• TheMuffinMan@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    “centred around” is a subjective projection rather than statement of a fact in cases where gamete production genuinely does not occur. For this person, her gonads never developed into either testes or ovaries, so by this definition she would be of neither sex. I’m OK with that, but it does undermine your point about the strict binary.

    My question to you is why does this matter, in the context of accessing bathrooms and changing rooms? Do you think inspecting reproductive anatomy is a proportionate measure?

    More broadly speaking, what is the point of recording the ‘biological sex’ of a person who, through transition, has changed their physiology and endocrine profile to that associated with the opposite, and no longer has their natal reproductive anatomy? Who would this benefit?

    • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Underdeveloped or non-functional gonads are still identifiable as sexually differentiated tissue. A streak gonad, dysgenetic gonad, or partially developed gonad is still distinguishable as male or female tissue. That distinction is fact, not subjective projection. It is also true that humans can’t change sex. Some sex traits can be modified, but not sex.

      My comment is limited to ensuring scientific accuracy. It makes no claim about whether sex matters for bathroom access and changing rooms.