[Shared404]

> What makes you thing they weren't talking about biological sex?

Biological sex is unrelated to the topic at hand, unless of course they were working on some genetics homework, or working on a eugenics project I suppose.

> Which are not applicable in this case, since the sex of the individial in question is inambiguous.

Is it - where do you draw the line? If it's production of gametes, what if she doesn't? If it's hormonal balance, she's now biologicaly female. If it's presence/absence of a penis/vagina, she could have either. If it's X/Y chromosomes, she could be XY, XXY, XX[0], or chimeric.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

More importantly, in what way does her biological sex impact her public influence? I certainly hope her chromosomes or genetalia have little to no impact on her public life.

> A man is defined as an adult male.

From Trans Man in Webster: Definition of trans man

: a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth

Making it acceptable per webster to use singular man/woman for a trans individual.

> Yes, the intent of satire is to make fun of absurd situations.

That's The Onion. The Bee is propaganda wrapped up in "it's just a joke bro". The Onion punches both ways, the Bee doesn't.

[hgdfhgdfhgdfhgf]

Satire only counts if you make fun of both sides? Is Stephen Colbert a propagandist too?

[Shared404]

From the guidelines:

> Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.

I'm on main and will be willing to continue this discussion when you or someone else comes back with yours/theirs.

E: And if you or someone else _isn't_ willing to come back and attache their name to that statement, I guess you understand the point.

[xigoi]

> Biological sex is unrelated to the topic at hand

So is hormonal balance or whatever you use for defining gender. Why do we care about gender at all?

> Is it - where do you draw the line?

When a person's body has all typical characteristics of a specific sex, then it's unambiguously that sex. Otherwise, they can rightfully identify as intersex, but that has nothing to do with transgenderism, where the body is unambiguous and only the mind seems to differ (and that's only considering people with gender dysphoria, aka “truscum”, and not those that are doing it for other reasons).

> From Trans Man in Webster: Definition of trans man

: a transgender man : a man who was identified as female at birth

If politically motivated people create a dictionary entry, then it agrees with them. What a surprise.

The word “assigned” is nonsense. The doctor doesn't flip a coin to determine the sex. The sex is observed.

> The Onion punches both ways, the Bee doesn't.

The Bee makes fun of conservatives too quite often.

[Shared404]

> So is hormonal balance or whatever you use for defining gender. Why do we care about gender at all?

Gender is defined by the person who is experiencing it. More specifically, gender is clearly biological to an extent (source: every trans person, as well as Reimer who was discussed elsewhere in the thread), but tends to represent itself with various social norms for a given gender (see: Various trans and third gender people across history, who align with gender roles not matching their birth sex).

Gender is relevant here due to that second section - it impacts how one sees and interacts with the world.

> When a person's body has all typical characteristics of a specific sex, then it's unambiguously that sex. Otherwise, they can rightfully identify as intersex, but that has nothing to do with transgenderism, where the body is unambiguous and only the mind seems to differ

The point is that far more people could be defined as 'intersex' then are, and many people who could have any of the conditions I listed above and not realize it. As there is no biological definition that doesn't need an exception to match many people who would be traditionally considered male or female, trying to argue this point is meaningless.

A simple Male/Female model is Good Enough for most peoples understanding, but is fundamentally flawed.

> If politically motivated people create a dictionary entry, then it agrees with them. What a surprise.

This argument can be used to dismiss anything, and thus cannot prove anything. Do you have other examples of political motivation here, or is it just that it is political because it disagrees?

> The word “assigned” is nonsense. The doctor doesn't flip a coin to determine the sex. The sex is observed.

Sex is observed, and gender is assigned based on sex. Usually, this matches up just fine. Sometimes, it doesn't.

> (and that's only considering people with gender dysphoria, aka “truscum”, and not those that are doing it for other reasons).

Truscum != people who have gender dysphoria. Truscum == Trans people who believe that you require gender dysphoria to be trans _and_ try to prevent other trans people from seeking treatment based on that belief.

> The Bee makes fun of conservatives too quite often.

Of eight articles on their landing page, four articles clearly attack the left from the headline, one could ambiguously attack either, but becomes clearly about the left in two paragraphs, One appears to be about the Bee itself - but actually is anti-left, and two appear to be benign "haha people funny[0]".

[0] "Batman In Hospital After Gotham Thugs Realize They Can Attack All At Once Instead Of Just One At A Time" was subscriber only, but "Man Celebrates 40th Birthday With Finely-Aged, Single Malt Bottle Of Advil " made me actually laugh.

E: Trimmed bad copy at the bottom and some spelling errors/phrasing.

E2: Should note, the description of the Bee's articles is accurate as of time of writing and time of this edit. Presumably this will change eventually.