[lynndotpy]

No, that is not a good analogy at all. It's so poor an analogy that it's challenging to interpret this comment generously. I think you might be arguing facetiously to make a different rhetoric point than the literal content of your post, bot I will respond to your text literally.

Humans have a wide variety of biological variation in metrics we think of as linked to "biological sex" and those metrics are accessibly mutable. Even within the Olympics, the natural variation of these metrics within cis women is a famous topic of debate (Imane Khelif, Caster Semenya, etc.)

Bipedalism is something which varies very rarely and is especially not accessibly mutable.

[zahlman]

> Humans have a wide variety of biological variation in metrics we think of as linked to "biological sex"

What is the total prevalence of all conditions medically recognized as intersex?

> and those metrics are accessibly mutable.

What is that even supposed to mean?

[lynndotpy]

> What is the total prevalence of all conditions medically recognized as intersex?

Not all biological variation is classified as intersex.

> What is that even supposed to mean?

You can change a lot of your 'secondary sex characteristics' intentionally. This is much easier than removing a limb, and even easier than adding a limb.

[zahlman]

> Not all biological variation is classified as intersex.

Okay, but other biological variation is clearly not relevant to the discussion.

[lynndotpy]

No, I am specifically talking about biological variation in sex characteristics. This is common, and it's not surprising if someone is within the range of "the opposite sex" for one or several sex characteristics.

There are men under 5'4", women taller than 5'9", women with high testosterone, men with low testosterone, men with breast tissue, etc.

[NeutralCrane]

> Bipedalism is something which varies very rarely and is especially not accessibly mutable.

This would apply to sex chromosomes as well

[lynndotpy]

So? It would apply to sex chromosomes and only sex chromosomes, which is just one observed sex characteristic.

We are talking about sexual dimorphism and secondary sex characteristics.

Humans were understood to be sexually dimorphic before we discovered sex chromosomes in 1905, and we usually label our babies with a biological sex without the aid of consumer genetic testing.

[badc0ffee]

I have a lot of sympathy for Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya, as they were assigned female at birth and raised as girls, and they want to compete with women. But I don't know if there's a case to be made that they're biologically female.

They have XY chromosomes, internal testes, a male testosterone level, and male muscle development. They have the SRY gene that the IOC is testing for, and are not one of the exceptions. Regardless of the fact that their DSD (5-ARD) results in no penis.

To be clear, I'm not saying they should start living life as men. But describing their situation as the natural variation of cis women is simplistic and not accurate.

[lynndotpy]

For starters, I can't find any credible source saying they have XY chromosomes or internal testes.

Further, they are women, and therefore their testosterone levels and muscle development are female.

This just gets to a ludicrous place. These are women who are simply identifiable as so. Anyone throughout history would have identified them as so. Their biological metrics are within the variation of cis women, because they are cis women.

[badc0ffee]

Caster Semenya: https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/67367157

[lynndotpy]

This is fair, I didn't know about this, but this doesn't appear to be the case for Imane Khelif.

Either way, my point still stands. These women are women, would have been recognized as such by anyone throughout history, and it's simply the case that some women are born with XY chromosomes and testes.

[badc0ffee]

> this doesn't appear to be the case for Imane Khelif.

It absolutely does appear to be the case, but Imane is very vague about it in interviews.

> These women are women, would have been recognized as such by anyone throughout history

I disagree. They are males with a genital deformity (no penis). Whether that translates to "woman" is not universal across cultures.

I agree we should refer to them as women, because that's how they were raised their entire lives.

> it's simply the case that some women are born with XY chromosomes and testes.

Yes, women with CAIS. But individuals with 5-ARD are not always going to have the "woman" label applied to them. And it is not fair they they compete against women in sporting events.