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:
Strictly speaking, these are the only factors which define a person's SEX.
...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.
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.
Previous Topic
Index
