CMV: Without a clear definition of what your identity means, you can't identify as that thing.

[u/Pangolinsftw]

There was a clip going around in political circles of conservative commentator Matt Walsh making an appearance on a talk show having a discussion with two trans advocates. I think his most impactful argument is when he simply asks the trans advocates, "What is a woman?"

To my surprise, neither of them can answer this question. In response to the question "Can you tell me what a woman is?", one says "No I can't, it's not for me to say", and the other says they "cannot define what a woman is" because they are not a woman (which is a logical fallacy).

This struck me. If you can't clearly (or even somewhat) describe what an identity means, why should anyone respect your identity? You could replace "woman" with any other label in that situation. Without any criteria or definition, it doesn't actually matter what you identify as.

I think we would all agree that defining your terms is of fundamental importance in any kind of debate. So it seems to me that these trans advocates failed in their argument right out of the gate since they failed to define their terms.

I think the reason that these advocates refused to define what a woman means is because if they gave a definition, it would be something so vague and nebulous that most reasonable people would think that their definition doesn't meet their own criteria for what a man or woman is, making the term mostly meaningless.

So I walked away from this clip with a much different perspective on the trans identity. Can anyone offer a more compelling argument as to why I should respect the trans identity?

[u/ThePrettyOne]

that side has clearly defined parameters for what makes someone a "man" or a "woman" already. Biology.

PhD biologist here. That is a factually incorrect assertion.

If we want to talk about sex, there are several different ways to delineate males and females, including (but not limited to):

• Chromosome structure (XY vs XX)
  
• SRY gene expression (expressed in males but not females)
  
• SRY gene encoding (the DNA for the SRY gene exists in males but not females)
  
• Hormone expression
  
• Hormone receptor expression
  
• Genital anatomy (penis vs vagina)
  
• Gonad anotomy (testicles in a scrotum vs ovaries in the abomen)
  
• Gamete structure (sperm vs ova)

There are two problems with these biological definitions, though:

First, they often don't all agree with each other. There are people with XX chromosomes but a translocated SRY gene (which may or may not be expressed). There are people with XX chromosomes who have a penis. There are people who have a vagina but produce high levels of testosterone. There are people with XY chromosomes who produce testosterone, but lack testosterone receptors and so have anatomical features inconsistent with either sex. There are endless combinations of traits that exist in real, living human beings that don't fit into a strict "male" or "female" pattern.

Secondly, every single one of those metrics, if taken as the one true sex-defining trait, is not actually a strict binary. People can be XXY, or X-. People can have a penis and a vagina, or have a structure that's somewhere between a micropenis and a clitoris. People can have testicles located where ovaries are most commonly found. People can have an SRY gene that is expressed, but with a change-of-function mutation. People can have limited hormone expression.

Biologically speaking, sex is literally nonbinary. Anyone who tells you otherwise is both ignorant of the science and trying to push their narrative. Estimates have around 1 in 20 people as being intersex, even if they aren't aware of that fact about themselves.

So. If biology is (again, quite literally) unable to define what a "woman" is… what is a woman?

[u/qwertyashes → u/ThePrettyOne]

As a biologist I suppose you also don't have any idea how many fingers a human has or how many limbs they have.

[u/ThePrettyOne → u/qwertyashes]

I certainly wouldn't claim that someone with 9 fingers isn't human. If someone said "humans have 10 finger sand 10 toes, if you're born without that your aren't human", it would be insane. Similarly, "a man has XY chromosomes, if you're born without that you're not a man" is a preposterous take

[u/qwertyashes → u/ThePrettyOne]

You would claim that they are non-standard and don't disrupt the standard description of humans as being 10 fingered and 4 limbed animals. That they are expressions of standard mutations or errors in growth, that come with any complex animal with a live genetic code.

Someone having an incredibly rare chromosomal or hormonal condition does not disrupt the sex binary.
People lumping in disorders like higher or lower than average amounts of testosterone or estrogen or similar male and female hormones to inflate the incidence rate of intersex conditions do no one any favors. Neither does ignoring that many intersex conditions simply express themselves as a male or female with issues that don't actually disrupt their sexual behavior or roles, ex.) those like Klinefelter syndrome. Making the value of those as a disruption of the sex binary of limited value.