• Sibshops@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    They are not saying that the X chromosome mutates to Y, but rather saying that XY doesn’t define the sex. For example, some people with XY are born with female genitalia and look female their whole lives. Sometimes they don’t find out they are XY until trying to have kids and are unable to. It isn’t like the X changes to Y over time. That isn’t possible.

      • Sibshops@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think you may have misread. The PHD isn’t saying that XY becomes XX, they are saying, genetically, a person carrying XY can be a cis woman. Biologically, XY doesn’t determine the sex.

        • Tamei@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          23 hours ago

          I honestly don’t understand. What does define the sex biologically? The genitalia, then? I always understood positions like William’s like “XY is the biologically male sex by definition, if the human develops female genitalia and feels like a woman they were biologically speaking still intended to be a man.” I don’t understand what else there could be on an elemental level to biologically determine the sex.

          • Sausa@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            There’s no one thing that defines sex, that’s what makes it so complicated. What is often thought of as “biological sex” are two clustered sets of checkboxes (e.g chromosomes, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex hormone), but people often have a mixture from both lists. Here’s an interesting nature article on it https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

          • JustAnotherRando@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            To preface: this is from a previous bout of hyper focus curiosity (i.e. I am not an expert). But the human genome is significantly more complex than “XX chromosome means biological female”. Other genomic markers can trigger that don’t align with the typical, which can result in male reproductive organs on a person with XX chromosome and vice versa. XX and XY are also not the only options. There are three, four, and even five somal groupings (e.g. XXY, XYY, XXX - note that to my understanding, you can’t have all Y chromosomes even in these outliers). If anyone has further information or any corrections for me, I’d welcome them - I’m going off of memory from a couple of years ago and it’s not directly relevant to me (i.e. I am cis-male with no known chromosomal abnormalities)

      • Uruanna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s weird how your first thought is “the PhD is wrong” and not “I must have misunderstood something” .

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          “I must have misunderstood something” .

          There was a reason I made that comment

          Though I disagree with the conservative genitalia = gender ideology

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              24 hours ago

              Or the thought the phd must have meant something else

              But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors

              • Uruanna@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                It’s crazy how you’re still insisting that “the PhD is wrong if he meant that”’ rather than figure out that no, what you think they meant is not what they meant, it is not what they said, you are the one misunderstanding what they said. It has to be the PhD’s fault, certainly not yours.

                • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 hours ago

                  It’s crazy that you think me saying “if they meant that they are wrong” means I am not open for further clarification

                  • Uruanna@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 hours ago

                    And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:

                    So not what the phd claims

                    And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors “if they meant that”, when they clearly didn’t mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You’re still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn’t.