do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Markk]

By this logic then there is no such thing as human beings and a genetic model for them. Shall we just bypass the non-binary gender identification and just conclude that the definition of human beings are also subjective based on the persons feelings of what they are? Where does this stop, and again what is the absolute benchmark of what we are from a biological perspective.

Every species share the same genetic model, that is why cats don’t breed with birds, and humans can’t breed with dolphins. Our genetic models(DNA) is different and the code for each species.

Our genes as humans differ in that “traits” form characteristics of us based on different factors…genotypes and phenotypes offer to our traits as human beings. Colored eyes are a genotype carried by inherited genes, while phenotypes are based on things like environmental conditions like diet and temperature.

More later….

You are getting off topic again. Everyone already knows each species will have a set of genetic material unique to them. The point is that each species, including humans have a lot of genetic variability within a species. Why, even with identical twins, no two humans are 100% the same. This includes all things related to sex and gender. Think of it as more a spectrum than binary.

I’m not, I am keeping you on topic, which is we can define what a woman is.

You inadvertently supported my point here when you wrote “no two humans are 100% the same.” “Humans” being the benchmark for all this, and the model being XX/XY Human beings, male/female. With a healthy “being” of this, human life can continue to exist.

There are variants within the model, some positive and some negative…and as we discussed some, a very few percentage wise, are disorders….but always within the Human model.

Thanks for the conversation

[Themis]

I’m not, I am keeping you on topic, which is we can define what a woman is.

Your entire post was about species not what a woman is.

You inadvertently supported my point here when you wrote “no two humans are 100% the same.” “Humans” being the benchmark for all this, and the model being XX/XY Human beings, male/female. With a healthy “being” of this, human life can continue to exist.

Markk, do you get that human life to exist has no relevance on whether an individual is male/female? All we need for humans to exist is enough individuals who can breed do breed in sufficient number to maintain population numbers. Humans have been growing in number for all of known history to today, so I don't think we are in any trouble?

Markk, do you get that biological sex is what a fetus develops into, not what shape a chromosome takes? It's always what is on the chromosomes and environmental factors that matter. You never really explained why and XY individual who develops mostly female characteristics is to be defined as male other then a shape of a chromosome.

There are variants within the model, some positive and some negative…and as we discussed some, a very few percentage wise, are disorders….but always within the Human model.

That doesn't explain why some people should be considered a woman or man. Would you define an XY individual, with mostly female characteristics who identifies as female, as a woman when they reach the age of adulthood. Why or why not?

[Markk]

[quote Themis wrote…]But again it's not XX/XY. It's what is on them that decides how one is going to develop from the genetic material. This is why a few XY people are biologically female, and when they become adults you would call them women. Biological sex is defined by how we develop. Now when I talk about biochemistry in the group of people you consider healthy male or females, there is a spectrum of differences. From things like hormones, sex drive, etc. All these things have profound influence on how we think and feel. Like the examples of a drug that can make you cry for no reason, our biochemistry has a lot of influence on who we are. Slaves to our biochemistry, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge or deny them how they feel or view themselves as.[/quote]

XY individuals are not biologically female, they have a disorder such as Swyer Syndrome where the person has a XY set, but as this reads “ Because they appear female on the outside, babies with Swyer syndrome are usually raised as girls and develop a female gender identity”… . They will not produce female hormones that allow them to go through puberty, and will require female hormone treatments. With hormone treatments and a donated egg, they might be able to reproduce.

Point being folks with disorders like these are rare, and does not impede us from defining what a woman is.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condit ... -syndrome/

Themis wrote…

Now when I talk about biochemistry in the group of people you consider healthy male or females, there is a spectrum of differences. From things like hormones, sex drive, etc. All these things have profound influence on how we think and feel. Like the examples of a drug that can make you cry for no reason, our biochemistry has a lot of influence on who we are. Slaves to our biochemistry, so maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge or deny them how they feel or view themselves as.

You are conflating biological disorders, with normal characteristics or traits in a person within a healthy individuals gene pool. Bunching DSD’s in with the normal model, and including them together as a spectrum is not following the science…like I have written many times it is apples and oranges.

A drug can make you cry for no reason, but that is not normal and the drug is creating a abnormal behavior, outside the norm. My father went through this and had hot flashes and was very emotional in that the doctors were shrinking his prostrate with estrogen before radiation treatments for prostrate cancer. And including this and other disorders, whether by a biological disorder or medically induced…does not change the normative make up of male and female human beings.

I am not judging anyone Themis. I am saying that all this does not dictate we cannot identify what a biological man and woman are. I appreciate the conversation. I have learned a lot from reading and listening to folks dealing with this issue. I have softened with some aspects but cemented some opinions on others.

[Themis]

But again it's not XX/XY. It's what is on them that decides how one is going to develop from the genetic material. This is why a few XY people are biologically female, and when they become adults you would call them women.

I don't understand why you keep arguing with Markk.

For fun. Markk certainly has some good amount of bias based on religious and political ideologies that don't like those who don't fit their binary view of man or woman. It's based on no real science and when they try to argue they end up having to jump around with distractions like ability to breed or just say it's all on the shape of a chromosome but never explain why shape is important.

[Markk]

Themis wrote…That doesn't explain why some people should be considered a woman or man. Would you define an XY individual, with mostly female characteristics who identifies as female, as a woman when they reach the age of adulthood. Why or why not?

Certainly, if that is what they choose to identify as…but the benchmark for a “woman” which they choose to identify as, is a XX human being, and as a adult, a woman.. They are choosing to identify as something, and that something is the standard and model for their choice of identification.

Taking the abnormal and forcing it to redefine the norm, is just not logical.

More later, have a great Memorial Day.

[Father Francis]

Someone here is confusing what they think is biological sex with gender.

Its pretty simple for an educated person to see that one is not a simple genetic fact, and that cultural based gender roles are way more complicated...

I'm guessing Markk must be much older than me, though I'm no spring chicken myself. Cis white men do cry. Even the toughest of them do. Maybe it was his horrid medical condition, and not the "drugs"? Maybe a life review when facing possible death had something to do with it? Maybe your story has nothing to do with gender dysphoria, which is a real scientifically studied thing? Things to think about.

[Themis]

XY individuals are not biologically female, they have a disorder such as Swyer Syndrome where the person has a XY set, but as this reads “ Because they appear female on the outside, babies with Swyer syndrome are usually raised as girls and develop a female gender identity”… . They will not produce female hormones that allow them to go through puberty, and will require female hormone treatments. With hormone treatments and a donated egg, they might be able to reproduce.

Point being folks with disorders like these are rare, and does not impede us from defining what a woman is.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condit ... -syndrome/

You do realize that the first sentence "Swyer syndrome is a condition that affects sex development" talks about biological sex development? That should be a big indicator that a persons biological sex is all about how they develop, not on what shape a chromosome takes. They lack some of the genetic information that will drive male development, so female development tends to happen. They will develop this way every time just like those XY with all the genetic information to drive male development will consistently develop down male pathways. Barring no environmental factors disrupting development.

I'm curious why you don't think how a fetus develops sexually should not be how we define their biological sex, given that a person with this syndrome will not develop down male pathways?

[Themis]

Certainly, if that is what they choose to identify as…but the benchmark for a “woman” which they choose to identify as, is a XX human being,

So would that include XX individuals that develop as male with a penis? They have the benchmark XX human being.

[Themis]

You are conflating biological disorders, with normal characteristics or traits in a person within a healthy individuals gene pool. Bunching DSD’s in with the normal model, and including them together as a spectrum is not following the science…like I have written many times it is apples and oranges.

A drug can make you cry for no reason, but that is not normal and the drug is creating a abnormal behavior, outside the norm. My father went through this and had hot flashes and was very emotional in that the doctors were shrinking his prostrate with estrogen before radiation treatments for prostrate cancer. And including this and other disorders, whether by a biological disorder or medically induced…does not change the normative make up of male and female human beings.

The point I am making is that with, healthy individuals as you define them, they still have a lot of variability. This results in people with high sex drives, low sex drives, people who are attracted to same sex, or even people whose gender identity does not fit their healthy biological sex.

[Themis]

I am not judging anyone Themis. I am saying that all this does not dictate we cannot identify what a biological man and woman are. I appreciate the conversation. I have learned a lot from reading and listening to folks dealing with this issue. I have softened with some aspects but cemented some opinions on others.

Ok why should we not identify biological man or women by how a fetus develops?