This is incorrect. According to NIH there is no such thing as “biological (genetic) gender”. You’re thinking of biological sex.

https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender

To be fair with the commenter you are replying to and as someone who absolutely don’t care about your silly American cultural issues, this use the word gender by sociology is a modern one which redefines its meaning. Historically the word is indeed strictly synonymous with sex.

I still believe that the insistence on erasing previous meanings rather than just using new words is 90% of why the USA is such a cultural cesspit and any kind of discussion turns into a battle but that’s only me.

In many languages, like German (which may be GPs native language), those two things share the same exact word, requiring modifier words like "biological" to differentiate between the two, making everything a bit confusing when crossing the language barrier.

You're right, apologies for the mistake.

Even that's not really cut-and-dry. I don't normally like linking to twitter, but this thread is amazing (scientific) content: https://twitter.com/rebeccarhelm/status/1207834357639139328?...

It appears that way, but skirts around the gametic model of discerning biological sex that is the golden standard for other species, while elevating the status of chromosomal defects.

It’s a good example how selective presentation of scientific realities can be abused to mislead.

Chromosomal defects in a binary system don’t constitute a new or between-state, and it also isn’t commonly described that way: XXY (Kleinfeltner) affecting males is the mainstream position.

Totally agree, I was responding to the twin assertions that gender is based in genetics and that there only being two is widely accepted.

It really isn’t quite that simple. There are Intersex people who have ambiguous genitalia and there are several viable chromosome combos besides XX and XY.

In sexually dimorphic mammalian species sex is most commonly by the ability to produce either the small or big gametes, not chromosomes.

In humans syndromes that lead to ambiguous (“intersex”) presentation and/or chromosomes are still operating in a binary system, eh Klinefelter affects boys.

The same is true for (very) rare hermaphroditism: in this case both gametes could in theory be produced, in practice though individuals are sterile.

Those are birth defects though. For instance, we still understand humans as being bipedal despite anomalies that prevent a tiny fraction of humans from being bipedal.

`XXY` is a valid combination of sex chromosomes. The person has two `X` chromosomes so is female. The person also has one `Y` chromosome so is male. Which sex is the person? Is it a birth defect?

XXY is Klinefelter syndrome. By definition it's a condition where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome. Their sex is male because, also by definition, the presence of a Y chromosome means male.

The term “birth defect” fell out of use because of its stigmatizing word construction.

Chromosomal abnormalities would be the modern term, it applies to both sexual as well as other chromosomal abnormalities like Down.

But to answer the question as asked: Yes, it fulfills the definition of the older term.

  > Is it a birth defect?

Yes.

Stop what?

Using accurate information? Not ignoring the complexities of the world?

That comment is absolutely correct; to make things more confusing, people whose sex appears female can turn out to have XY allosomes in some, or all[0], of their cells.

0: https://www.invitra.com/en/morris-syndrome/

As the article you’ve linked states this syndrome affects males, makes them resistant to androgens, so they have an appearance of females.

It doesn’t state anywhere that the patients are either female or belong to a novel category.

From your own link Morris syndrome affects males. In fact, the presence of a Y chromosome by definition means the person is of male sex and it really is as simple as that. One's appearance has no effect on their sex.

This is a pretty disingenuous take isn't it? Dylan Mulvaney carries tampons as a service to others who might need them because she was once asked for one in a bathroom.

No, because while Dylan sometimes says that, the rest of the time they talk about the miraculous changes to their body, etc, and participate in female sexual health panels. They're trying to have it both ways as convenient.

If you feel that this is incorrect, go to Wiki and try to edit Rachel Levine's entry to remove the word female and you can personally see how the community views this.

Ok, so what you said was in fact untrue? Dylan says she has tampons for other women, in separate other videos she talks about changes to her body.

With regard to female sexual health panels this also appears to be a fabrication. I googled this and your comment was one of the first results, unless you mean the NowThis News panel with Biden? That being a progressive news org having a media moment with the president, not a female sexual health panel as you've called it.

Your last point is complete non-sequitur. You're operating from a place of discomfort and then working backwards toward rationalisation, that's much is clear from the half-truths you're telling. If there were any concrete concerns beyond your personal feelings you wouldn't feel the need to lie.

My point in this is that the official word on high and filtering down to all levels is that transwomen, males who claim to be women, are female and I think that is fairly obvious regardless.

But yes, I did have the names wrong. The White House's Lesbian day of Visibility was with Richard Levine and Charles Clymer, the two male "lesbian females" at the table. https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/90533/tims-charles-charl...

This is Dylan Mulvaney who met Biden https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/94756/disgustingly-shall...

Thanks for the correction.

> With regard to female sexual health panels this also appears to be a fabrication.

"Rachel" Levine is the assistant health minister so that's every day for them.

> Dylan says she has tampons for other women, in separate other videos she talks about changes to her body.

"Her" body. Exactly.

> You're operating from a place of discomfort and then working backwards toward rationalisation,

It is very uncomfortable watching women being beaten https://www.gulf-insider.com/us-transgender-activists-attack... simply for asserting their rights to single-sex spaces.

I am very uncomfortable watching institutions that my daughter appreciated, such as girl guiding, being appropriated by crazy gun-toting men https://www.womenarehuman.com/women-interviewed-by-police-fo... and for the women who complain to be targeted by false reports and doxing.

I'm horrified watching politicians politicians give women's identities and rights away to men if they claim to be women https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/01/labour-to-c...

I would be as uncomfortable watching Rachel Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal being appointed presidential advisor for Black affairs.

You are incorrect in two ways. First, you are conflating sex and gender. Second, sex is a bimodal distribution rather than a fixed binary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Intersex is about characteristics, not biological sex.