[sorethescore]

You're understanding of biology is rather outdated. There are several X & Y chromosomal variations that are rather common but frequently undiagnosed. The X & Y Variations include 47, XXY OR Klinefelter Syndrome, 47, XYY (Jacob’s Syndrome) , 47, XXX (Triple X). There are also several variant disorders which include Tetrasomy X, Pentasomy X, 49, XXXX, 48, XXXY, 48, XXYY, and 49, XXXXY. So no, it's not quite simple.

[azth]

Not outdated. The cases you mentioned are extremely extremely rare, and are indicative of physical ailments. The are no excuse to generalize across the population to attempt to redefine what "man" and "woman" mean. A child can tell you what a man and woman are.

[becquerel]

Minorities still matter even if there aren't many of them. At what boundary does something being rare enough mean it's ok to not consider it a seperate form of sex?

Is it 10% of the population, 5%, or 0.5%? Why?

[Ourgon]

We do not consider people who suffer from dwarfism a separate species, they are humans with a condition which limited their growth. People with Hypertrichosis are not seen as a separate species either, they are humans who show abnormal hair growth over their bodies. People with Syndactyly are just as human as those who do not have webbing between their fingers or toes.

In short, the presence of abnormal conditions does not create separate categories nor does it void existing categorisations, it just means that the individual who has that condition differs from the normal in some way.

[_Algernon_]

Calling genetic abnormalities in sex chromosomes separate sexes makes about as much sex as considering cancer a developmental stage.

[hackerfromthefu]

Yeah but it's a matter of perspective. It's logical that the majority matters so much more, won't someone think of the majority? Majorities have rights, too

[refurb]

Exceptions to a rule are just that - exceptions. They don't refute the general rule.

I might draw a hand with a thumb and four fingers. The fact that some people are born with more or fewer fingers doesn't change the fact I drew a hand.

[becquerel]

Those people still have hands.

[refurb]

Right, but we don't look at someone who was born without a hand and say "ok, clearly our definition of a hand is wrong."

[esja]

Lia Thomas has XY chromosomes, always has, has benefited from their advantages, and continues to do so.

Everyone knows DSDs exist, but most of the time they are brought into this debate, they are merely a rhetorical device rather than any real attempt to address the specific situation. One of my close relatives has Klinefelter's, and I can assure you he finds this sort of thing extremely upsetting.

[boppo1]

Upsetting in which manner? The support of "xx doesn't define a woman" or vice versa?

[esja]

I think he feels like a prop for someone else's agenda. Imagine living a long life with congenital issues that seriously impacted your physical development, made you infertile etc., then suddenly loads of people are talking about your condition. But it's rarely in order to benefit you, and very often just a sort of debating tactic, to advance the goals of XY people who don't share your condition at all and whose goals you disagree with. I would also find that upsetting.

[Ekaros]

So how many full percentages those affect in general population?

[da39a3ee]

I have a PhD in biology. You are wrong: the idea that human sex isn't essentially binary (with the usual rare edge cases of biology) is something that has been pushed by non-scientists with an ideological axe to grind; the essentially binary nature of human (and mammalian) sex is not something that mainstream researchers question in any significant numbers.

[azth]

When actual scientists speak out, they get downvoted by the delusional who refuse to accept reality. Thank you for speaking up, and keep at it please. We live in a clown world today that is hanging on to the last remaining strands of sanity.