, she can suffer from afflictions associated with female criterion but are technically afflictions of her mutation. What is a male-only affliction is male pattern baldness, which comes directly from male chromosomes, she is also immune to female-only afflictions.

She is a male that exhibits typically female traits, what would be disasterous is to assume a male couldn't get ovarian cancer or female couldn't get testicular cancer under exceptional circumstances, as evidently with certain afflictions they are possible and shouldn't be unyieldingly bound to sex.

darkknight109 posted...

My point was that it's impossible for me to say which of your eyes you were "supposed" to have, because it's not like there was a master plan for a perfect, homochromatic you that someone came along and messed up; simply, the way you formed resulted in two separate eye colours.

Sure there was, the way I formed was imperfect and allowed a mutation to take place, it's completely arbitrary and I don't care what the original was going to be otherwise, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a predetermined trajectory.
---

darkknight109 posted...

In the same way, most intersex people are not "Oh, I'm a man but my dick didn't form properly, so I have weird genitals", it's a mishmash of things from male and female and sometimes a smattering of things that come from both or neither (extra chromosomes, genitals that are neither a penis nor a vagina, gonads that fails to develop into ovaries or testes, etc.). The guy with the malformed penis would be easily treated; someone who has sex traits from multiple sexes is not so easily re-characterized and many are the horror stories from ye olden times when people tried just that - intersex people were often raised female and surgically altered at birth to have female genitals (female being more commonly chosen due to the old "easier to dig a hole than build a pole" surgical adage), which wound up really screwing more than a few people up as a result.

Let me restate: an event being hard to determine doesn't mean there isn't one. You are free to use whatever pronouns you feel socially and you are also free to not pursue potentially corrective treatment, you do you and make you happy, but that doesn't change objective truths and if other people choose to use these facts to determine what to characterize you socially that is their peorgative and they even have objectivity on their side. Such a decision may or may not be socially acceptable but it doesn't make them wrong.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gravity is unambiguously existant, the fact things can be suspended over the ground doesn't make gravity ambiguous.

No, but if you have a situation where gravity* is, in essence, nullified (like orbit or a free-falling plane), you need to take that into account and not just assume that things will behave the same way they would in an environment with normal gravitational effects.

*"Gravity" being used here in the colloquial sense of the term.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By observing actual criteria of sex rather than presumed trickle down effects of sex you get a very clear binary result.

Which actual criteria of sex? There are multiple, as I already posted.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, she can suffer from afflictions associated with female criterion but are technically afflictions of her mutation.

That's like saying "Your lung cancer isn't affecting you, it's affecting your lungs." It's a) Kind of ridiculous and b) Ultimately immaterial, because the end result is exactly the same.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What is a male-only affliction is male pattern baldness, which comes directly from male chromosomes

Male pattern baldness is actually influenced by several factors, not the least of which is hormones (chiefly androgen and testosterone). It is not caused solely by chromosomes.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

She is a male that exhibits typically female traits, what would be disasterous is to assume a male couldn't get ovarian cancer or female couldn't get testicular cancer under exceptional circumstances, as evidently with certain afflictions they are possible and shouldn't be unyieldingly bound to sex.

You're almost making my argument for me now, because you've admitted that a) Psychological behaviour isn't bound by sex and b) Traditional medical conditions and physical traits are not bound by sex either. You're basically agreeing with me at this point, save for your insistence on sticking with the "male/female and nothing in between" labels. Except that by now you're allowing so many things to "cross the spectrum", the term "male" and "female" have virtually no meaning as you're using them. You've asserted that men can have ovaries, get pregnant, and suffer menopause, while women can have penises, father children, and get testicular cancer.

Basically you're taking what any medical professional would call "chromosomal sex" and using it unaltered, save for dropping the "chromosomal" prefix.

Which, in my opinion, is irresponsible because this extends beyond philosophy, it has real-world implications. Saying someone is "a boy" or "a girl" has implications - medical and societal - that shape development and could potentially cause health complications if an intersex individual that strongly trends male or female is unaware that they may be at risk for health conditions associated with both male and female sexes. Moreover, your insistence on using chromosomes - and only chromosomes - as the sole basis of biological sex would result in some strange and potentially dangerous situations. The woman I've described, for instance, would be required by law to use the men's washroom and changing facilities in any jurisdiction that requires individuals to use facilities "matching their biological sex". This in spite of the fact that her birth certificate (which has never been altered) indicates she is female, she is visibly feminine, has female genitals, and she does (and always has) identify as a woman.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Sure there was, the way I formed was imperfect and allowed a mutation to take place, it's completely arbitrary and I don't care what the original was going to be otherwise, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a predetermined trajectory.

Except, again, that may not be the case (I can't specifically comment on you, because heterochromia is not an area I have a great deal of knowledge in). Yes, some mutations occur when a perfectly healthy fetus is afflicted by an outside condition, thus altering normal development and causing anomalies. However, sometimes fetuses simply were never formed "normally" in the first place. Sometimes the egg and/or sperm that created the fetus had a defect that made a "normal" fetus impossible. In this case, there was no "predetermined trajectory" that was subsequently altered; the person simply formed... well, as they formed.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You are free to use whatever pronouns you feel socially and you are also free to not pursue potentially corrective treatment, you do you and make you happy, but that doesn't change objective truths and if other people choose to use these facts to determine what to characterize you socially that is their peorgative and they even have objectivity on their side. Such a decision may or may not be socially acceptable but it doesn't make them wrong.

Except unilaterally deciding that "chromosomes are the sole determining factor as to whether someone is male or female" isn't objective at all; it's completely subjective. Witness how the poster earlier in this topic insisted that the sole determining factor of someone being male or female was their genitals (before apparently changing his mind - or not - and deciding it was gonads). His view is no more or less objective than your own; he has simply selected one of the several medically-recognized traits used to determine physical sex and decided to exclude the others. You have done the same; you only differ on which property you opted to settle on.

"Objectively" speaking, the most accurate way to represent this is to concede that there is no single "biological sex"; instead, there are the five biological properties I listed earlier, any of which can be male, female, or indeterminate/other. That is objective because it is unarguable by anyone with even a cursory understanding of biology. Even someone who insists that, say, "biological sex" is defined by what's between your legs cannot deny that chromosomal sex exists and that it may not match a person's genitals.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Muscle Buster posted...

As ever, the likes of darkknight109 make me indifferent to trans/fluid/donut/whatever's plight.

Pretty sure I don't have quite that level of influence over you, random person on the internet I've never met before. If I do... that's kind of sad, actually.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but hey, cool. Keep fighting the LOL fight for your gender-dysphoric snowflakes.

darkknight109 posted...

Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowds,

Clearly.
---

so Bill Nye renounces science to be a SJW

shame
---

Since you effectively said "I don't recognise semantics"
I won't address the high arguements so:

darkknight109 posted...

the term "male" and "female" have virtually no meaning as you're using them.

That's kind of my point. Male and female are indicators of what to expect, only very rarely are things exclusive to one or the other. When we talk about female issues we are actually being dangerously ambiguous to a condition that is more developmental based on hormone levels if we refer to sex, however female issues are 99% of the time the social construct of gender, how we perceive sexes in society (with characteristics of penises and vaginas for example).

darkknight109 posted...

The woman I've described, for instance, would be required by law to use the men's washroom and changing facilities in any jurisdiction that requires individuals to use facilities "matching their biological sex". This in spite of the fact that her birth certificate (which has never been altered) indicates she is female, she is visibly feminine, has female genitals, and she does (and always has) identify as a woman.

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex and bathrooms are a gender issue (in this case how female gender organs apparently need a separate bathroom). Gender is social, sex is biological (and thus subject to absolute fact).

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, some mutations occur when a perfectly healthy fetus is afflicted by an outside condition, thus altering normal development and causing anomalies. However, sometimes fetuses simply were never formed "normally" in the first place. Sometimes the egg and/or sperm that created the fetus had a defect that made a "normal" fetus impossible. In this case, there was no "predetermined trajectory" that was subsequently altered; the person simply formed... well, as they formed.

That defect in the egg and/or sperm is the point of deflection to trajectory, it's an early stage but it is a cause that deviates from the blueprint norm.

darkknight109 posted...

Except unilaterally deciding that "chromosomes are the sole determining factor as to whether someone is male or female" isn't objective at all; it's completely subjective. Witness how the poster earlier in this topic insisted that the sole determining factor of someone being male or female was their genitals (before apparently changing his mind - or not - and deciding it was gonads). His view is no more or less objective than your own; he has simply selected one of the several medically-recognized traits used to determine physical sex and decided to exclude the others. You have done the same; you only differ on which property you opted to settle on.

"Objectively" speaking, the most accurate way to represent this is to concede that there is no single "biological sex"; instead, there are the five biological properties I listed earlier, any of which can be male, female, or indeterminate/other. That is objective because it is unarguable by anyone with even a cursory understanding of biology. Even someone who insists that, say, "biological sex" is defined by what's between your legs cannot deny that chromosomal sex exists and that it may not match a person's genitals.

It's not objective to gather a collective of values and pick and choose arbitrarily (aka subjectively). Chromosomes reliably produce a consistent result when not tampered with, it's the one thing we can reliably associate with a given sex unlike gonad geometry or hormone content.

Gonads, hormones and hormones are traits, they indicate what the person may be but are subject to tampering, chromosomes are the origin.
---

Of course people would defend this
---

Why does anyone think gender is something you can just change? No amount of surgeries will make someone a real girl or a real man if that was the case then it wouldn't be so obvious whose Transgender
---

darkknight109 posted...

You say it's genitals and genitals alone that determine sex, then you say it's whether you produce sperm or eggs, which is a biological function independent of what genitals you have. Those are mutually exclusive statements; both cannot be true (and, as it turns out, neither of them are).

I'm kinda surprised you need these things spelled out for you to this degree.

Nowhere did I say that. Man you sure are dense for someone who keeps calling other people dense. I guess that's how it normally goes though. A fool always thinks he's clever

Darkknight is so determined to be on the radical left side of every issue. I'm pretty sure he'd justify pedophilia if the left supported it.

The radical left claims to be pro science but even that seems negotiable if it hurts someone's feelings

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Honestly, if we are going to be pedantic biological sex is a spectrum. Explaining that you only have XY for boys and XX for females is a simplification of the whole matter to help people understand the idea better. It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place. It'd be absurd if when a form asks your sex its its like "ARE YOU A MALE? HOW MANY PENISES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY TESTES DO YOU HAVE?" because such exceedingly rare conditions do exist where men have two penises and men have more than two testes (or less).

That's why i personally feel its just better to stick to male/female/intersex rather then trying to make this claim that its a spectrum. Its technically correct but completely unnecessary.
---

chaosbowser posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Honestly, if we are going to be pedantic biological sex is a spectrum. Explaining that you only have XY for boys and XX for females is a simplification of the whole matter to help people understand the idea better. It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place. It'd be absurd if when a form asks your sex its its like "ARE YOU A MALE? HOW MANY PENISES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY TESTES DO YOU HAVE?" because such exceedingly rare conditions do exist where men have two penises and men have more than two testes (or less).

That's why i personally feel its just better to stick to male/female/intersex rather then trying to make this claim that its a spectrum. Its technically correct but completely unnecessary.

Not really though. A spectrum indicates a range of sorts when in reality there's male, female, and then several mutations that occur from time to time, most of which still fall under either distinctly male or female. Basically, there's male, female, and then a bunch of radical outliers.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you divert the flow of a river at its source, it can flow in a completely different way to the way it always did, that doesn't however change the fact that its original course was completely different before it was interfered with.

Why does the original course matter?
---

OhhhJa posted...

chaosbowser posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Honestly, if we are going to be pedantic biological sex is a spectrum. Explaining that you only have XY for boys and XX for females is a simplification of the whole matter to help people understand the idea better. It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place. It'd be absurd if when a form asks your sex its its like "ARE YOU A MALE? HOW MANY PENISES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY TESTES DO YOU HAVE?" because such exceedingly rare conditions do exist where men have two penises and men have more than two testes (or less).

That's why i personally feel its just better to stick to male/female/intersex rather then trying to make this claim that its a spectrum. Its technically correct but completely unnecessary.

Not really though. A spectrum indicates a range of sorts when in reality there's male, female, and then several mutations that occur from time to time, most of which still fall under either distinctly male or female. Basically, there's male, female, and then a bunch of radical outliers.

Your point being? Those people still exist and still have to fill out forms that ask them whether they're male or female and said people don't clearly fit into either male or female but you can make an approximation of one over the other. There also people with things like ambiguous genitalia. Just because something is rare doesn't invalidate its existence lol. However, its rarity is precisely why i feel we don't really need to call it a spectrum and can just stick with 3 discrete points. A, B or AB.
---

chaosbowser posted...

OhhhJa posted...

chaosbowser posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Honestly, if we are going to be pedantic biological sex is a spectrum. Explaining that you only have XY for boys and XX for females is a simplification of the whole matter to help people understand the idea better. It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place. It'd be absurd if when a form asks your sex its its like "ARE YOU A MALE? HOW MANY PENISES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY TESTES DO YOU HAVE?" because such exceedingly rare conditions do exist where men have two penises and men have more than two testes (or less).

That's why i personally feel its just better to stick to male/female/intersex rather then trying to make this claim that its a spectrum. Its technically correct but completely unnecessary.

Not really though. A spectrum indicates a range of sorts when in reality there's male, female, and then several mutations that occur from time to time, most of which still fall under either distinctly male or female. Basically, there's male, female, and then a bunch of radical outliers.

Your point being? Those people still exist and still have to fill out forms that ask them whether they're male or female and said people don't clearly fit into either male or female but you can make an approximation of one over the other. There also people with things like ambiguous genitalia. Just because something is rare doesn't invalidate its existence lol. However, its rarity is precisely why i feel we don't really need to call it a spectrum and can just stick with 3 discrete points. A, B or AB.

Exactly... that was my point. A spectrum indicates some fluid range of possibilities. A few mutations doesn't a spectrum make

OhhhJa posted...

Exactly... that was my point. A spectrum indicates some fluid range of possibilities. A few mutations doesn't a spectrum make

Sure it does. Bimodal distributions are a thing. Just because most people fall at one end or another of a spectrum doesn't mean there's no spectrum.
---

OhhhJa posted...

chaosbowser posted...

OhhhJa posted...

chaosbowser posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Honestly, if we are going to be pedantic biological sex is a spectrum. Explaining that you only have XY for boys and XX for females is a simplification of the whole matter to help people understand the idea better. It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place. It'd be absurd if when a form asks your sex its its like "ARE YOU A MALE? HOW MANY PENISES DO YOU HAVE? HOW MANY TESTES DO YOU HAVE?" because such exceedingly rare conditions do exist where men have two penises and men have more than two testes (or less).

That's why i personally feel its just better to stick to male/female/intersex rather then trying to make this claim that its a spectrum. Its technically correct but completely unnecessary.

Not really though. A spectrum indicates a range of sorts when in reality there's male, female, and then several mutations that occur from time to time, most of which still fall under either distinctly male or female. Basically, there's male, female, and then a bunch of radical outliers.

Your point being? Those people still exist and still have to fill out forms that ask them whether they're male or female and said people don't clearly fit into either male or female but you can make an approximation of one over the other. There also people with things like ambiguous genitalia. Just because something is rare doesn't invalidate its existence lol. However, its rarity is precisely why i feel we don't really need to call it a spectrum and can just stick with 3 discrete points. A, B or AB.

Exactly... that was my point. A spectrum indicates some fluid range of possibilities. A few mutations doesn't a spectrum make

Your point was that outliers don't make a spectrum but my point is that they do. Their rarity just doesn't necessarily require we upend our current labeling of male and female just for them. We can just label them as having the qualities of both. It'd be more accurate to say its a spectrum with 3 discrete approximations but that would just go over people's heads.
---

chaosbowser posted...

It'd be more accurate to say its a spectrum with 3 discrete approximations.

Or rather a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes.
---

adjl posted...

chaosbowser posted...

It'd be more accurate to say its a spectrum with 3 discrete approximations.

Or rather a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes.

Sure that works too I suppose.
---

adjl posted...

chaosbowser posted...

It'd be more accurate to say its a spectrum with 3 discrete approximations.

Or rather a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes.

I like this.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's kind of my point. Male and female are indicators of what to expect, only very rarely are things exclusive to one or the other. When we talk about female issues we are actually being dangerously ambiguous to a condition that is more developmental based on hormone levels if we refer to sex, however female issues are 99% of the time the social construct of gender, how we perceive sexes in society (with characteristics of penises and vaginas for example).

Alright then. I don't necessarily disagree. However, in light of this, I don't understand your objection to having an "intersex" classification, as it is a medical definition for those who display both traditionally male and female traits and may be at elevated risk for health conditions that are traditionally strongly associated with both sexes.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Her birth certificate is wrongly filled in if in reference to sex and bathrooms are a gender issue (in this case how female gender organs apparently need a separate bathroom).

You're the only person I know who seems to think so. She think's it's correct. So does her doctor, as (apparently) did the attending physician at her birth, and even the government is onboard with her being a woman.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That defect in the egg and/or sperm is the point of deflection to trajectory, it's an early stage but it is a cause that deviates from the blueprint norm.

Except, if the sperm/egg formed with a defect, it never had an original trajectory to begin with, much less one we could ever hope to analyse in order to understand what the "unaltered" child was "supposed" to be.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gender is social, sex is biological (and thus subject to absolute fact).

True, but fact is no less subject to disputes based on the veracity of previously established facts or the definitions used. It used to be considered "fact" that the Earth was the centre of the universe until someone went and disproved that.

Things get even trickier when we talk about definitions (and that's exactly what we're doing), because definitions are human constructs that can be changed at any time. If tomorrow we all collectively decided that lungs are the things on the end of your arms with fingers sticking out of them and hands are the things in your chest that absorb oxygen from the air and send it to your blood, we wouldn't be wrong, we'd just have changed the definition of "lung" and "hand". The new definitions are just as factually accurate as the old.

The definition of "male" and "female" is a subject of dispute, as this topic shows. You think it should be defined solely by your chromosomes (although this would still be subject to an "other" categorization, as not everyone is 46XX or 46XY). The other guy thinks it's either your genitals or your reproductive capabilities. Some people believe we should abandon classification by biological sex altogether and stick with gender, which has more impact on our day-to-day lives (though that viewpoint opens up several new cans of worms that I'd rather not segue the discussion into). I'm going by what most medical professionals say, which is that there are multiple different ways to classify sex and while most people will uniformly be fully male or fully female, that is not universal.

All of these are opinions. The reason I stick with mine is a) The guys with the medical degrees go with it and they generally know what they're doing and b) It's not mutually exclusive with the others and is simply a statement of medical fact, as evidenced by the fact that no one has disproved - or even challenged, really - my assertion (even if you think whether someone is "a man" or "a woman" is purely defined by their chromosomes, it doesn't change that hormonal sex exists, primary sex characteristics exist, gonadal sex exists, etc., nor does it change the fact that sometimes we see individuals who are male in some of those categories and female in others). Where I do veer into opinion is where I say that "a man" shouldn't be defined based on just one of those categories - that's me engaging in the discussion on what the best way to define sex is.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not objective to gather a collective of values and pick and choose arbitrarily (aka subjectively).

Then why did you do that? You took a group of sex characteristics and arbitrarily selected one (chromosomes) as "the most important".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Chromosomes reliably produce a consistent result when not tampered with, it's the one thing we can reliably associate with a given sex unlike gonad geometry or hormone content.

Sure, they reliably produce a consistent result... except for all those times they don't, one of which we've been discussing extensively in this topic. Google the subject online and you can find plenty of cases of people with XY chromosomes being born as girls or XX chromosomes being born as boys.

That's kind of my point - chromosomes aren't a reliable indicator of sex. No more reliable, at least, than genitals or gonads, which are usually associated with one biological sex, but not always.

Here's an article from the BBC on the subject. Note the sidebar, which basically rehashes most of the arguments I've been making on the subject:

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-14459843
---

OhhhJa posted...

The radical left claims to be pro science but even that seems negotiable if it hurts someone's feelings

One of us is posting established medical practice.

It's not you.

OhhhJa posted...

Nowhere did I say that.

One more time for the people in the back:

OhhhJa posted...

The bottom line is still that the parts between your legs determine your biological sex.

[...]

Not at all odd to normal people. If you have produce seed you are male. If you produce eggs, you are female. What on earth could be considered odd about that?

Statement A: "Your biological sex is determined by your genitals."
Statement B: "Your biological sex is determined by your reproductive capabilities [which is governed by gonads and is independent of genitals]."

I mean, to consider how ridiculous this is, consider someone with a vagina and testes. By your first quote, you'd say they're a woman, but if we go by your second quote, you'd say they're a man. The two definitions - which, I feel I should stress, you rattled off right after one another in the exact same post - completely contradict each other (and, in doing so, demonstrate a rather poor understanding of basic biology).

Bit of advice: Don't bother trying to argue what you did or did not say in a forum when I can easily quote your previous posts.

chaosbowser posted...

I don't think so. She's basically all female except for some chromosomes. People get hung up on absolutes and 100% certainties with chromosome. Having an XY in the vast majority of cases indicates you will have a male but sometimes it doesn't. That would be this case.

Precisely.

chaosbowser posted...

It's not wrong to state its a spectrum but its somewhat unnecessary when we don't use a spectrum for maleness and femaleness of people in the first place.

Medical professionals do have scales that they use for such things; they're just not widely known (or used by the public, for the most part), because the majority of the population sits on one of the two far ends of the scale.

adjl posted...

chaosbowser posted...

It'd be more accurate to say its a spectrum with 3 discrete approximations.

Or rather a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes.

This is a good summation of it, yes.
---

For anyone who doesnt want to bother watching the Bill Nye episodes, heres a quick review of the episodes and it underlies the issues people have with the show:
https://youtu.be/qCdk9fDE8zA?t=1m21s
---

darkknight109 posted...

Statement A: "Your biological sex is determined by your genitals."
Statement B: "Your biological sex is determined by your reproductive capabilities [which is governed by gonads and is independent of genitals]."

I mean, to consider how ridiculous this is, consider someone with a vagina and testes. By your first quote, you'd say they're a woman, but if we go by your second quote, you'd say they're a man. The two definitions - which, I feel I should stress, you rattled off right after one another in the exact same post - completely contradict each other (and, in doing so, demonstrate a rather poor understanding of basic biology).

Bit of advice: Don't bother trying to argue what you did or did not say in a forum when I can easily quote your previous posts.

Like I said, you're reaching pal. Barring the rare mutation, everyone that has a penis produces seed and everyone with a vagina produces eggs. But you can keep putting words in my mouth and assuming what my thought processes are if that's what it takes to make you feel like your argument holds water.

But I'm pretty positive you well know that's what i meant unless you really are that dense

adjl posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you divert the flow of a river at its source, it can flow in a completely different way to the way it always did, that doesn't however change the fact that its original course was completely different before it was interfered with.

Why does the original course matter?

It's mildly relevant for judgement. When walking home from work you may have two identical length routes which in the end lead to you being home for your favourite show comfortably with your feet up, however one may leave mud in your shoes, the other leaves gravel. These are seemingly two arbitrary points, however if the police came to your house looking for a person of your description who ran through mud, going through the muddy track would leave your evening fucked up regardless of the perceived arbitrarity of your choice.

Sex is not important 99.9% of the time but it occassionally makes the difference for judgement.

darkknight109 posted...

I don't understand your objection to having an "intersex" classification, as it is a medical definition for those who display both traditionally male and female traits and may be at elevated risk for health conditions that are traditionally strongly associated with both sexes.

Because male with XYZ female characteristics or female with ABC male characteristics is much more accurate and can provide much more helpful information. It also closes the door on apache-esque genders as you still only have male or female sex to reference off, not a spectrum (or simply grey area) to feed the stupidity.

darkknight109 posted...

You're the only person I know who seems to think so. She think's it's correct. So does her doctor, as (apparently) did the attending physician at her birth, and even the government is onboard with her being a woman.

Her gender is pretty solidly woman, she is socially and practically for all intents and purposes female, however in the rare case sex matters, she is male and this is evidenced by her infertility. Gender and sex aren't two distinctly separate things, however they aren't impossible to be divorced from eachother in rare cases such as this.

darkknight109 posted...

Except, if the sperm/egg formed with a defect, it never had an original trajectory to begin with, much less one we could ever hope to analyse in order to understand what the "unaltered" child was "supposed" to be.

You're arbitrarily chosing the point of conception as the absolute start of deterministic systems. Under unaltered circumstances, an umdamaged egg would meet an undamaged sperm, however something lead to an outlier probability in the womb.
---

darkknight109 posted...

True, but fact is no less subject to disputes based on the veracity of previously established facts or the definitions used. It used to be considered "fact" that the Earth was the centre of the universe until someone went and disproved that.

By your logic we should abandon all reason because we might find a more accurate response at some time. As is chromosomes are very reliable, we can trace issues that have intercepted the chromosomes effects and confirm that a definitive other fucked up the original intent and we can cleanly label them disorders. This system is consistent, it's much more reliable than chosing 5 different causes and pointing windly in the rough area they intersect, particularly since it lumps clear illnesses with an otherwise healthy body and muddies judgement.

darkknight109 posted...

The definition of "male" and "female" is a subject of dispute, as this topic shows. You think it should be defined solely by your chromosomes (although this would still be subject to an "other" categorization, as not everyone is 46XX or 46XY). The other guy thinks it's either your genitals or your reproductive capabilities. Some people believe we should abandon classification by biological sex altogether and stick with gender, which has more impact on our day-to-day lives (though that viewpoint opens up several new cans of worms that I'd rather not segue the discussion into). I'm going by what most medical professionals say, which is that there are multiple different ways to classify sex and while most people will uniformly be fully male or fully female, that is not universal.

All of these are opinions. The reason I stick with mine is a) The guys with the medical degrees go with it and they generally know what they're doing and b) It's not mutually exclusive with the others and is simply a statement of medical fact, as evidenced by the fact that no one has disproved - or even challenged, really - my assertion (even if you think whether someone is "a man" or "a woman" is purely defined by their chromosomes, it doesn't change that hormonal sex exists, primary sex characteristics exist, gonadal sex exists, etc., nor does it change the fact that sometimes we see individuals who are male in some of those categories and female in others). Where I do veer into opinion is where I say that "a man" shouldn't be defined based on just one of those categories - that's me engaging in the discussion on what the best way to define sex is.

This is an issue of gender. Nobody challenges it as socially she is female, this means her gender is female, the bit which is a bit muddy but only because it's sociology, not biology. People are arguing how they personally perceive sex (gender) rather than biological determinant (sex), there's a tonne of crossover that really confuses things but that's effectively it.

darkknight109 posted...

Then why did you do that? You took a group of sex characteristics and arbitrarily selected one (chromosomes) as "the most important".

I chose the source, which when undeterred in a healthy body always produces its set gender. Following my river analogy, you can divert the nile however you want down the way, but it's still originally from lake victoria, this is an extremely reliable decider as serious changes have to be made at very important point.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Sure, they reliably produce a consistent result... except for all those times they don't, one of which we've been discussing extensively in this topic. Google the subject online and you can find plenty of cases of people with XY chromosomes being born as girls or XX chromosomes being born as boys.

That's kind of my point - chromosomes aren't a reliable indicator of sex. No more reliable, at least, than genitals or gonads, which are usually associated with one biological sex, but not always.

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? I wouldn't, I'd consider it outside forces interfering with an otherwise perfect score, and being struck by lighting is even more common than your chromosomes not being representative of the gonads.

The problem here is you see sex being determinant of how much of a woman she is, but it's not, she is no less a woman as chromosomes play no part in gender.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because male with XYZ female characteristics or female with ABC male characteristics is much more accurate and can provide much more helpful information.

Except it doesn't.

The woman I refer to is, for most purposes, female. The best shorthand would be calling her a woman with male chromosomes, as that more accurately describes her biology and the health issues she is most likely to face. The most accurate, if slightly more complex descriptor would be calling her intersex, then listing out her specific traits.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It also closes the door on apache-esque genders as you still only have male or female sex to reference off, not a spectrum (or simply grey area) to feed the stupidity.

Why do you consider that stupid? The "other" label is both convenient and accurate. Whether or not you want to admit to a spectrum of sexes, one exists. Spend any amount of time around intersex people and it will be pretty self-evident. In addition to the woman I've been describing, I've seen an individual (who simply identified as "intersex", not male or female) who had D-cup breasts and a ZZ-top beard. I met another who looked like a very effeminate man (and who apparently had "mostly" female genitals) - he identified as male, but had effectively never gone through puberty.

There's a lot of different "stuff" out there. For simplicity's sake, labelling it as "other", "intersex", or "sexually indeterminate" is fine. But adjl put it best: it's "a spectrum with two discrete approximations and a bunch of fringe cases that can be lumped together under "other" for most people's purposes."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

however in the rare case sex matters, she is male and this is evidenced by her infertility

Pretty bold claim to make, considering you have no idea what caused her infertility (for the record, it wasn't her chromosomes; her gonads failed to develop into testes or ovaries, and she had them removed).

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You're arbitrarily chosing the point of conception as the absolute start of deterministic systems. Under unaltered circumstances, an umdamaged egg would meet an undamaged sperm, however something lead to an outlier probability in the womb.

You've almost reached the "assuming spherical cows in a vacuum" level of theory-crafting here. This is a nice philosophical discussion, but you're reaching so far beyond the realm of reality that your point no longer has any practical application to the real world.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

By your logic we should abandon all reason because we might find a more accurate response at some time.

More that I reject your assertion that fact is "absolute" and, therefore, unchallengable. "Facts" can be refined, or outright discarded based on new information. Happens all the time.

And, again, when we get into definition we're no longer talking about "fact". We're talking about how we organize facts, which is entirely subjective.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As is chromosomes are very reliable, we can trace issues that have intercepted the chromosomes effects and confirm that a definitive other fucked up the original intent and we can cleanly label them disorders. This system is consistent, it's much more reliable than chosing 5 different causes and pointing windly in the rough area they intersect, particularly since it lumps clear illnesses with an otherwise healthy body and muddies judgement.

So call it chromosomal sex. Doctors do. It seems to work pretty well for them.
---

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.
---