[protl]

> Quite simple: a person with XX chromosomes. Or are people starting to deny biology now?

This is a really common response, and I do honestly empathise with it because for most people (me included most of the time) in everyday life there's not really any need to think about it too deeply. Like you said in another comment "A child can tell you what a man and woman are."

But can they? Or can they just point at people and guess, with about the same accuracy as you or me? They probably can't _actually_ tell you what a man and woman _are_ in any useful way any more than most grown-ups.

Like you agreed in that other comment too, there are some "extremely extremely rare" cases where a child would probably say they're a man or woman but their chromosones aren't what you'd expect.

That highlights that chromosones aren't really a deciding factor though right? The child isn't using chromosones when they decide, and I've never been asked about my chromosones, or heard of anyone else being asked about theirs outside of a hospital.

So to answer your question, I don't think anyone is denying biology, it's just that biology isn't as relevant as it might seem at first thought.

[esja]

I can see your point here, but would argue that biology is the underlying reason that you don't have to think about it too much.

Think of it this way... in your lifetime of genuine interactions with people (e.g. conversations), how many XX people have you mistaken for XY people, and vice versa? For most people the answer is very close to zero, but why is that?

I would argue it's because billions of years of evolution (a biological process) have already helpfully trained us to detect even the tiniest differences between males and females. We have been a sexually dimorphic species for a very long time. And those differences (whether massive or tiny) are directed in large part by the chromosomes inside our trillions of somatic cells - skin, hair, bones, eyes, brain, etc. etc.

Also, for those rare cases you mention, the chromosomes often are a major deciding factor in how we do the classification, e.g. we might be confused about someone with a DSD because although they were "assigned female" since birth, they continue to show some male characteristics, due to the Y chromosome present in their organs, skeleton, etc. Surgeons can operate on genitals etc., but they can't alter all of the trillions of somatic cells in the body.z

[protl]

> how many XX people have you mistaken for XY people, and vice versa?

I have no way to know, that's my point.

Most of us have a basic biology education to drawn on that allows us to look back and in hindsight say "The men I know probably have XY and the women XX chromosones" but it's never part of the process any of us actually use.

To me, chromosones just seem like a distraction. It promises to replace all of the messy, political, social uncertainty with a polite, clinical, objective answer if only everyone would realise it's just about the biology.

The trouble is, the biology can't seem to answer the questions that are the most contentious. I have no idea what my chromosones are in reality, but I know how I'd like to live my life and mostly there's no problem, no one checks, no one asks, and if they did, how would that knowledge justify overriding my autonomy?

[treeman79]

People have 1 head. There is at least one case that this is not true.

Forcing radical viewpoints on all of society over extreme outliers is ridiculous.

[protl]

> People have 1 head. There is at least one case that this is not true.

> Forcing radical viewpoints on all of society over extreme outliers is ridiculous.

"Don't take away basic human rights from people with more than 1 head" doesn't seem all that radical to me, but maybe I'm out of touch.

[azth]

"Taking away rights" is a straw man. Give them medical treatment, that's also a right.

[protl]

Sure, give them the right to seek medical treatment and don't take that right away, I agree.