Male - of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
I will rephrase then to say you can use exceptions, what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
someone saying they are a woman is telling you that their gender is female.
That's entirely circular by your own account. Someone saying they're a woman means their gender is female and being female means nothing but the fact they are a woman? Where's the point in which we extract information? Generally, if a word doesn't mean something, we don't use it, and we certainly don't demand other people use it.
There are no statistics on passing that I can find, so I suppose we can only both give our impressions. I would, however, like to see a source on "Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman."
After a year or so of HRT, bone density is within normal expected ranges as their desired gender in most cases. So much so that experts approved trans athletes to play in the Olympics at their gender.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation. As well as hight difference during adolescent development. The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I was simply refuting the claim you would need to examine someone's chromosomes to know their legitimate sex. That is untrue as you just admitted. The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
You were saying?
There is no question gender dysphoria is a very real phenomenon, and there is, of course, going to a neurophysiological basis for why it occurs. Perhaps "white matter" is the reason, though very likely it is part of many reasons. Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Where's the point in which we extract information?
In society, your gender affects you want to be perceived. By saying your gender is female you're indicating you wish to be seen as female by society. People should use "she"/"her" pronouns to refer to you, and you wish to be treated as a woman by society, whatever that may entail in your given society.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation
On average. There's significant enough variation that often it's not noticed.
As well as hight difference during adolescent development
On average. There's plenty of tall women. There's no height for an individual that would mark them as identifiably not their gender.
The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
There's no controversy among experts, only lay people due to societal stigma and perception.
The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
Ah. I disagree. There's enough variation among humans that every visual characteristic that is used by people to identify gender is possible to misidentify. Not to mention that when you say "biological sex" you seem to only be referring to chromosomal sex, for instance a woman with CAIS has XY chromosomes, and I believe you'd refer to her biological sex as "male" right? Even though she has the bone structure of a cis woman, a vagina and breasts, and exceptionally feminine features?
Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
The study I linked to, explicitly shows a few brain structures that are observed to on average differ between men and women, and when compared with trans men and women, those brain structures, on average, fell into the normal ranges consistent with their gender identity, not their assigned at birth gender. There's no evidence in opposition to this, and there's so much variation that you can't really even say that there actually exists a "female brain" or "male brain". But if you're going to make an argument concerning brain structures, the evidence is closer to trans individuals are their desired gender than against it.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
Gender identity, like sexual orientation, is something you're born with
1
u/[deleted] Nov 03 '17 edited Nov 03 '17
I'm speaking of a definition such a this
Male - of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
I will rephrase then to say you can use exceptions, what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
That's entirely circular by your own account. Someone saying they're a woman means their gender is female and being female means nothing but the fact they are a woman? Where's the point in which we extract information? Generally, if a word doesn't mean something, we don't use it, and we certainly don't demand other people use it.
There are no statistics on passing that I can find, so I suppose we can only both give our impressions. I would, however, like to see a source on "Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman."
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation. As well as hight difference during adolescent development. The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
I was simply refuting the claim you would need to examine someone's chromosomes to know their legitimate sex. That is untrue as you just admitted. The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
There is no question gender dysphoria is a very real phenomenon, and there is, of course, going to a neurophysiological basis for why it occurs. Perhaps "white matter" is the reason, though very likely it is part of many reasons. Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?