• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biological sex is determined by....

What is the determining factor to a person's biological sex?

  • The presence or absence of the SRY gene

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A combination of 1 and 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22
You're right. I meant chromosomes, not genes.

Biological sex is determined by chromosomes, is binary, and cannot be changed.
Fair enough. Thank you for your participation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
I just assumed that he was dumb., I never consided he was trolling.
It was used more ironically. IOW, you don't have to keep the thread jack going. I'm not going to claim I am not guilty of falling into it myself, but I try not to.
 
You said that Caster's sex is biologically male and that their gender is woman. Did I misunderstand you?
I can see the argument about her not being transgender, since the transgender experience tends to be claimed as being of a given body genotype, and the dysphoria that comes from their gender not matching their genotype. Or was that supposed to be phenotype? Either way, I would say that Caster would be transgender, by the common claims of the community, if she claimed to be a man. If fact, IIRC, one of the arguments is that some transgenders are that way because they are intersex in having a DNA not matching their external body. Most people who are claiming transgender have no clue what their DNA is saying when they make that claim.
 
You keep using such rare occurrences that they are not statistically significant. There will always be times when biology doesn't work, like a m/f chimera or intersex people. They are the exception, not the rule.
First off, we don't actually know how rare it is since we don't test for it. It's similar to how we have since learned that woman are actually getting pregnant more often than we first believed and are having miscarriages before they realized they are pregnant, or seeing them as false positives. Not to mention if the fraternal pair are of the same sex, it is even more likely to go unnoticed.

Secondly, they may be exceptions to the rule, but there is still the claim that they are either male or female. So which is it? Or is there actually a third sex? Natural ambidexterity is an exception to the handedness rule, but it is still a third and labeled possibility. You have acknowledged that it is a possibility, but what is their label? Should they have a third label, be allowed to pick what they want on any given day, what?
 
If there is a Y chromosome, then it is a male.
Except that not all their cells have Y chromosomes. Their lungs might have the Y chromosomes, but the heart doesn't. Going by what one geneticist theorized, the brain would be with the Y chromosome, but the genitals without, or vice versa. This is not the same situation as with an XXY or XYY person. We are talking two complete different sets of DNA inside the same person, naturally born that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
Regardless, a person born with a uterus who can get pregnant and give birth is a female by any sensible standard and by the standard definition of female.
Not if they have a Y chromosome. If they have a Y chromosome, they are biologically male.
 
Except that not all their cells have Y chromosomes. Their lungs might have the Y chromosomes, but the heart doesn't. Going by what one geneticist theorized, the brain would be with the Y chromosome, but the genitals without, or vice versa. This is not the same situation as with an XXY or XYY person. We are talking two complete different sets of DNA inside the same person, naturally born that way.
That's an interesting exception. I could argue that the presence of a Y chromosome at all is enough to determine biological sex though. In the case of chimeras, that one or more organs are missing the Y chromosome wouldn't need to be relevant. If an organism naturally possesses a Y chromosome in any of its cells, it is male. It is not required in all cells.
 
So then they have no sex?
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
 
I can see the argument about her not being transgender, since the transgender experience tends to be claimed as being of a given body genotype, and the dysphoria that comes from their gender not matching their genotype. Or was that supposed to be phenotype? Either way, I would say that Caster would be transgender, by the common claims of the community, if she claimed to be a man. If fact, IIRC, one of the arguments is that some transgenders are that way because they are intersex in having a DNA not matching their external body. Most people who are claiming transgender have no clue what their DNA is saying when they make that claim.

DNA doesn't talk. A person's identity is not just tied up in a bunch of chromosomes.
 
Not if they have a Y chromosome. If they have a Y chromosome, they are biologically male.

So Semenya Caster is a man?
 
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
So is an aberration, a null sex or one of the two. When you tell such a person what they are, what are you telling them?
 
Not if they have a Y chromosome. If they have a Y chromosome, they are biologically male.

That is not how male/female is defined. Not all animals have y chromosomes.

Female: An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova.

Male: Of or pertaining to the sex that begets or procreates young, or (in a wider sense) to the sex that produces spermatozoa, by which the ova are fertilized.

 
So is an aberration, a null sex or one of the two. When you tell such a person what they are, what are you telling them?
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
 
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
So then there is a third. You can't say it's there but it is not. Either that or you are claiming that they have no sex. Which is it?
 
So then there is a third.
The third, is a genetic aberration
You can't say it's there but it is not. Either that or you are claiming that they have no sex. Which is it?
I don't know how many times I can answer the same question. But here it is again.
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
 
That is not how male/female is defined. Not all animals have y chromosomes.

Female: An individual of the sex which conceives and brings forth young, or (in a wider sense) which has an ovary and produces ova.

Male: Of or pertaining to the sex that begets or procreates young, or (in a wider sense) to the sex that produces spermatozoa, by which the ova are fertilized.

Those definitions are circular from a standpoint of biological identification. It is a "female" if it is "of the sex that conceives and brings forth young..." How do you tell if it is "of the sex that conceives and brings forth young?" Certainly not by whether it is capable of conceiving and bringing forth young or producing ova, otherwise sterile women would no longer be female.

Your definitions describe the shared characteristics of biological sex, with a bunch of implied caveats. But biological sex is scientifically identified by sex chromosomes in mammals. When a Y chromosome is present, the mammal is male, even if the characteristics of the individual does not exactly match the characteristics shared by most males. It doesn't cease to be male if it loses enough male characteristics.
 
Please understand that I am trying to understand your assertion here, not argue against it...in this thread at least. ;) I don't have to agree with your assertion to understand it.

The third, is a genetic aberration

So then by this, it would be accurate to have in a form male, female, genetic aberration?

I don't know how many times I can answer the same question. But here it is again.

If the above is wrong, then that can only mean that those who are not male nor female have no sex. Is this then what you are asserting?
 
Please understand that I am trying to understand your assertion here, not argue against it...in this thread at least. ;) I don't have to agree with your assertion to understand it.
ok
So then by this, it would be accurate to have in a form male, female, genetic aberration?
yes
If the above is wrong, then that can only mean that those who are not male nor female have no sex. Is this then what you are asserting?
There are only 2 sexes. Male or female. If you are not one of those, which is determined exclusively by DNA, then it is a genetic aberration.
 
Back
Top Bottom