There is literally nothing wrong with not really being a woman,

>feeling guilty about succesfully "deceiving" people
#passerproblems

>>8116171
There is literally nothing wrong with a transsexual referring to herself as a woman.

>You just don't have a female reproductive system and as such aren't really a woman.
Would you say this to a cis woman who has had a hysterectomy?

>>8117085
Would you call a man that had his testicles and penis removed a man?

>>8117202
Yes.

>>8117212
Then the OP is right.

>>8117227
I would call a cis male who does not experience gender dysphoria but whose dick fell off in a freak accident a man. A trans woman is not a man.

>>8117242
Would you consider an amab that had srs and hrt but still identified as male a man?

If so, is the only indication of gender what they tell you?

>>8117269
>Would you consider an amab that had srs and hrt but still identified as male a man?
If I didn't have any reason to believe otherwise, sure. Someone who is dfab and pre-t who identifies as a man is a man, so I don't see how this is different.

>If so, is the only indication of gender what they tell you?
Within reason. It's impossible to draw a clear dividing line between the two that would be applicable to every human on earth.

Tossing around hypotheticals and extremely rare edge cases as some kind of gotcha isn't helpful. Definitions can be flexible, but that doesn't mean they aren't real at all.

>>8117316
>pre-t who identifies as a man is a man,
What about pre hrt mtf?

The few posts in this thread show that identity is arbitrary. Biology isn't.

Trans people can identify as whatever they want. Others are still free to call it as they see it.

Personally I would respect a fully passing mtf that accepts they are just a modified male over one that thinks pills and surgery makes them a woman.


Trans people need to learn that they are only doing for themselves and most people will not respect it unless they pass.

>>8117365
>The few posts in this thread show that identity is arbitrary. Biology isn't.
It's not "biology," though. It's the label you choose. You really, really, *really* want it to be true that "man" == "was born with and still has a penis" and vice versa for "woman." That's not correct, though. There's a whole lot more to gender than just genitals, and there's literally no practical reason why we should separate people into distinct, hard-line categories based on only that. None. (Real) trans women have more in common with cis women, as a social category, than they do with cis men, and it helps literally no one to pretend that isn't true.

It's completely arbitrary, like you say--except for the fact that trans people experience dysphoria when lumped in with cis people with the same genitals, and *you* do not experience any negative consequences by referring to people as one pronoun or another.

They're doing it for themselves because the only alternative is suffering or even death.

>>8117425
There is male,female and intersex. No amount of body modification changes that. Mtfs are just biological males that have undergone modification. Why is this considered a bad thing?

Your whole argument is "but they identify as..." .

Getting cosmetic surgery to look like a Klingon would not make me one.

>>8116171
Isnt it reductive to reduce a woman (any woman) to her reproductive organs?

>>8117505
What does it mean to be a man or woman? For me ,it is just your original biological make up.

>>8117487
It's a bad thing because of the word "male." It implies they are men. Which both gives them dysphoria, and is inaccurate. They are not the same social category as men. They, after transition, don't even have the same bodies.

The instances in which it is absolutely necessary to mention their gender assignment or anatomy are not common in day to day life, and there is no reason to cause them significant physical and emotional distress because you can't let go of your webster's dictionary.

>>8117487
>There is male,female and intersex. No amount of body modification changes that. Mtfs are just biological males that have undergone modification. Why is this considered a bad thing?

Im not the anon you where replying to but, its not up to you how these people identify and trying to beat them with the biology stick wont make you right. You dont present your biology when you walk into a fucking subway, you present your gender. People arent on the lookout for your chromosomes to tell if you are a woman or a man.
This is why cis people who look just south of average (or in some cases just had short hair) got swept up in that craze about bathrooms last year.

>>8117519
>What does it mean to be a man or woman? For me ,it is just your original biological make up.

Thats fine for you. But I dont think like that. My Mom and most of my female friends dont think like that. Also, how do you check that with strangers?

>>8117575
Most trans people don't pass so they gender is based on how others perceive them.

It matters when dating.

You did not answer my question. If you don't pass,which most don't,then you get labled by others. Only passing trans will hold their identity until closer scrutiny such as medical professionals and dating.

>>8117622
If they have no reason to beleive you're trans, then you can't blame them. But if someone is at least attempting to present female and tells you they are a woman, there's no reason not to refer to them as "her."

If you don't want to date a trans person, then don't. No one is forcing you to. No, not even the blue haired fat liberal SJWs on facebook.

>>8117637
I will use pronouns. I have encountered mtfs that get pissed if they think you are not treating them like you would a female. I treat everyone the same. I have been called transphobic for not wanting to date trans people. I have also been called a chaser just for striking up conversation.

>>8117622
>Most trans people don't pass
Ok, let me stop you right there.
Thats bullshit. Most trannies dont pass to people on this board. A board full of hyper critical nutjobs.
In truth its more like 50ish to 60ish percent pass because normal people dont frequent imageboards full of trannies calling each other hons.

And you know what, yes, it does matter when dating. Not when I go to walmart.

> you get labled by others

You mean how every other human on the planet is? Your trying to make this an exclusive problem to transpeople because LOLBIOLOGY when it really fucking isnt.

>>8117692
Im not making it exclusive to trans. Others are trying to exclude trans. A big drag queen looking hon came in and got huffy at the counter when I said " what can I get for you". If pronouns was all that people wanted out of me then fine,but that is not the case.

>>8117738
Are you OP?

>>8117751
Nope.

>>8117202 this is my first post.

File: I pass like a 10-inch kidneystone.jpg (80KB, 753x571px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 753x571px

>>8116171
What about being a hon? ;-;

>>8117804
Nothing wrong with that either.

And you're not even particularly bad. /lgbt/ is fucking insane. In another thread I just encountered a perfectly passing, attractive young MtF bawl her/his eyes out over being ugly.

>>8117487
Identifying as a fictional species is an entirely different matter from identifying as a member of a human sex.

All of these comparisons people make are retarded.

>if you support gender transitioning would you let someone who identifies as a dog get surgery to look more like a dog?
>if you think I should treat transwomen as women should I treat someone who thinks they're Napoleon as Napoleon?
>if you believe transpeople should be allowed into the bathroom they identify with, then should I be allowed to tick african-american on my college application because I identify as a black person?


None of this shit is comparable to gender dysphoria. Identifying with the opposite sex from your birth sex is understandable because there's actually a roughly 50% chance you could've been born as the other sex. It's actually feasible that your brain at some point in development got a dose of the wrong hormones and was feminized while the body was masculinized, or vice versa. It is not feasible that people can get a dose of dog hormones, Napoleon hormones, or black hormones which changed their brain. Napoleon and black hormones don't even exist, and dog hormones would just be treated as human ones by your body. That's not to mention there's no way a white, human, non-Napoleon fetus could even get such hormones if they did exist. Whereas a biologically male fetus receiving female hormones is definitely possible.

>>8116171
>You can be cute, lovely, and feminine
AGP fetishist

>>8117487
That isn't how biology works trailer trash
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
>According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. “That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally,” says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.
>http://biologyclermont.info/wwwroot/courses/oldlab2/old%20m2%20geneprob.htm
>Sex (It’s a Phenotype, Not a Chromosome!)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/path.2335/abstract
Trust the academic circles, not delusional ged holders like you who think that qualifies them

>>8117085
>There is literally nothing wrong with a transsexual referring to herself as a woman.
There is, though. How obnoxious would it be towards black people if I tanned myself brown and claimed to be black? And it turns into a REAL problem when laws begin to acknowledge trans people as the sex they're claiming to be, while at the same time lifting all gatekeeping. Any random creep can claim to be trans now. Most of the AGP hons are creeps. The Swedish long-term study found violent crime inclination of MtF to be the same as males in total...

>Would you say this to a cis woman who has had a hysterectomy?
A real woman who has had a hysterectomy
- has had her uterus removed, meaning she actually had one
- still has the rest of the female reproductive system, including a real vagina and often the ovaries.

MtFs with an obsession with being a ~~real~~ woman should get counseling to have that issue fixed. It's an unhealthy fixation on wanting to be something you are not and cannot realistically become.

>>8117487
http://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/8093853/#8097939
http://archive.loveisover.me/lgbt/thread/8107329/#8107367

Reminder that this is the infamous Pedoposter. He's been lifetime banned since a raid last month and he's still trying to evade and shit up on the down low. Report him, don't give him a chance.

>>8118126
LGBP get out. You're already banned.

>>8118140
LOL, rv-chan thinks I'm Fiona and now some other people think I'm some other famous shitposter?

I don't shitpost senpai, I only speak the truth.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 2.39.18 PM.png (260KB, 1181x546px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1181x546px

>>8118126
>The Swedish long-term study found violent crime inclination of MtF to be the same as males in total...
You're liying about violent and crime rates

The author Herself says those were mostly just crimes of theft and poverty. And that everyone measured after 1989 had female rates of criminality.

So accoding to the study, every trans in the modern period is no more likely to cause crimes than cis women. You lied out of desperation and that shows how weak your argument is.

>>8118126
>How obnoxious would it be towards black people if I tanned myself brown and claimed to be black?

See >>8118073

>>8118126
>>8118144
http://transadvocate.com/fact-check-study-shows-transition-makes-trans-people-suicidal_n_15483.htm
Reminder the author of the study says you're a liar and she's also enraged at you for claiming her data says the exact opposite of what it proved.

You lost all credibility. You are likely here just to troll. Unless you explain yourself, you'll get reported.

Wow, maleterf, pedoposter, antipedoposter...the whole gang back together again.

Thanks for the thread, everyone.

>>8118157
Don't take him seriously. It's the LGBP poster, and he already BTFOed himself by quoting a study that proved trans don't have any different a crime rate than women.

>>8118171
>antipedoposter
You sure aren't that, you just used cover for that.

And you got caught in a lie. How do you explain your lie about criminality? If you lie about crime how can anybody take your apropiration of race seriously.

>>8118178
That's not me, lmao. I'm the one who posted most of the counterarguments starting with >>8117085. I'm on your side (...I think).

>>8118126
Actually though you might have been caught lying about crime rates and false claimed that trans don't have female levels of crime

But since we're talking about crime rates, is it fair to point out that according to massive longtitudinal studies, lesbians have a hugely elevated crime rate and are about as prone to violent crime and sexual abuse as men if not more? Do they deserve no rights now? Are lesbians like blackface/bestiality now?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27056045/
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

>>8118144
You refused to explain yourself when you were caught lying. You just dump fake stuff and run. That proves you ARE a troll.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-16 at 2.47.29 PM.png (175KB, 1210x364px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1210x364px

>>8118126
Crime rate is no higher than women for anyone in the modern age. Also, most of the arrests were for vagrancy, petty theft and panhandling and other hobo stuff.

>>8118152
That screencap is basically a bunch of conjecture. By the author of the study, but regardless.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
>Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.

Also,
>So accoding to the study, every trans in the modern period is no more likely to cause crimes than cis women.
LOL no, this is utter bullshit. First of all, we're talking about a Swedish study. Sweden is one of the most progressive and non-violent countries on Earth. Even if their treatment of trans improved to the point of making sure they drop their male violence during the time they get counseling, we don't know how it's going to be in, say, the US.

Just check out the amounts of violent crime committed by MtFs in the US in 2016 alone:
https://allisonslaw.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/2016-not-over-yet-and-have-21-transwomen-convicted-or-accused-of-committing-violent-or-sexual-crimes-thats-transwomen-no-cross-dressers-included-fucking-hell-trans-community/

>>8118157
Rachel Dolezal is a real person, you know. "Trans black" is not an invention. It's real, and vehemently rejected by the black community.

>>8118167
>literally The TransAdvocate
>reliable source on trans data
Pick one.

>>8118197
>>8118202
>>8118228
>Y-YOU'RE LYING, LIAR!!!
Wow holy shit, stop being so dramatic will you?

Let me repeat:
>This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.

That's the words of the same person you're quoting. She only chickened out and tried to explain it away within the interview with that deranged dude who runs the TransAdvocate.

>>8118250
>this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.
It proves you're lying and anyone in the modern world has female criminality rates.

Cecilia Dhejne, was the author of that TA article. You deny her words just because she's mad at you?
So you admit the author says you're wrong but continue lying and pushing what her study proves wrong?
>https://allisonslaw.wordpress.co
A blog by the alt right isn't reliable

>>8118250
>>8118250
>>This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality
>this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.
>As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

Do you realize it proves you wrong about every trans that exists in the present?

>>8118274
>It proves [any trans] in the modern world has female criminality rates.
No, it doesn't prove this. Are you an idiot? I just responded to this idiotic claim above.

>>8118287
No you fucking idiot, learn to read before sending 10 posts in a row repeating the same deluded shit:
>>8118250
>LOL no, this is utter bullshit. First of all, we're talking about a Swedish study. Sweden is one of the most progressive and non-violent countries on Earth. Even if their treatment of trans improved to the point of making sure they drop their male violence during the time they get counseling, we don't know how it's going to be in, say, the US.
>Just check out the amounts of violent crime committed by MtFs in the US in 2016 alone:
>https://allisonslaw.wordpress.com/2016/11/17/2016-not-over-yet-and-have-21-transwomen-convicted-or-accused-of-committing-violent-or-sexual-crimes-thats-transwomen-no-cross-dressers-included-fucking-hell-trans-community/

Jesus Christ /lgbt/ trannies are impossible to have a proper discussion with.

>>8118250
>LOL no, this is utter bullshit. First of all, we're talking about a Swedish study. Sweden is one of the most progressive and non-violent countries on Earth. Even if their treatment of trans improved to the point of making sure they drop their male violence during the time they get counseling, we don't know how it's going to be in, say, the US.
So in otherwords, the study proved trans who transitioned after 1989 are no more violent than women. But you say it doesn't count because you don't like it.

What about lesbians, there are very large modern studyies saying they're more violent than men, are they bad people now? menhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27056045/
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

>>8118297
>No, it doesn't prove this.
It does acording to their author. Everyone in the 1989 onward transition cohort had female levels of criminality. It's been proven.
>>https://allisonslaw.wordpress.co
You site a fringe blog with mostly made up studies. What about the massive studies proving that lesbians are more violent and crime prone than men. Aren't those damning?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27056045/
https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

>>8118297
>Jesus Christ /lgbt/ trannies are impossible to have a proper discussion with.
Because Cecilia Dhejne and her study proved you wrong. Most who got SRS in 1978 are dead. And everyone from 1989 onward which is nearly all trannies, was no more violent or prone to arrests than women. You say she lied or it doesn't count.

>>8118301
>So in otherwords, the study proved trans who transitioned after 1989 are no more violent than women.
The study proved only, and ONLY the following:

In Sweden, a specific group of transsexuals who underwent SRS between the years of 1989 and 2003, and were being actively monitored for the purposes of the study, had the same violent crime rates as the general population of Swedish women.

That's it.

At the same time, the study proves that a different group of transsexuals had male levels of violent criminality.

It is the author's CONJECTURE that this is because trans care has gotten better. There is no proven explanation of it.

>>8118316
>You site a fringe blog with mostly made up studies.
Those aren't studies, they're news reports.

>WHAT ABOUT LESBIANS?? WHAT ABOUT LESBIANS??
Can you not divert the topic? We're talking about transsexuals, not lesbians. Didn't you just accuse ME of arguing dishonestly?

File: image.jpg (83KB, 540x762px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 540x762px

>>8118297
>>8118144
Honestly I think you're wrong. Not only did the study contradict you and not only did you have to rely on some funny business when it showed at anything close to the present -what really matters- trans peaceful and law abiding, but when it's pointed out, you get mad and claim the study and author's own words don't count.

It seems like you don't have any good to add. Worse yet, you're making insane blackface comparisons to a disease that kills people. And that really annoys me.

I've said nasty stuff before and it hurts all the trans over here. I feel bad about it and want to stop.

You don't seem to understand how insane stuff like denigrating medical diseases is. Or how you're now trying to deny truth with shady blogs.

You seem a lot like how Cara used to be. And the fact you stalked or harassed a girl in the past just makes that paralle worse. I don't think you should preach morality. You should step back, see you're being irrational and hurting people with nonsence.

>>8118373
And the study proves that anyone who trantioned 1989 onwards had female rates of criminality. In other words nearly all transexuals in existence today.

So in other words, it proves that mtfs are no more dangerous than women.

File: 1462309615205.png (990KB, 1500x3500px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1500x3500px

>>8118250
>Rachel Dolezal is a real person, you know. "Trans black" is not an invention. It's real, and vehemently rejected by the black community.

She's a real person, yes. There are also real people who think they're the reincarnation of historical figures or who identify as non-human animals. It doesn't mean their identities are legitimate. As explained it's a totally different beast than gender identity. The brains of transgender people are proven to be closer to that of their preferred sex than their assigned one. I haven't seen any proof that Dolezal has a brain like a black person or that the Lizardman has a brain like a reptile.

>>8118452
It's the comparing medical conditions like BBD/GD/ana to joke nonsence like pol does that honestly angers me. People die and people suffer from those without treatment. They are serious medical conditions with a terrible prognosis unless treated.

>>8118408
>the study proves that anyone who trantioned 1989 onwards had female rates of criminality
No you absolute fucking moron. Are you illiterate JESUS CHRIST I'M RAGING READ THE FUCKING POSTS IN THE THREAD AURGH:
>>8118373

>>8118401
>the study contradicted you
Not if you read my posts.

>>8118401
I think you should get psychiatric care. Not a joke. You evidently have issues with straightforward reasoning. Not sure if you're the same as the poster I've been yelling to (which should not be taken too seriously I should add), but seriously, you're obviously not sound. Get some therapy FFS.

>>8118452
>The brains of transgender people are proven to be closer to that of their preferred sex
This is a half-truth and the same thing holds for homosexual people. So are gay men women now?

Can you provide me a coherent (non-circular) definition of the word "woman" that includes MtFs? If you do, we can have a meaningful discussion on the merits and demerits of that definition.

>>8118500
>No you absolute fucking moron. Are you illiterate JESUS CHRIST I'M RAGING READ THE FUCKING POSTS IN THE THREAD AURGH:
The study proved that all of the cohort from 1989 onward were statistically identical to female controls in terms of violence or crime.

>>8118500
>Get some therapy FFS
...What?

>This is a half-truth and the same thing holds for homosexual people.
That correlation only holds for males with high 2d:4d ratios, and by that point you're getting into stuff like femgen where it's muddled.
>You evidently have issues with straightforward reasoning
You compare well known diseases like BDD/Ana/GD to blackface. That's bullshit acording to medine and people die from those without treatment.

And you are a lot like Cara was. You just have no insight.

>>8118500
>Can you provide me a coherent (non-circular) definition of the word "woman" that includes MtFs?
I think it's an aggregate of phenotype traits, that's how we can count intersex as women too. People who have medically transitioned and who pass probably count as women.

>>8118541
>>8118500

Sorry, I'm coming off insane again. You aren't hurting anyone right now and you're trying to do good.

But your good is nonsence mockery of deadly medical conditions and distorting stuff that proves you wrong. You aren't actually doing right now, step back and look please.

>>8118511
Which is a specific set of Swedith transsexuals who were being monitored for the purposes of the study, as I said.

You said ALL TRANS PEOPLE after 1989, which is obviously wrong.

>>8118541
>That correlation only holds for males with high 2d:4d ratios, and by that point you're getting into stuff like femgen where it's muddled.
So are these men with "female brains" women, even when they identify as men?

>You compare well known diseases like BDD/Ana/GD to blackface.
This is nonsense and I responded to it before.

Having a mental disorder that makes one want to mutilate one's body is not like blackface.

Imitating the stereotypical image of women, wearing dresses, makeup, high-heels, etc., then saying "look at me I'm a woman uguu~" is akin to blackface.

>>8118560
Well that's not a very clear definition, if it is one at all...
E.g. what's with the "probably". Are passing MtFs women or not? Any other conditions, other than passing?

>>8118632
>nonsence mockery of deadly medical conditions
I don't think that AGP is a deadly medical condition. I don't think that e.g. Bruce Jenner, Frank Maloney, or Jonathan Willoughby had a deadly medical condition that made them decide to become Caitlyn, Kelly, and India. I don't think it's because of a deadly medical condition that Dave Muscato calls himself Danielle and tells women to suck his dick if they can't accept that "some women just have penises." I don't think it's a deadly medical condition that makes the author of AssignedMale draw a borderline pedo-AGP web comic in which children speak of how they pee out of their clitorises and how their penis is a girl's penis.

>distorting stuff that proves you wrong
I've written in detail about the results of the study, the author's conjecture, and implications for other countries above.

>>8118698
>So are these men with "female brains" women, even when they identify as men?
Yes but that's like femgen where they want things like blockers or HRT and only feel comfortable looking fem.
>Having a mental disorder that makes one want to mutilate one's body is not like blackface.
That is what you said, you never gave any qualifiers. If you knew what I've said, you know I wouldn't care with the later but all you've been doing is mocking people with diseases.

>don't think that AGP is a deadly medical condition.
I think you should stop projecting your own lusts on everyone here. I've already said I hate those people. But you're here mocking everyone and claming diseases are blackface. That ruins your credibility.

You should see just how much everyone here suffers. You're projecting your lusts just like Muscato and all those others do onto us and that's disgusting.
>>8118698
>Having a mental disorder that makes one want to mutilate one's body is not like blackface.
It's medical treatments. Using /pol/ rhetoric while mocking people who are sick disgusts me. You're an agp with dirty hands, you have no moral high ground.

>>8118500
Transwomen are women because they have significantly feminized brains. If you do not believe this to be true, then it means one of two things: One, that the brains of transwomen are not significantly feminized, which is objectively wrong. Or two, that someone's brain and internal sense of self do not decide who they are, but rather their DNA and genitals.

If you believe that transwomen are not women because they have male genitals, and current SRS options don't change that enough, then ask yourself this. If, in theory, we developed a procedure that could give transwomen genitals that are 100% identical to cis women, would you then call them women, or is that not enough? Do you think DNA and chromosomes must be changed too? Then, if we could change them, would transwomen be women? If we changed everything about a transwomen so that no scientist could ever tell the difference between her and a cis women, are they now officially women? If not, then what is there that has to be changed?

Now, let's gone on to why deciding that DNA, chromosomes, and genitals are what defines a person identity more than anything is ridiculous. Do you believe that two identical male twins are the same person? They have exactly the same dna, chromosomes, and genitals. What exactly makes them different? Evidently personality and memoru doesn't matter, so what else is there to differentiate them? If they are the same person, then what would happen if I did those theoretical procedures I talked about earlier on one of the twins? Changing their DNA and chromosomes, genitals, etc. Are they now different people? Have I created a new person?

This is why these arguments are retarded. What defines a person, more than anything else, is their brain. Their memories, their personality, the way they think. If a transwoman has the personality of a woman, thinks like a woman, and has many memories than women have, then how are they not a woman?

>>8118757
>Do you think DNA and chromosomes must be changed too?
Chromosomes are actually medically irrelevant to sex
http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
>According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance. In 2009, researchers reported deactivating an ovarian gene called Foxl2 in adult female mice; they found that the granulosa cells that support the development of eggs transformed into Sertoli cells, which support sperm development. Two years later, a separate team showed the opposite: that inactivating a gene called Dmrt1 could turn adult testicular cells into ovarian ones. “That was the big shock, the fact that it was going on post-natally,” says Vincent Harley, a geneticist who studies gonad development at the MIMR-PHI Institute for Medical Research in Melbourne.
>http://biologyclermont.info/wwwroot/courses/oldlab2/old%20m2%20geneprob.htm
>Sex (It’s a Phenotype, Not a Chromosome!)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/path.2335/abstract

All the genes controlling sex are universal to men and women and them getting switched on and off is all that matters.

>>8118749
>Yes but that's like femgen where they want things like blockers or HRT and only feel comfortable looking fem.
This seems inaccurate. Studies on gay men in general, not people who desire HRT, found their SDN/INAH3 to be female-sized.

>That is what you said, you never gave any qualifiers.
What exactly have I said?

>I think you should stop projecting your own lusts on everyone here.
>You're projecting your lusts just like Muscato
>Using /pol/ rhetoric while mocking people who are sick
>You're an agp with dirty hands
You're doing *it* again, senpai.

>>8118757
>Transwomen are women because they have significantly feminized brains.
You need to cherry-pick studies to support that claim. Others dispute it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21467211
>The present data do not support the notion that brains of MtF-TR are feminized.

But yes, even if MtF brains were "feminized" in the sense that they're closer to female-average size/whatever in certain parts, that wouldn't justify calling them "female brains" any more than it makes sense to say a 5'0" male has "female height".

>If, in theory, we developed a procedure that could give transwomen genitals that are 100% identical to cis women, would you then call them women, or is that not enough?
If we had alien technology that literally changes your sex (say we grow brainless human bodies in lab tubes then transplant the brain into them), then it would make sense to say that people "become" women through such procedures, though there would still be a significant distinction to be made between men who become women, and women who are born woman.

But that's all kind of a derailment of the topic, as we don't have such technology.

>Evidently personality and memoru doesn't matter
Except that this is exactly it. Being born female entails with it material living conditions and experiences with no person born male will ever or could ever experience.

>If a transwoman has the personality of a woman,
What is a "woman's personality"? There is no such thing. The personality of someone who is a woman is automatically a woman's personality; the personality of someone who isn't a woman isn't. The other way to approach this -- to say that some personalities are "woman" personalities, sounds like sexist stereotyping.

>thinks like a woman
More sexist stereotyping.

>and has many memories that women have
A man cannot have memories of being treated like a female child by everyone, of menstruating, of becoming pregnant, or of childbirth, etc. These are the only "women's memories".

>>8118934
>These are the only "women's memories".
I had to cut short because of the 2k limit.
Likewise, a woman cannot have a memory of impregnating someone.

Memories relating to one's sexual anatomy are the only memories that are ... limited by sex (duh). All other memories, both a woman and a man can have.

>>8118934
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21467211

Interesting, but a single study on 23 transbians, and only transbians, hardly disproves the trend shown earlier with multiple sources. That's cherrypicking far harder than anything I've done.

>But yes, even if MtF brains were "feminized" in the sense that they're closer to female-average size/whatever in certain parts, that wouldn't justify calling them "female brains" any more than it makes sense to say a 5'0" male has "female height".

But that is a female height. It's not to say that he's female, but such a short height is definitely a feminine trait, and your brain defines you far more than your height does.

>If we had alien technology that literally changes your sex (say we grow brainless human bodies in lab tubes then transplant the brain into them), then it would make sense to say that people "become" women through such procedures, though there would still be a significant distinction to be made between men who become women, and women who are born woman.

So physical bodies are literally the only difference between men and women? Why? For most other things people are defined by their brains, not their bodies. Why should gender be different?

>Being born female entails with it material living conditions and experiences with no person born male will ever or could ever experience.

Maybe, but extremely early transitioners can have memories more or less the same as their cis counterparts. Even later transitioners will have female memories that no cis man will have, though, like wearing women's clothing in public, being treated as a woman as an adult, etc.

>What is a "woman's personality"? There is no such thing.

Personality may have been too broad of a word, but if you don't believe men and women in general act differently you're out of your mind. Obviously not every woman will act the same, nor will every man, but there are definitely personality traits that are more common in women or men.

>>8118934
>>8118967
>>8119088


>More sexist stereotyping.

But women and men obviously think differently. If they don't, then explain why there are even sexually dimorphic areas in the brain.

>A man cannot have memories of being treated like a female child by everyone, of menstruating, of becoming pregnant, or of childbirth, etc

Not all cis women have those memories either, though.

>Likewise, a woman cannot have a memory of impregnating someone.

Not all men have that memory either, though.

>Memories relating to one's sexual anatomy are the only memories that are ... limited by sex (duh). All other memories, both a woman and a man can have.

Really? Evidently being treated as a female in adolescence is a female memory according to you, yet being treated as a female in adulthood isn't?

>>8118115
>blah blah blah in mice
Who cares? In a few years humans will have technology to do the same thing, make either sperm or egg cells from any person regardless of sex. But even that doesn't matter.

At the end of the day it will be only born females who have the womb necessary to incubate young. All female privilege and the female station in life revolves around having the valuable and indispensable womb.

>but hysterectomies
Tiny minority of women who are viewed with great pity as having lost their key value. Until it can be proven with science that transgenderism is a congenital birth defect it should be billed as a transhumanist movement or a gender abolition / men's rights social paradigm shift

>>8119088
>single study on 23 transbians, and only transbians, hardly disproves the tren
Worse yet they're over 50 and had not trantioned. They're almost certainly Cis men.

>>8118126
>>8118152
>every trans in the modern period is no more likely to cause crimes than cis women.
Is this accounting for the fact that cis women are far more likely to commit crimes which go unrecorded?

>>8116171

Au contraire, mon frere. """""Real""""" women we are.

It's a sign of the infection of secularism and materialism that most people have forgotten the most basic rules of reality.

You don't have a soul. You have a body. You ~are~ a soul. And that soul is female.

>>8119088
>only transbians
Which proves a distinction between HSTS and AGP.

Did you know that some trans studies specifically choose only HSTS for their study?

>But that is a female height.
That's bollocks. Just because a certain height occurs more frequently in women and rarely in men doesn't make it "female". That's just enforcing a binary where there is none. Where there is a binary is, for example: whether you have the gene SRY or don't, whether you have testes or ovaries, whether you have a clitoris or a penis. (A micropenis is still a penis, and an enlargened clitoris is still a clitoris. A penis has the urethra go through it, a clitoris does not.)

>So physical bodies are literally the only difference between men and women?
Intrinsically, yes. Everything else that sets women and men apart comes from life experiences caused by living in those bodies.

>Why?
Because that's a clear biological distinction of mammals into two discrete sexes, whereas things like height, brain size, etc. are spectra along which women and men have different, but significantly overlapping, distributions.

>For most other things people are defined by their brains
The brain is not a sex organ. Also, speaking politically, race and class aren't decided by one's brain either.

>extremely early transitioners can have memories more or less the same as their cis counterparts
They still cannot have experiences intrinsically tied to being female, like menstruating or getting pregnant. At most, they can get parts of the societal treatment females get.

>Even later transitioners will have female memories
No he won't. Only if he passes, he will have a very limited part of what female people experience.

>if you don't believe men and women in general act differently you're out of your mind
To claim this to be an intrinsic part of their nature, rather than the effect of having the bodies they have, is called biological essentialism, and is a form of sexism.

>>8123363
>whether you have a clitoris or a penis. (A micropenis is still a penis, and an enlargened clitoris is still a clitoris. A penis has the urethra go through it, a clitoris does not.)
What about when the urethra is places in an unusual position on the penis/clitoris or only partially runs through the penis/clitoris?

>inb4 intersex
That's admitting it's not a binary.

>>8119098
>women and men obviously think differently
Citation needed.

>explain why there are even sexually dimorphic areas in the brain
It controls which sex you find attractive. Which still isn't absolute because bisexual and homosexual people exist.
Otherwise, it *may* (proof lacking) e.g. give men better eye-hand coordination because they evolved to hunt.

>Not all [women] have those memories either, though.
Women at most lack one or two aspects of the whole package, whereas men can get at most one or two aspects of the whole package. Think inverse bell curve.

>Not all men have that memory either, though.
Then he, individually, lacks that particular male-only memory. He still has the ability to have it, whereas women categorically don't. Because it's a memory exclusive to one sex.

>Evidently being treated as a female in adolescence is a female memory according to you, yet being treated as a female in adulthood isn't?
As stated above, one can at most get a small part of the experiences that normally the other sex has; in particular, experiences that are related to how people perceive you, because people can be deceived. This is only one aspect from *many* of the experiences of female-born people.

>>8119369
>Worse yet they're over 50 and had not trantioned.
The brain-sex theory claims that the brain differences are innate, not a result of HRT.
If they're a result of HRT, that only further undermines the claim that trans people are intrinsically the sex they believe themselves to be.

>>8121031
>believing in souls
As expected from the religion of gender identity.

>>8123374
>What about when the urethra is places in an unusual position on the [penis] or only partially runs through the [penis]?
It's still positioned on / runs through the penis.

>intersex
Trans aren't intersex. And intersex doesn't negate the sex binary. Intersex people have a mix-up of the traits of the *TWO* sexes, and this is a pathological condition.

>>8123363
>Where there is a binary is, for example: [list of sex traits which don't always correlate]
>brain size, etc. are spectra along which women and men have different, but significantly overlapping, distributions.
Brain traits correlate with sex the same way genital traits, hormones, testes/ovaries do.

In both cases, there is a correlation, and average, and many exceptions.

>>8123405
>Brain traits correlate with sex the same way genital traits, hormones, testes/ovaries do.
This is incoherent because your sex is determined by your genes, gonads, hormones, and reproductive organs. You cannot say these "correlate" with sex when sex is *defined* by these traits.

Height, size of parts of the brain, pitch of one's voice, etc. correlate with sex.

>>8123392
>Citation needed.

If men and women don't think differently, then why do women and men have statistical divergence for things like political views, religion, hobbies and interests, etc? Obviously to some extent women and men have different thought processes.

>It controls which sex you find attractive. Which still isn't absolute because bisexual and homosexual people exist.
Then why do homosexual people not have all the dimorphic brain traits of their non-birth sex, only some? Whereas trans people have many more.

>Women at most lack one or two aspects of the whole package, whereas men can get at most one or two aspects of the whole package. Think inverse bell curve.

Really? You think there aren't any women who experience a lack of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth? Because, at least to my knowledge, medical conditions that prevent menstruation also make pregnancy, and by extrension childbirth, impossible.

>Then he, individually, lacks that particular male-only memory. He still has the ability to have it, whereas women categorically don't. Because it's a memory exclusive to one sex.
A transwomen doesn't have to ability to get a memory of impregnating someone when they've gone infertile from months of female hormones.

>>8123431
>your sex is determined by your genes, gonads, hormones, and reproductive organs
GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL THAT NONE OF THESE HAVE TOTAL CORRELATION.

>>8123363
>That's bollocks. Just because a certain height occurs more frequently in women and rarely in men doesn't make it "female". That's just enforcing a binary where there is none.
Being short, especially that short, is a feminine trait. Now, the man is question is not a woman because he has many other masculine traits that make up for it. It doesn't mean his height isn't feminine, though.

>Where there is a binary is, for example: whether you have the gene SRY or don't, whether you have testes or ovaries, whether you have a clitoris or a penis. (A micropenis is still a penis, and an enlargened clitoris is still a clitoris. A penis has the urethra go through it, a clitoris does not.)
Explain this, then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypospadias
According to you, their penis is a clitoris because it does not have a urethra traveling through it. And you claimed a clitoris is a female only trait in a male/female binary. Yet people with this condition also have testicles, which you claimed are a male only trait.

>Intrinsically, yes. Everything else that sets women and men apart comes from life experiences caused by living in those bodies.
Then why was David Reimer mentally different from cis girls, and identified as a man, despite being raised in a girl's body?

>Because that's a clear biological distinction of mammals into two discrete sexes, whereas things like height, brain size, etc. are spectra along which women and men have different, but significantly overlapping, distributions.
Genitals are just as much a spectrum as height or brains.

>The brain is not a sex organ. Also, speaking politically, race and class aren't decided by one's brain either.
Fair enough. But from my point of view, a person is their brain, They are not their bodies. Therefore, a person with a feminine brain is a woman.

>They still cannot have experiences intrinsically tied to being female, like menstruating or getting pregnant.
But not all cis women have that either.

>>8123363
>To claim this to be an intrinsic part of their nature, rather than the effect of having the bodies they have, is called biological essentialism, and is a form of sexism.

I fail to see how having a female body makes a woman more likely to have certain political beliefs (when the beliefs aren't related to gender politics) or more likely to enjoy a certain book or movie.

>>8123363
>whether you have testes or ovaries
So people with both or neither...?

>>8123462
>If men and women don't think differently, then why do they have divergence for political views, religion, hobbies and interests, etc?
Sure, but are you implying this is intrinsic and natural for the sexes? Because the effect of gendered socialization is immense. Society dictates from the get-go what hobbies and interests we're supposed to have based on our sex; political and religious views are strongly affected by sexism present in certain politics and religions as well as religion-related movements (e.g. misogyny in atheist communities).

>why do homosexuals not have all the dimorphic brain traits of their non-birth sex, only some? Whereas trans people have many more.
Citation on trans people having many more, when controlled for sexual orientation?
E.g. if you cite a study, it *must* be one that explicitly controlled against homosexuals.

>Really? You think there aren't any women who experience a lack of menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth?
Sure, if we consider each of those individual "aspects" then you've successfully counted three aspects of being female which a small subset of women lack. The "one or two" wasn't meant literally, to be clear. They still experience having female phenotype from birth and being treated by society as such (the latter entailing a ton of details).

If you want, draw a spectrum from fully female to fully male; some people who are born female will lean towards the middle say because they're born infertile and don't menstruate, and some people born male will lean towards the middle say because they transitioned in childhood and were treated female starting from age 8. Now you have a tiny minority of females and a tiny minority of males whose experiences are quite similar to each other and who therefore both lean towards or fall into the middle of the spectrum. Meanwhile, the rest of MtF are still significantly on the male side, and the rest of women on the female side. So "transwomen are women" continues to be bullshit.

>>8123468
Intersex != trans.
Calm your feminine penis.

>>8123495
>Being short, especially that short, is a feminine trait.
Feminine, not female. Sex != sex stereotype.

>what about hypospadias
Only in penoscrotal hypospadias does the urethra avoid going through the main body of the penis, and the urethra going through it was literally just one example of what sets a penis apart from a clitoris. Are you saying that the penis of a person with penoscrotal hypospadias is a clitoris?

>According to you, their penis is a clitoris because it does not have a urethra traveling through it.
>According to you
Lrn2read senpai.

>why was David Reimer mentally different from [girls]
Because he did not have the experience of a girl.

>a urologist performed the operation using the unconventional method of cauterization,[4]:11–13[6] but the procedure did not go as doctors had planned, and Bruce's penis was burned beyond surgical repair

>Reimer said that Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections".

>By the age of 13, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression, and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see John Money again. Finally on March 14, 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment, following advice from Reimer's endocrinologist and psychiatrist. At 14, having been informed of his past by his father, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David.

>>8118250
I have no problem with "trans-black", if a white woman wants to be a sista I welcome her with open arms.

>>8123495
>Genitals are just as much a spectrum as height or brains.
Incorrect, as genitals are binary with very rare conditions that give a child genitals that look truly ambiguous (rather than just being a small penis or large clitoris). Although one *could* say it's an inverse bell curve, and as such a spectrum of sorts. Not comparable to height or brain size though.

>But from my point of view, a person is their brain, They are not their bodies. Therefore, a person with a feminine brain is a woman.
And how do you define a "feminine brain" exactly? What study has found a part of the brain that is one shape in all men and trans-identifying women, and another shape in all women and trans-identifying men, without the effect of HRT?

>>8123503
>I fail to see how having a female body makes a woman more likely to have certain political beliefs
- Abortion rights.
- Facing misogyny and therefore being more likely to avoid books and movies that are misogynist.

>>8123505
Intersex != trans.
Is there actually an intersex condition where one has both?

BTW
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010465
78% of genetically and hormonally male children, who were raised female due to genital defects, were fine living as women.
Why didn't they all feel debilitating gender dysphoria from being raised as a member of the wrong sex and being misgendered all their lives?

>>8123546
>Are you saying that the penis of a person with penoscrotal hypospadias is a clitoris?
No, I'm saying that's what you said.

>A penis has the urethra go through it, a clitoris does not.
It's literally what you said. A penis has a urethra going through it. Men with severe hypospadias have shafts which do not have urethra going through them. Thus, they don't have penises. But penises are a trait of male genitalia. Therefore, men with hypospadias have genitalia that are neither entirely male nor entirely female (given the testicles). The point is that the masculinity and femininity of sex organs is a spectrum, just like height or brain dimensions.

>Feminine, not female. Sex != sex stereotype.
You're failing to understand the point. There are NO absolute binaries in sex characteristics. Not in chromosomes, not in genitals, not in brains, not in bodies. There is not a single trait in humans which 100% correlates with a person's sex.

>b-but their intersex so they don't count
Why? And even if they didn't, whose to say being trans isn't, in fact, an intersex condition? It's what some doctors have theorized, anyways.

>>8123546
>a urologist performed the operation using the unconventional method of cauterization,[4]:11–13[6] but the procedure did not go as doctors had planned, and Bruce's penis was burned beyond surgical repair
And he was given a vagina before he had the ability to form memories. As far as David knew for much of his life, he was born a girl.

>Reimer said that Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections".

And there aren't cis women who have been sexually abused?

>By the age of 13, Reimer was experiencing suicidal depression, and he told his parents he would take his own life if they made him see John Money again. Finally on March 14, 1980, Reimer's parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment, following advice from Reimer's endocrinologist and psychiatrist. At 14, having been informed of his past by his father, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David.

Reimer had the brain of a dude forced to live in the body of a girl. It made him unhappy and depressed, and he was GNC even as a kid. And no, it's not the fault of Money's sex experiments, Reimer had GNC experiences before they started, and it's the reason reason Money even did them in the first place, because he believed they would fix Reimer's GNC traits.

Reimer had a male brain in a female body. Because of this he had problems socializing as a female, was uncomfortable with his female body and female puberty, and identified with a man. Reimer is the same as any trans person, he just happened to be born cis.

>>8123577
>Incorrect, as genitals are binary with very rare conditions that give a child genitals that look truly ambiguous (rather than just being a small penis or large clitoris).
Intersex people are more common than trans people. Rarity is not an argument.

>Not comparable to height or brain size though.
Why?

>And how do you define a "feminine brain" exactly?
A brain that is closer to a standard female brain that a standard male brain.

>What study has found a part of the brain that is one shape in all men and trans-identifying women, and another shape in all women and trans-identifying men, without the effect of HRT?
Why does it have to be a specific part for everyone? Learn how aggregates work. Anyways, just look at some of the sources I posted earlier.

> Abortion rights.
Directly tied to sex/gender.
> Facing misogyny and therefore being more likely to avoid books and movies that are misogynist.
Fifty Shades of Grey is quite misogynist.

>>8123599
>I'm going to take what you said 100% literally and absolutely so it looks like I have a point.
I'm disinterested in dropping to this level of intellectual dishonesty.

>There are NO absolute binaries in sex characteristics.
Yes, there are. The SRY gene, gonads, hormone levels, and reproductive organs (ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina, clitoris, labia; enlargened prostate, seminal vesicle, scrotum, penis). In ~99% of the human population, these traits are divided in two perfectly separate categories with no overlap. In an extreme minority of cases, referred to as "intersex conditions" or "disorders of sexual development" in medical language, these traits erroneously mix up.

This is unlike traits such as height, sizes of portions of the brain, voice frequency, and so on, which are spectra with normal overlap, though the overlap can be small in some.

>There is not a single trait in humans which 100% correlates with a person's sex.
You're still basing your argument on a void definition of "sex". Sex is *defined* by the aspects I listed above. You're basing it on some hypothetical or theorized aspect of the human brain which likely has significant overlap, and whose material effect on the person's life lacks any scientific evaluation. Unless you finally provide us a citation for the claim that there's a clear sexual dimorphism in the human brain where trans people clearly have the brain of the other sex?

>"[they're] intersex so they don't count"
This is a straw man argument. I said intersex and trans aren't the same thing. Most trans people are unambiguously one sex, without having an intersex condition. Whether a certain intersex person can be considered one or the other sex, or both, or neither, is a separate discussion from whether a non-intersex person can claim to be the other sex.

>>8123663
>Yes, there are [absolute binaries]
>In ~99% of the human population,
What kind of retard lies and then exposes her lie in the next sentence?

>>8123615
>And he was given a vagina before he had the ability to form memories. As far as David knew for much of his life, he was born a girl.
We don't know the details of his upbringing and cannot assume that the parents and other relatives did a 100% job in convincing him that he was a normal girl.

Secondly, he decided to identify as a man after he was thought he was born male.

>Reimer had the brain of a dude
Two citations needed: that there is a thing such as a "male brain", and that Reimer had it.

>Reimer had a male brain in a female body
His body was not female; it was a butchered male body.

>when Dr. Money started pressuring the family to bring him in for surgery during which a vagina would be constructed, the family discontinued the follow-up visits. From 22 months into his teenaged years, Reimer urinated through a hole that surgeons had placed in the abdomen.

I've also linked a study (though the abstract doesn't mention the relevant part; I'm trying to upload a document in which the relevant part is mentioned) that shows that up to a whopping 78% of males raised as girls are fine with it.

>>8123638
>Intersex people are more common than trans people. Rarity is not an argument.
Rarity is an argument when you claim something to simply be a spectrum. At best, it's an extreme inverse bell curve where the middle parts of the spectrum are barely populated at all.

>Why [not comparable to height or brain size]?
Because in those cases we have a double-bell-curve with significant overlap rather than an inverse bell curve.

>A brain that is closer to a standard female brain that a standard male brain.
So let's say I'm a 100% normal male in every way and don't identify as trans or anything, but it's found out that my brain is "feminine" according to your standards. Does that make me a woman?

>just look at some of the sources I posted earlier.
Can you provide the sources again?

>>8123615
>And he was given a vagina before he had the ability to form memories.
>before he had the ability to form memories.
[citation needed]

>>8123638
>> Abortion rights.
>Directly tied to sex/gender.
Yes, and?
>> Facing misogyny and therefore being more likely to avoid books and movies that are misogynist.
>Fifty Shades of Grey is quite misogynist.
Yes, and? I didn't say all women would avoid all misogynist media. I said it affects their preferences.

>>8123683
You've taken two phrases out of context and pretend they refer to the same thing when in fact they refer to two different things.
Whether you have the SRY gene or not is an ABSOLUTE BINARY. You cannot have half an SRY gene. Now read what the ~99% clause was referring to, then go into the corner and sit there in shame.

>>8123702
>Whether you have the SRY gene or not is an ABSOLUTE BINARY. You cannot have half an SRY gene.
Except no that was their context. Don't they teach you how to read or remember your own posts in Gender Studies?

Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

>>8123709
>Except no that was their context.
No, idiot-chan. The absolute binary statement was about individual characteristics, such as the presence or absence of the SRY gene. (Admittedly, not all of the traits listed in the next sentence were well-placed. E.g. I suppose hormone levels can be somewhere in between the normal ranges for females and males if one has some special disorder.)
The 99% clause on the other hand was about the distribution of the individual absolute-binary traits. E.g. regarding one absolute binary trait you have a male trait (presence of Y chromosome), but on another you have a female trait (presence of vagina, clitoris, and labia), putting you outside the 99%.
Capiche?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swyer_syndrome
Has SRY gene, although it can be defective.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Has SRY gene, just found in an X chromosome.

>>8123615
>>8123699
Pretty telling that the shitposter can't source his claims.