That argument is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
Regardless, it misses the distinction between biological sex v. a mind's gender identity, and solely by the sheer quantity of neurons and possible interconnects, it's impossible to say that every person's brain strictly aligns with one of two modes of operation. (if anyone who specializes in gender studies knows more on this topic and believes I'm summarizing this—or even stating the problem—incorrectly, please step in; this isn't my specialty)
In fact, it's only appropriate to say that every brain is unique in how it processes the self and the world, and that while for the majority of people it's easy or even innate to identify with certain characteristics, there are minorities for whom this isn't the case.
We need to express inclusive empathy where we can, even if the only reason for doing so is to make sure that when we fall outside societally defined structures, we ourselves can also continue to be respected. Ideally we'd do so because we're trying to be good people, but my point is, even a selfish person should reach the same conclusion.
We should also acknowledge that language more often than not works in approximations and generalizations, and usually everyone still understands what is meant. There needs to be some flexibility on both sides.
This is an important point and it's lost in these debates.
The new cool thing is to pretend context/intent doesn't exist, that words and expressions should always be looked at in isolation. Even though it's a fundamental part of language and how the brain perception systems work to contextualize and loosely categorize everything based on the current set of information in a particular scenario.
Words/language is messy, highly flexible, and rarely strictly defined. For good reason.
Mostly so people can win internet arguments and feel superior/victimized.
If you have no distinguishing organs that produce sexual cell lines via meiosis, and have never ever had such organs, then you are functionally sexless. This seems like a reasonable position to take. Given our understanding of embryology and development we may try to piece together what would have happened had something not gone awry and base our judgement on that. But if we don't know, then it's hardly unreasonable to simply say 'I don't know'. However, we are not being asked to acknowledge that we cannot know for some individuals, we are being asked to accept those with obvious organs and gametes of one sex as individuals of the other.
Hormones help regulate the brain and there are sex differences in the hormones. I have a hard time believing that someone can be in the wrong body, as the brain is a part of the body.
> Hormones help regulate the brain and there are sex differences in the hormones.
Does every cell in every body react to hormones etc. the same way? There are differences between each and every person on the planet in terms of how each cell in their body reacts to things like hormones, neurotransmitters, and other signaling molecules that manifest either subtly or extremely. Anything from a person's height to their temperament to their hunger (literally, or figuratively e.g drive) can vary based on the production of and reception of these transmitters, and every single person's body varies in every facet of the above based on environmental and genetic considerations.
> I have a hard time believing that someone can be in the wrong body, as the brain is a part of the body.
That doesn't mean that those other considerations are stronger than the hormonal differences due to sex. The sex differences for testosterone are large.
> That's an empathy thing.
You're welcome to empathize with my inability to believe that someone can be in the wrong body.
My understanding is that "differences in sex development" or "disorders of sex development" is now the preferred terminology. See for instance:
"Disorders of sex development, or DSD (previously called intersex), includes a range of conditions that lead to abnormal development of the sex organs and atypical genitalia ..."
Stop using intersex people (who have extremely rare physiological diseases) as a political tool to justify transsexual ideology, when >99% of transsexuals do not have any such disease.
While you're right that there's no connection between being trans and being intersex (except that intersex people are probably more likely to be misgendered at birth), it's not the case that intersex people are 'extremely rare'. Depending on definition, we are talking about ~1% of people. For comparison, that is e.g. around the percentage of men who are 6'4 or taller (in the US).
This is not an endorsement of any particular take in the thread, but this seemed like an appropriate place to correct a mistake regarding the frequency of intersex births and link out to some articles for the curious.
That 1% number comes from the Fausto-Sterling survey which incorrectly lumps in Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. Eliminating those diseases yields a rate no higher than 0.018%, 2 orders of magnitude lower as the upper bound[1]. Only a small portion have cells for producing both types of gametes, only about 5% of all intersex people[2][3].
The controversy about what counts as 'intersex' is mostly pointless, as far as I can tell, as the term neither has (nor requires) a precise definition. I think in this context it makes sense to include any condition that blurs the edges of the gender binary as traditionally understood in society. If you look at the details of e.g. Klinefelter syndrome from this perspective, it's not difficult to see why it might be seen as part of the intersex spectrum:
>broad hips, poor muscle tone and slower than usual muscle growth, reduced facial and body hair that starts growing later than usual, a small penis and testicles, and enlarged breasts (gynaecomastia)
It's by no means a settled matter what does or doesn't count as 'intersex'. I suspect that few reputable researchers would waste time engaging in such a pointless debate over terminology. Some relevant points in this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808814/
All that said, one can, if one wishes, cherry pick the smallest available estimate of the number of 'intersex' people and thereby dismiss the issues raised by these people on the grounds that they're small in number. I'm not sure how much scrutiny the logic of that rhetorical move would withstand.
I’m not trying to make any claims about the broader issue or cherry-pick here, but a lot of experts do not include Klinefelter syndrome so I think that’s worth at least noting. Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete and are often fertile is instructive.
My only point in responding is to add useful scientific/medical context. People can make what they want of that information.
Fundamentally I agree with what you seem to be getting at, taxonomy is hard.
> Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete AND ARE OFTEN FERTILE is instructive.
It’s only informative if it’s true. With regard to the second conjunct, people with Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome are typically functionally infertile.
I’m not convinced that ‘a lot of experts’ are even working on defining what counts as ‘interesex’. It would make more sense to listen to intersex people, who as far as I can see, tend to think that a fairly broad definition is useful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex