If one happens to have two X chromosomes... one is, by definition, female. And if one happens to have a single X and a single Y chromosome... one is then, by definition, male. Strictly speaking, these are the only factors which define gender. The clothes one wears, the outward appearance of one's genitals, any secondary sexual characteristics, the gender role one adopts, or how one identifies oneself are completely irrelevant.
So I am more than happy to identify you as either male or female, according to your preference. But there remains a factual reality that exists independently of whatever self-delusion we mutually consent to.

I got in this argument over that crossfit 'woman'. i grew up around gay folk (hence tg folk as well). these fucking PC assholes are just in denial. Even Renee Richards admits she had a huge advantage when she became a broad. Fuck, she got to 20th in the world at age 40, which is ancient for a female tennis player.

Yeah, I know, I'm responding to what is essentially a troll post, but anyway, maybe somebody will inadvertently get something out of this discussion, so here goes...


There is nothing simple about the topic brought up by the OP. There is nothing inherently PC or inherently politically incorrect either. When you're talking about nature and science, it does not and cannot fit neatly into a fox news talking point. All that stuff you thought you understood about how genes determine "gender" is really just the genetic equivalent of the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. It was a gross oversimplification of complex idea meant to make it easier to understand for small children and conservatives. George Washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree and X and Y chromosomes don't really determine "gender".


Furthermore, I think what you probably meant to say was:

...because the term gender was never intended to be used in a biological sense. An understanding of the differences in usage between those terms would be a good place to start.

This bit of ironic misuse of the English language pretty much sums up why your statement is wrong, but it also begins to introduce why the sentiment behind the statement is also wrong.

However, the meat of the debate can be found not by arguing over semantics, but in discussing why, physiologically, having two X chromosomes or an X and a Y chromosome are not the only choices. That would naturally lead into an understanding of why they do not, therefore, define "gender".

**************************************************************
Extra credit thought for the day:

Not to mention the fact that a Y chromosome is, in fact, also an X chromosome, just with a bit missing. Hence the name.

You can demonstrate this complicated concept to yourself and others by making a big X by placing 4 sticks in a cross-wise pattern on the ground and then remove one of the two sticks on the bottom of the X. Now take a step back and try to imagine what other letter of the alphabet this former X now resembles.

Wow. that's some science right there.

Use of the words "gender" v "sex" in this context is indeed just a matter of semantics. So we'll just agree that we all know what we mean when we say gender.

Of course nature is capable of innumerable variations on the theme of gender [ or sex ], including monosomy, trisomy, polysomy, etc. And in those cases I don't think it would be inaccurate to describe an individual's gender as "indeterminate" [ or if they happen to have a facebook, perhaps "It's Complicated" ].

But I was addressing those individuals who can be identified, clearly and indisputably, as male or female... but who then choose to identify themselves as the opposite sex. And the current political climate which dictates that we all defer to the same reality these individuals subscribe to. And, as I said, I have no difficulty in accepting another person's conditions when it comes to self-identification. But it does give me some consternation when I hear doctors and academics describing cases of "the first man to get pregnant" or a "man" carrying the baby, in cases where the individual is biologically and anatomically female, and in which the characteristics ostensibly determining that individual's maleness are entirely meaningless and irrelevant secondary sexual characteristics ( ie. she has a beard, moustache, a deep voice, and a flat chest... therefore he is male ).

However, I would be interested to hear more about how "small children and conservatives" were misled as to the role of genetics in determining gender... if you'd care to either share more of your own insight, or direct me to some material that might enlighten me.

I don't give a fuck.

Ditto. Not my problem.

I don't agree with that at all. Words have meaning. Can you give a plain language, simple explanation of what you meant by gender? I think the rest of your post makes it more and more murky to me what you really mean as you weave back and forth between "gender" and biological sex.



Stick with one word, define it, and use it correctly. I think you are being intentionally vague by meandering back and forth between two words with different meanings in order to have wiggle room when you need it and because of some degree of embarrassment that you started out on the wrong foot by making such a huge, ironic mistake in the first place.

For example, in a strictly physiologic sense, gender has a binary value and is never considered "indeterminate" in the same way that either phenotypic or genotypic values may be. In a more layperson sense it may be a spectrum of values. But this is what you are avoiding by refusing to come to grips with your own position. Are you talking about genitalia, or genetic make up, or psychological identity, or sexual role, or something else? Who knows what you meant? I don't. I also strongly suspect that you're not very sure what you meant yourself.




based on what? Identified by genetic studies (because we all get genetic studies performed at birth, right?) or the appearance of their genitalia at the time of birth? Neither of those things are clear or indisputable anyway. By the way, I wasn't really referring to monosomomy or trisomy or those variations as much as mosiacism and other variations.






I fear that what this whole thread is boiling down to is a misunderstanding of terms by somebody who doesn't appreciate the difference between a sarcastic headline written by a newspaper reporter trying to whip up interest in the grocery store check out line and a policy statement meant to represent the official position of a politician, physician or "academic".



Sure, but I'll only go into it in detail if you first simply have the courage of your convictions to write a nice, clear, plain language, simple statement of what you meant by "gender" in your original post. I honestly believe that you don't see any difference between "gender" and "sex". That only matters because that is where the answer to your question lies.

What does the word gender mean? (relative to this conversation)
How is gender different from sex? (again specific to our discussion)

Answer those 2 questions and then we can discuss further the role of the basic and modified X chromosome in altering the external appearance of mammalian genitalia and if the size and shape of the clitoris determines masculinity.

Then, we can start to discuss what the other 44 chromosomes are doing and I hope it will become readily apparent why things were simplified to XX vs XY in high school health classes when that really isn't what determines gender at all.

*********************************************************
Extra Credit Part 2

If the Y chromosome is really just an X chromosome with a piece broken off, does that imply that the developing male embryo has some element present that the female embryo does not have or vice versa?

Which chromosome is newer in an evolutionary sense?

^ I'm not reading all that. But I do appreciate your interest in my post.

I understand completely. Wise decision.