In biology sex is defined as which gamete you produce. Small

>>5840054
t. Kid who failed 9th grade bio

>>5840070
do you have another definiton?

>>5840080
Sex is if you come out of the womb with xx chromosomes or xy chromosomes
IE if you have a natural vagoo or a natural weewee

>>5840054
>In biology
How things are defined in biology does not by necessity determine social ideas about gender. All else is a fallacy.

>>5840085
but there are sexual trisomies or monosomies that don't fit that system...
like turner syndrome (X), or klinefelter syndrom (XXY)

now those are sterile so the belong to "produces neither"

But there should be something like true hermaphrodites out there. For the 4. sex...

Those are my thoughts behind my original post.

>>5840093
yes. that's why I didn't use the word gender.

>>5840054
So does this mean that in countries that outlaw same-sex marriage, it would be legal for a fertile cis woman to marry an infertile cis woman?

>>5840085
>if you come out of the womb with xx chromosomes or xy chromosomes
>if you have a natural vagoo or a natural weewee
These two statements are not equivalent.

>>5840111
>Le everyone has 2 genitals at birth meme
That's why every tribal African is a herm right
Literally kill yourself, tumblrina

>>5840106
To which biology should human classification fall under.
Humans reproduce by fusing cells together.
Fungi reproduce by spores, and they have something like 20.000 sexes.

Does all mutations possible in humans require a different classification on a scale? Such as down's syndrome males, who can't reproduce?
Or is it ok to have a easy system that describes which cells are produced and how they fuse together during reproduction?

>>5840111
theoretically yes.
but judges and law enforcement are human. They might not care about textbook definitions.

Especially in countries, that don't allow same-sex-marriage...

>>5840085
you slated OP for "failing 9th grade bio" and that's your "better" explanation?

Take CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) for example.
XY, faulty AR gene on the X chromosome, external female genitalia, internal gonads are "male", ie although they're inside like ovaries, they produce sperm like testes.

OP's definition upholds. Yours falls flat on its face.

Tale XX male syndrome. XX, as the name suggests, but with accidental meiosis of the SRY gene from Y to X chromosome in father. Male genitalia, male but sterile gonads.

Your definition falls flat on its face, again. Although OP's definition doesn't seem to concur with it, the disagreement is more based on semantics and arbitrary decision-making on what defines sex, whereas your claim is false on a biological level.

>>5840120
since humans are animals, probably under the animal one.
That's another reason for the textbook definition.
Animals don't all use the XX/XY system. Birds and Snakes use ZW(female)/ZZ(male) and insects XX(female)/X(male) and many others.

But in ALL females make the big gametes and males the small mobile ones.

>>5840125
If a system ain't broke don't fixit, tranny
By that dedinition you're a man and will never not be a man

>>5840130
By OP's definition, I am a biological male. No shit.
Whether I support or contest OP's definition, that is the point.
I was contesting your assertion that XX = vagina, XY = penis, which is demonstrably false.

>>5840111
>>5840120
I should add that I don't think sterility alone count's a sex in itself. There are other reasons for that, other than just not producing gametes.
If you have been artificially sterilized, that doesn't count either, I think.

Just if you genetically are unable to produce gametes.

>>5840139
Base Rate cognitive bias
It's like rare exceptions exist for everything huh

>>5840147
they do. But should a good system not cover them too?

>>5840147
they do, but shouldn't a good system cover them too?

>>5840139
*that's not the point.

ANYWAY, OP, here's something interesting for you:
http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(09)01433-0?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867409014330%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/full/nature10239.html

this is a bit of an oversimplification on my point, but essentially by altering gene expression in postnatal mice, the gamete produced is altered in vivo, switching the mouse's biological sex (by your definition).

>>5840147
When are you going to admit that what external genitalia person develops, depends on far more than just "m-muh X and Y chromosomes"?
Regardless of whether a person's genes are functional or not, in the general population, those with XY chromosomes rely on far more than simply the XY chromosomes for the external genitalia they develop, you thick cunt.

Here, have my running master list of genes whose functionality is required for correct development of sex characteristics and the chromosomes they normally appear on. I haven't build up a list of citations yet, but google and pubmed are your friends.

SRD5A2 - chromosome 2
FOXL2 - chromosome 3
CYP21A2 - chromosome 6
DMRT1 - chromosome 9
17βHSD3 - chromosome 9
NR5A1 - chromosome 9
WT1 - chromosome 11
SF1 - chromosome 11
DHH - chromosome 12
SOX9 - chromosome 17
CBX2 - chromosome 17
AR - chromosome X
SRY - chromosome Y

As >>5840156 says, a good system should account for them too. By your definition, CAIS and XX males don't exist, because by your definition, everyone with XY chromosomes has a dick and everyone with XX chromosomes has a gash.
If people with trisomes or monosomes were the only people contesting your position I could understand, because they're not technically XX or XY, but CAIS and XX males fall within your blanket statement and ought to be accounted for.

>>5840115
Wait what? I didn't say everyone is a hermaphrodite, but it's possible for example to be born with XX chromosomes and a dick.

>>5840130
The system is broke though. If you can be an XX male with a dick, the system doesn't work.

>ITT retarded Wikipedia bio students thinking they need a new, convoluted system of sex for some reason
Lmao, quit shitting up the board

>>5840171
are you still >>5840085

pot calling the kettle black on convoluted when you can't even decide yourself whether sex chromosomes decide sex, or external genitalia do.

you want to call all XX (including XX males) female, and all XY (including CAIS) males?
go for it.

or, do you want to call everyone with a penis male, and everyone with a vagina female?
go for it.

but you can't have both definitions at once.

>>5840145
So if you are MtF and get SRS, or a eunuch you are not a new sex, nor the opposite sex but still the sex you were born as that is which gametes you produce?

>>5840164
>By your definition, CAIS and XX males don't exist, because b...

No, I'm OP, you mean the other guy.

>ANYWAY, OP, here's something interesting for you:

Yes, this is a real sex change by my definition and in my opinion.

You could take the egg cell of one of the treated XY mice fertilize it with sperm and get a new normal mouse. making the treated XY mouse its mother.

>>5840164
Oops, no sorry. You were talking about me, not to me.

>>5840085
>>5840171
>>5840180
protip: since XX males most often consider themselves men, and CAIS individuals consider themselves women, if you want your simple definition of sex, base it on (natural) external genitalia, not chromosomes.

>>5840193
aha, beat me to it.

>>5840192
well it's cool that you stay consistent by your definition, lol.

>You could take the egg cell of one of the treated XY mice fertilize it with sperm and get a new normal mouse. making the treated XY mouse its mother.

it's important to note that if you make an XY mouse produce ova, some of those ova would carry the Y chromosome.

if you make an XX mouse produce sperm, they could probably be fertile, just all of their offspring would be female if mated with a natal female mouse.

Mate an XY female (by your definition) mouse with a natal male mouse, and statistically, 25% of the offspring would be YY, hence not viable.
50% of the offspring would be "normal" inheriting the X chromosome from their mother (being the one to bear ova), and either X or Y from their father.
the remaining 25% would be... a very novel situation, and curious from a heredity point of view, since the Y chromosome is usually indicative of direct patrilineage, and mitochondria of direct matrilineage. Mitochondria are passed to offspring with the ovum, from mother to child. Y chromosomes, usually, from father to son. but a Y chromosome ovum would pass on the offspring's genetic material associated with both direct matrilineage and patrilineage.

>>5840181
Yeah. I think. I'm not too sure actually.

Transgender people are exactly that, different gender but same sex, SRS or not. (that's why it's a better word than transsexual)

The eunuch is more difficult, because he actually doesn't and never will again produce gametes. He fits the definition of what I called 1. sex. But it feels wrong to say he's no longer male.
But that's maybe just because I like to concentrate on genetics.

>>5840223
were eunuchs often castrated prior to puberty?

>>5840216
true, half the eggs would be Y.
also true, an Y-egg X-sperm baby would be a novelty.

But I'd call the egg producing one the mother.

What's your take on this?
Is a man-made sex change as applied to trans people an actual sex change?
Is anything?
Shouldn't they call the sea horse that gives birth call the female?

>>5840228
Don't know, let's say half of them were.

I wouldn't make a distinction between the two groups... I'd say both are and remain male.

However in an experiment XY mice were treated to produce female gametes (the mice remained XY).
I accept that as a real sex change.

You see the dissonance here.
I'm not sure how to treat switching from one sex to another...

>>5840237
Well it's clear that biological sex is a highly complex amalgam of different factors, and its definition honestly seems to have only one useful focal point - an individual's ability to reproduce.
In the example of gamete switching in mice then, even your definition based on gametes falls short because an XY producing ova doesn't imply a development of mullerian tissue to the point of being able to carry pregnancy.
Sure, reproduction could be carried out in vitro and the individual could be considered "fertile" that way, but taking the individual as is, they cannot reproduce without assistance, they cannot simply have children with what plumbing they have.

So there are two ways of looking at it.
Either you only count complete sex changes to make an individual conform to absolutely every single aspect of binary, functional sex, as a "sex change", in which case sex changes are a biological impossibility.

Or, you allow for the myriad of different factors that go into that binary functional sex difference to be acknowledged in their own right, with incongruities between them in regards to binary biological sex being accommodated (since you can't really ignore the existence of intersex people), and that changing any one of these factors constitutes "a" sex change, a change in some sex characteristic, without implying that a sex change needs to be complete.

>>5840054
Female and Male are the only gender famalam any other gender is a tumblr produced and wrong.

>>5840272
(cont'd)

Reproduction aside, a person's gender identity holds far more implications in how they are able to interact with others.

Since gender identity has established neurological bases, it might make more sense to view an incongruent gender identity as a form of "neurological intersex". The only differentiating factor between intersex people and those with gender dysphoria alone, is that intersex conditions either have established genotypic etiologies whilst gender dysphoria alone has at best been currently hypothesised to originate in prenatal environmental conditions.

So what I'm saying is that the question over biological sex is largely irrelevant when it comes to social interaction. The only people flying in the face of a gender binary are tumblr, whereas legitimate intersex people for the most part still identify as either male or female. And it's certainly not just a "social construct" Let's ignore the tumblr special snowflakes then.

http://www.isna.org/faq/not_eradicating_gender

>>5840281
*either have established or hypothesised genotypic etiologies.

also, just because the neurological development underlying gender dysphoria alone is hypothesised to be solely based in prenatal environmental factors, doesn't mean this is true. there could be genotypic causality but it's highly unlikely to go beyond mere risk factors, far from the distinct changes seen in intersex individuals through the alteration of a single gene alone.

>>5840272
It's very unsatisfying when definitions fall short.

You reminded me of something that I know, but like to forget... that there are no clear divisions or categories in nature. They are man-made to understand and relate.

>>5840279
No one's talking about gender here.

Read at least a post or two before you butt in.

>>5840281
Sure gender is a completely social issue.
But there are many other threads about that already...

File: my nigga.jpg (84KB, 600x769px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x769px

Great posts by sal, but is it even necessary? I mean the problem, at it's core, is confusing the role of science. Science creates models in order to better understand reality; scientific models are NOT reality and they most certainly don't DETERMINE reality. Are the more complex models sal brings up more realistic, i.e. is their explanatory and predictive power better? Yes. But in our real world of experience in which we live, that is beside the point unless we are discussing medical matters. This kind of misuse of science for transphobic purposes, really scientism, should be cut at the root.

Pic somewhat related.

>>5840308
I've began warming to your definition.
I'd make a few adjustments to it as follows.

You recommended 4 categories. Reading up on the intersex conditions that lead to ovotestes, what is apparent is that even if a person has mixed gonads, at best they will only produce one type of gamete. There is no need for a fourth category.

Whilst the type of gamete produced ought to define a person as male or female, since this is only relevant to those who are fertile in such a capacity. So if you produce sperm, it only matters if that sperm can actually be utilized through natural reproduction.

So 3 sex categories
-Fertile male
-Fertile female
-Other

Some intersex people are fertile in one capacity or another and so could be considered fertile in one of those respective categories. Eunuchs who may have been complete and congruent males at birth, would be categorised as other.
Why? Because sex is complex, it ought only be taken into account when it is relevant, ie, to reproduction. It's not relevant otherwise. A person presenting as a eunuch, here and now, cannot reproduce. It doesn't matter if they were able to in the past, what matters is their current presentation.

Of course to suggest a system like this would provoke outcry for allegedly "putting down" infertile people. No. It's merely stating the fact that they're infertile.

Like i said before, sex aside, everything else that matters reverts to gender identity. How people interact with you, and the gender marker you carry, ought to reflect that.

>>5840348
Eh, I'm trans, call me a scienismist or whatever all you like. The problem isn't with me, it's with people who bring their preconceived notions of good or bad, greater or lesser, to their own subjective understanding of scientific literature.

>>5840348
case in point: the outcry from trans activists at their being transgender being labeled a "mental disorder" only betrays their prejudices towards those who carry the label "mental disorder".
(It's a neurological, not mental, condition, but that's besides the point).

>>5840348
When transphobic people say "transgender is a mental disorder, these people need treatment as such", instead of stamping our feet and saying "we're not mentally ill", it would be far more productive to put these questions to those people:
1) How do you define mental illness?
2) What treatment for transgender patients do you suggest other than physical transition?
3) What scientific literature backs your claims up?

To date I haven't seen people who disagree with physical transition give one viable alternative. It's most often left out, most likely because their idea of "care" is throwing people in loony bins and they KNOW that's inhumane and unacceptable in this day and age. If they do suggest something, it's reparative therapy, cause faith in the Lord trumps evidence to the contrary apparently, or it's pimozide, with one weak case study and no established clinical use for trans patients.

Those people are idiots. we don't need to throw mentally ill people and their struggles under the bus to legitimise out own.

>>5840358
A 4th sex mosaic or chimera might exist...
Even if it doesn't, we'd e prepared if one shows up...

>Of course to suggest a system like this would provoke outcry for allegedly "putting down" infertile people. No. It's merely stating the fact that they're infertile.

The system is for sex anyway, it's for doctors and biologist and such.
The public will continue using their familiar gender terms, so there wouldn't be a lot of offending happening.

On the other hand it's bad when scientist and normal people speak two different languages.
Just think of the whole "theory" mixup.

>>5840422
My point is even those with gonadal mosaicism won't produce both kinds of fertile gametes, hence it would only ever be relevant to consider them one.

>Just think of the whole "theory" mixup.
yeah no shit, there was that recent anti-trans video where the guy was like "IT'S JUST A THEORY... m-muh chromosomes... muh dick"

>>5840429
oops my trip was off

>>5840358
>Eh, I'm trans, call me a scienismist or whatever all you like. The problem isn't with me, it's with people who bring their preconceived notions of good or bad, greater or lesser, to their own subjective understanding of scientific literature.

Oh sorry if I wasn't clear, I was actually supporting you. You make some good posts, I was in a thread where you dicussed Julia Serano. I distinctly remember you saying something about not wanting to argue on Internet anymore? :)

But yes, preconceived notions are always going to be a part of science I fear. Objectivity is an ideal in all sciences of course, but I believe that science does not exist in a social vacuum; it is a product of sorts, created by a specific process and it has certain goals. It can not be separated from the historical process that it is part of, or the people who do it nor the institutions in which it is performed. Scientific aims, objectives and methods are formed not only by an abstract search for “The Truth” as some kind of Platonic ideal that exists separately from the material world in which the search takes place. They are molded instead by the political, economic, social, cultural, etc. conditions that exist in society.

>>5840441
i never said i didn't WANT to argue on the internet.
i just said i realised it was a silly thing and i ought not to

but hey you know how it is, old habits die hard.

preconceived notions will never be a part of good scientific practice. they are the haunt of people with an agenda, and the sheep that follow them.
but you're correct, that does have a real impact in day-to-day life.

>>5840392
I think you're right. It's like "mental disorder" to them is just a trash bin into which they can toss what they discard - there is no understanding that even conclusive PROOF that something is a mental disorder would only be the BEGINNING. The ACTUAL issues would be treatment, etc. (Even Blanchard and his AGP-buddies, who's theories I feel are transphobic, admitted that transition hands down just works best as a form of treatment.) But that's because it's usually not actual psychologists or psychiatrists saying it, nor even concerned citizens, but trolls and transphobes who just want to insult/discredit transpeople. Like I said, it's not even a misuse of science, since it isn't science put "bullshit that sounds close enough and validates my bigotry I've done no research".

>>5840429
>even those with gonadal mosaicism won't produce both kinds of fertile gametes

They might though, right? I mean, it's extraordinarily unlikely, but not impossible.
One entire gonad with one set of genes and the other with the other, and maybe some parts of the endocrine system to create a hormon balance where both can thrive...

>>5840450
>preconceived notions will never be a part of good scientific practice
But anything else is impossible. Human beings just don't work that way; like I said we're ourselves products of our environments and upbringing. We can't just remove that because there's nothing to remove, it IS who we are. We are not capable of being 100% objective. I think it's far better to just admit it and make one's positions and intentions clear. For example, you aren't being objective either and you have a clear agenda. But your claims do not become less scientific because you admit that you're trans and have a pro-trans agenda, you just become a more honest researcher. Basically, since we can't be fully objective we should at least be honest, as far as possible, about our aims and interests.

>>5840476
guess so

>>5840462
gonadal mosaicism would be a mess, with every egg produced being self-fertilized by a sperm from the same person, within their gonads.

say if it's more clear-cut than that, that they have one ovary, one testicle.
the situation then depends on what sex organs they have, and this is assuming that they have fully developed mullerian or wolffian ducts in the first place which - if you had one testicle, one ovary - wouldn't be the case, as the hormones produced by these respective gonads drastically alter the development of such ducts.
but if we ignore that and assume that their mullerian ducts fully developed into a vagina and womb, they're in a tricky position. they could ejaculate and that sperm could be used for in vitro fertilization, but if they wanted to carry pregnancy, they would have to refrain from filling their womb with their own sperm for at least a week, avoid ejaculating themselves when copulating with a male, so that their partner's sperm could fertilise their egg and not their own.
scratch that, if they ejaculated at all, the likelihood that they would self-fertilize every single egg they produced would be astronomical.

if their wolffian ducts were fully developed, alongside a penis, then the likelihood of them ever being considered a fertile female would be practically null. the only way they could ever naturally reproduce with their eggs is through self fertilization and ejaculating the zygote into a surrogate mother.
weird.