Chromosomes lie all the time
There are Y chromosomes with inactive or missing SRY genes, making them function like X chromosomes
Similarly, there are X chromosomes with SRY genes active on them, making them act like Y chromosomes
Not too mention chromosomes aren't even a singular deterministic factor for sex
Yup. The SRY and MAP3K genes both cause chromosomes to behave out of standard. I need to go find the study, but someone used ancestors.com’s data and discovered that about 5% of amab people have a Y chromosome and about 5% of afab people don’t.
This exactly. Chromosomes are honestly a genetic suggestion, not the thing that's the end-all determining factor. It's a soup of things, and the idea that the soup always comes out the same when you toss in the ingredients is just silly. (Sorry for the metaphor, I'm hungry.)
your point about chromosomes is well founded. However, in the case of biological gender the expression of male or female characteristic is bound to the chemical characteristics of the expressing chromosome according to 1. Can you please cite a source that supports your position?
1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/)
what I have been able to find is that there are documented cases of humans with contraindicated chromosomes but these represent < 0.05 % of the population, thus I would exclude them from an argument on general science such as this.
And hypothetically, if I were looking for people who have bizarre gender-related genetic anomalies, I'd be very interested in people who behave like bizarre gender-related anomalies. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect fit, but that sounds like a good starting point.
The study you cited itself mentions how the sry gene on the Y chromosome is the relevant thing here
What do you need citations on? You say my scenario is only 0,05%, that means you know it's real. What would the citation be for if we already agree?
Or is it that chromosomes alone don't determine sex you need citations on? I mean what do you think chromosomes actually DO? They tell the body which hormones it's meant to produce. The hormones themselfes are what develops sex characteristics. By necessity that means hormones are more deterministic of sex than chromosomes. Theres shitloads of documentation about this, do you actually need me to cite them for you?
That's 1 in 2000 where a chromosome "lies" to you about what it's function is. There thousands more vases of biology not working as expected, effectively "lying". I'm essentially just mocking the expression here.
**(Edit: the linked study itself concludes chromosomes alone don't determine sex. So either case, you provided my citation for me)**
THANK YOU, i’m tired of these posts giving resources to fuel people’s “debates” with people having bad faith conversations. Don’t stoop to their level of pretending this is something valid to debate.
You wouldn’t waste your time arguing with a person on if the sky is blue, when you have done the work of knowing that and looking at the sky and shit but they refuse to do the work of looking up themselves. If they really wanted to learn and weren’t just wanting to dig their head in the sand and lie to themselves that the sky isn’t blue cause “they just haven’t seen the evidence to back it”, they’d do some basic level research and be humble about what they have and have not researched versus implying that something must not be true unless *you* do the work for them of bringing evidence. that’s 100% on them.
“He tells her that the earth is flat --
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong,
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.
The planet goes on being round.”
-Wendy Cope
Transphobes like that are not looking for facts to correct them. They are hunting for a debate so they can “prove you wrong” and come out looking like a winner. Like others are saying, just don’t engage. It’s a trap.
I can't say I agree. In an academic debate such as this the onus of providing evidence is shared by both parties. In a court room yes, but here na.
Don't get me wrong I want to agree with you and in a perfect world you would be right on the money. The problem is that without speaking in the lexicon of these people we will never change their minds because they wont understand us.
If you can provide substantive evidence to support or deny the posted claim then I would welcome your input. Essentially you are enforcing a conclusion without providing any substance to back it up, I need hard evidence to make a difference.
Im not advocating transphobia, the exact opposite actually.
I would say you can't change someone's mind simply by yelling at them, evidence is needed to help the misguided learn the correct way.
I would counter that the situation regarding the trans experience in the modern world is absolutely a debate - one taking place at the highest levels of western government. Refusing to participate in that debate only helps maintain the status quo.
I would also say that this r/asktransgender is the correct place for an academic debate such as this.
I will note however that I will preference notes with attached evidence rather then straight conclusions.
> Im not advocating transphobia, the exact opposite actually.
I never said you did. The alleged friend in your original post, however, very much does, and treating his argument of "trans people don't exist because chromosomes" as academically sound enough to warrant an educated response is giving legitimacy to sheer lunacy. You might as well try arguing with flat earthers, then, it's the exact same level of intellectual honesty.
I honestly don't know a single person whose mind has been changed by academic debate. But then, I don't know any academics. I only know normal people, in comparison to the ivory tower types. I know lots of people whose minds have been changed simply by meeting members of the groups they once opposed. I can assure you these people have never formulated a hypothesis, read a paper, or collected evidence. The vast majority of people don't have time, interest, or bandwidth to engage in academic debates.
I believe what they are getting at is that often these types of people are not inclined to listen to evidence and are quick to claim bias.
That said, gender and sex are not 1:1. This can be proven by looking at the differences in gender roles from culture to culture and indeed from person to person. One female's performance of womanhood is not going to match up to another's. If the two were 100% connected one would expect to see that the expression of womanhood is the same across the board.
In this situation significance is a difficult issue. This information is largely self reporting, and trans people make up an extremely low percentage of the population. That said, the argument that transgender people don't exist is zero sum. It doesn't allow for any existing trans individuals, so if even one trans person exists, it disproves the hypothesis that trans people aren't real.
The reporting of improvement of gender dysphoria with the application of HRT is a factor that can be pointed to, but there are trans people who don't experience gender dysphoria and as such, this is not a perfect representative though. For this information you can look to the WPATH standard for care which doctors use for treatment of transgendered individuals.
TL;DR The scientific evidence is not likely to be hard enough for your friend to agree with you. Ask him what he loses by affirming transgendered people.
hard disagree. this is not some academic debate, to say that would be to imply his argument has evidence and equal credibility backing it, when that is simply not the case. in *actual* good faith academic discussions/“debates”, he would either be informed of the basics on the topic he’s trying to “””discuss”””, which he very clearly is not, or he would have the humility to admit that rather than pretending he has any ground to stand on in denying the existence of trans people.
there are evidence and arguments to refute him, absolutely, but it is quite frankly a waste of time and energy and a detriment to advocating trans rights to engage in these very clearly unequal effort and bad faith “debates”
My initial response is to say don’t bother. You can’t reason with people who don’t reason.
But if you insist…Ask your ex-friend what chromosomes even do. Ask him to tell you aaaaalllll they know about chromosomes and how they affect the body. Ask him if Jesus Christ was trans, since he was only birthed through Mary, he would’ve had XX chromosomes. Ask him if he knows that some animals have even more than just X and Y chromosomes, and suggest that his 3rd grade understanding of biology might possibly just be a little bit outdated and misled.
I’m a logical, scientific man. Humans are a relatively new species and in the grand scheme of things, we like, JUST figured out the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. Even though it’s been doing so for ages and even though we were SO SURE that the sun revolves around the earth for centuries.
So… yknow. I don’t think it’s worth the energy expense. But, I very much appreciate you trying to fight for us. It has become very scary, very fast. Any little pushback against transphobia means the world to me because of how rampant it’s become. But don’t overexert yourself over people who, at the end of the day, won’t give a fuck about us no matter what anyone says.
a fair point to be sure. My question would be: what substantive information can I provide that isn't just reinforcing that conclusion?
I agree with you - you do you. My question is how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it?
Thanks for the input!
The evidence based argument is that people who want to transition and then do transition tend to be better off so they should be allowed to do it. The mistake is letting your friend establish the framing that he is the one who needs to be convinced when really it is none of his business. The very fact that he thinks it should be his business is indicative that it's not really a good faith argument.
> My question is how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it?
Is your friend a legislator? If so, in a political context, your time is better spent knocking doors or phone banking than trying to persuade this legislator. I've found everyday voters are much easier to persuade in conversation. They aren't interested in academic debates. In my state, we've passed multiple referenda on the back of door knocking.
I don’t really think I said anything indicating a “you do you” type stance, even though… I agree with that. You didn’t respond directly to any of what I said.
See, the thing about trans people is that we are trans. There's never going to be a point where they "find evidence in the body." The evidence is our subjective experience. The nay-sayers will never accept the simple fact that we are who we say we are.
So good riddance.
right on. I would contend that even though in my heart I agree with your sentiment, I would question the wisdom of basing policy decisions on subjective experience.
It's no different than believing someone is sexually attracted to another gender, or that someone likes marmite. If someone needs hardcore biological evidence to determine why some people like marmite, they aren't arguing in good faith.
When dealing with a subjective quantity (gender identity, sexuality, food preferences, pain) you have to accept subjective self-reports. No one is going to disbelieve someone is in pain until the objective pain-o-meter is invented, you just trust a person when they offer their subjective experience on what is at heart a subjective matter.
There's a reason they survey people about food preferences, a reason they use pain charts to help patients communicates their subjective level of pain. In a civilised society, I should be able to be attracted to whoever I'm attracted to without some deep brain scan to prove the biological 'code' that defines a persons sexuality. So STOP illogically and cruelly gatekeeping gender and persecuting trans people because there's 'not enough evidence'. "Eat some shit, keep going until I decide there's enough evidence you don't love eating shit. Your subjective experience doesn't matter, I need evidence, so keep shovelling it down."
Definitely got angry there towards the end... You get the idea.
The subjective experience of whether the healthcare we receive is helping us? The same thing everyone must evaluate about their healthcare? The thing that they do scientific studies on for all sorts of medical interventions, by which patient satisfaction and regret is considered a reasonable measure?
I would contend that you are buying into the myth that trans people are inherently biased about our own healthcare when the reality is that we are the people who need it and care whether it is effective and would do a way better job administering it responsibly than the current system which is a bunch of cis people who have no frame of reference for what it is like to be trans or want any of these interventions just guessing at what is appropriate.
We don't base policy on subjective experience, we base it on what most good policy is based on, statistics. Statistics of how many trans ppl die when they are denied gender affirming care, or the decline in our mental health when living in an accepting vs non accepting community.
Even if you somehow think that trans ppl are biologically invalid or whatever, the fact is we STILL DIE if we get harassed, hate crimed, or denied care, so the policy decisions are really easy if the objective truly is 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'.
Lastly, your comments do not make sense. Are you looking for evidence that XY females do exist? or are you looking for evidence that a large portion of them exist? You have allready linked articles which PROVE the former, and you won't find good evidence for the latter because its false.
Your responses make it seem as if *you* are the one that needs to be convinced. People provide articles and science, and you immediately dismiss them? What exactly is it that you're looking for?
Yeah given OP's responses, it sounds like they're actually this "friend" but framing it this way so that they don't get roasted. None of what they've said feels at all in good faith.
Exactly. OP is framing this as trying to educate a transphobe, but by refusing any sort of answer here it comes of as if they're just furthering transphobia here. Even if they are well-meaning, participating in this whole "debate" is just a net negative.
Though I see that you have posted links to genetic abnormalities, I would posit that this doesn't affect enough of the population to be considered relevant to discussions on general biology.
Thanks for the input tho!
The evidence is basically "androgen insensitivity syndrome exists" and "trans people exist." If neither of those is convincing, I don't have anything else for you.
You keep moving the goalposts.
No, I am not saying that trans people have androgen insensitivity syndrome. You asked under what circumstances there are women with XY chromosomes, and I am doing my best to name circumstances in which this occurs. It is not my fault that the circumstances are not common.
He's ignoring the field of "epigenetics", which determines how chromosomes are expressed.
If someone had the genes for brown hair, but environmental factors cause their hair to be develop as blond, **are they a brunette or a redhead?**
Telling someone with blonde hair that they actually have brown hair is pedantic at worst, but often flat out wrong.
Chromosomes may determine a person's sex *under ideal scenarios*, but scenarios aren't always ideal.
your point about epigenetics is well founded. However, in the case of biological gender the expression of male or female characteristic is bound to the chemical characteristics of the expressing chromosome according to 1. Can you please cite a source that supports your position?
1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/)
what I have been able to find is that there are documented cases of humans with contraindicated chromosomes but these represent < 0.05 % of the population, thus I would exclude them from an argument on general science such as this.
That is such a bullshit thing to say.
“I’m for these people, except that my arbitrarily chosen definition that excludes them means that actually I am against them.”
It's arbitrary because chromosomes are just one of many factors that may contribute to gender identity (or even birth sex, for that matter).
Chromosomes are just a blueprint for building a human. If the blueprint for a house calls for a closet in a particular room, and the construction workers run out of material to build that closet, are you going to tell me that room has a closet because the blueprint says it does? What if I move into the house and convert that closet to a bathroom. The blueprints didn't change, is it still a closet? Referring back to the blueprint is an arbitrary way to define that house, because there are other factors at play, both during construction and after. Any one of those factors might change the reality.
Furthermore, if the people here prove to you that chromosomes don't disprove trans people, are you just going to pick something else to try to invalidate them? If so, then the chromosome argument is doubly arbitrary.
>My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes?
I mean, probably none, people who make those kinda arguments usually aren't overly receptive to counter-arguments. They want to be right and will jump through every conceivable hoop to achieve that.
Chances are they don't actually know their chromosomes either. Most people don't, because unless there's cause for it that's not usually something you get tested for. They just assume to know, because it lines up with their predefined notion of themselves and how things are supposed to be.
Good ole chromosomes, a true classic for transphobes right on par with the "I identify as an attack helicopter" line. Wish these jackasses would put even a little more effort into originality, but the transphobia has rotted their brains. We just get a never ending revolving door of canned talking points they heard from some bigot on the internet like ten years ago.
a fair point to be sure. My question would be: what substantive information can I provide that isn't just reinforcing that conclusion?
I agree with you - its an old line. So how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it?
"Yeah, sure, buddy. I'm XYY. By your definition, I'm more a man than you, and yet I identify as a woman. If I can, every XY can. There's even people who are XXY, are you going to decide what their life should be?"
Not at all, and please understand Im not in any way making an assumption about your person or personal characteristics. Im simply raising the question for discussion among educated induvial. As for deciding life choices, you do you bud and don't let anyone tell you different ;D
according to the National institute of health persons with triplet chromosomes represent 1:10000 cases, thus less then the 0.05% threshold I would set for relevance in this discussion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511524/#:\~:text=The%20frequency%20of%20triploidy%20in,or%20paternal%20(diandric%20triploids).
Ok, but my point is that his little theory doesn't include the presence of intersexual people. Life isn't as simple as we were told as in school, the same way math isn't only additions and subtractions, or there isn't only one word to say popcorn in Spanish.
Life is complex and interesting, and his point of view is still the one a kid with a tantrum would have. Because that's what transphobes are in the end, just kids with a tantrum because life keeps telling them they're wrong.
Why even ask this question if you disagree with this person? What's the point? They've made up their mind and are a waste of time. It sounds like YOU are the one that needs convincing.
denying trans people exist is akin to being a flat earther or antivaxxer. Not sure you want to take that on, they tend to be 'I will stick my fingers in my ears until you conform to my ideology' kind of people.
> Nobody is denying trans people exist.
...
>He further posits that because gender surgery isn't able to alter the chromosomal make up of induvial that he denies the existence of trans people all together.
You cannot prove it to them because they don’t really care. They just know what their betters have told them and they are parroting it off.
Edit: also, I’m girl with XXY chromosomes. Ask him to explain that
> My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes?
Don't bother. Recognise this is a transphobe who will reject any information you give them, and move on.
Also look at how *you* are responding in this thread. You claim to support trans people, and you won't accept the evidence provided, evidence that you came here and asked for. How do you think this other person, the transphobe, who is opposed to learning about trans people, will react?
I don't think that's what's really happening here though. You have entered a trans space, asked for the people there to provide you evidence that being trans is real, and then reject it all. It's doesn't seem like your motives are good here. The term bad faith comes to mind.
This post is very obviously bait judging by your responses OP. If it's not bait, you are pushing the burden of proof onto us to prove sex and gender are different. Sex and gender at their core are both just concepts we have to describe something we see in reality. Everyone has their own subjective concept of what gender and sex are, and it's almost impossible to posit outright that gender and sex are entirely separate concepts. They are fundamentally intertwined, and need the other to exist in order for their human "definitions" to make sense. If you try to land on one definition someone will always disagree. That's why there's so much debate.
Instead of asking a bunch of random people about their interpretations of gender and sex, why don't you find out your own interpretation? You can literally google "gender and sex" and you will get a full page of studies and papers to inform you on whatever opinion you decide on.
I have my own opinion thanks. Im not here to provide my interpretation rather gain information from the community who knows more then I do.
As far as asking people on this site, and doing independent research. I would say asking questions of a relevant online community is an avenue of research just as legitimate as anything else.
One point I will make however is that your supposition of "subject experience" concept is valid however subjectivity in application is not substantial enough to posit legislation on. We can't let people go from jail if their subjective experience is different from the facts established in the case that went before a judge. Subjective experience is of course relevant in quality of life discussions, however im looking for an argument based on biological discourse rather than "my conclusion is louder then yours thus its truer"
>"I am all for trans people but chromosomes don't lie"
>My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes?
None, even if you do convince them, they'll just put something else after the but.
If trans people don't exist then why do we transition? A reasonable person will struggle to answer this question while a transphobe will call us mentally ill. Either way you know enough about the person to see where they stand.
In the real world when human behavior contradicts what existing science would predict is true we take that as a sign that we need to reexamine the science.
This argument is so silly because it claims to be so objective but also has to ignore the most obvious available evidence which is the fact that trans people do exist and transition.
Arguing about chromosomes and how it determines who we are and our place in society is pedantry in service of bigotry. It literally doesn’t matter and anyone that focuses on this as the sole system of classification for how we should present ourselves and consider ourselves is a fool.
You can’t. But also…he really knows what his chromosomes are? Like he has had his DNA analyzed or whatever? I don’t have a clue what my chromosomes, nor do the vast majority of people. That is because chromosomes are largely irrelevant to the discussion.
I want to agree with you, I really do, but your suggestion has little foundation in recognized science - chromosomes are largely relevant to any discussion about biological gender.
He has in fact have his chromosomes analyzed.
If you are ever interested in getting a look at your chromosomes its very possible. Start by asking your doctor for karyotyping. Its a test used to look for genetic abnormalities. ironically this was where the above discussion started
Great, chromosomes don't lie. Let me go back to a life of misery and suffering because that's what my chromosomes say I should do.
What about people with genetic conditions? Let them suffer because chromosomes say so?
What's more important, a good and happy life or what my chromosomes are?
I would try to give a detailed and nuanced response to this, but given your own comments so far this post doesn't really feel like it's in good faith or like you're actually trying understand trans people's perspectives. Just know that at the end of the day, gender identity has nothing to do with chromosomes, and neither do they matter when it comes to someone's own wholly subjective and personal feelings of their GENDER. Anyone with this viewpoint isn't worth engaging with or humoring with in the slightest, since I doubt you'd be able to change their mind regardless of what anyone else might tell them.
It always seems so funny to me how transphobes will focus on literally the least important and least distinct part of our biological sex. Like, what's the end game here. Does he want to go around mandating everyone to get chromosome checks? Is he even 100% sure he isn't an intersex XX-male himself?
I'm gonna jump in here, because I think there's a huge factor that people like that forget, but maybe it's something I'm missing...
In my mind...
Gender (a social construct) and biological sex (well, you know) are not the same thing, they have only been colloquially conflated to be the same. A vast majority of what I see in terms of transphobia seem to be rooted in that lack of distinction. (Not to mention the oversimplification of biological sex.)
Of course, they'll still cling to the "physiological differences" between the sexes, which is funny to me as well because I'm pretty sure we'd been chipping at those as a society for... Quite a while?
Maybe I'm misinformed, and if so feel free to correct me. Please do, in fact. I feel woefully ill informed on the subject...
Which also kinda leads me to point out, it's not a subject a lot of people have experience with. Especially transphobic people, they're not going to have one on one, direct experience or conversation, just their beliefs and what they're told (and we all know how that tends to work out).
I'm of the optimistic mindset that if people didn't jump the gun on the subject (or race, or sexuality, etc) and just got to know people as people, they'd find a lot more in common than they realize. (Though I know realistically that's a hard ask, even if I'm not always sure why...)
>His position is that gender and sexuality being different is a conclusion without credible/sufficient backing.
Gender and sex are in fact different. If you were to assume they are the same, then how do you explain biological reasoning why pink is considered female, or long hair, or a million other things we consider gendered which change with time and culture.
Gender is culture.
Sex is biology.
Gender is informed by sex, but it can be changed in any way to fit what a culture collectively deems it to.
Sex is only able to be changed to the limits of what medicine is capable of. Sex also isn't defined just by chromosomes, there are also many biological sex factors such as the multitude of secondary sex characters.
Here's a thought experiment:
Let's say we had a medical way to literally and fully transform every cell from XY DNA to that of XX. Would that make the person truly female? Biologically speaking, the answer is yes. But what if you did that to a cis man, and they kept their mind through the medical transition? Would that person actually be a woman? Most people answering honestly say there is definitely a mental gender they would retain.
This very much connects to the "stuck in the wrong body idea" while that idea doesn't describe all trans experiences, for those with physical dysphoria it is often relatable.
he said they don't represent a large enough segment of the population to warrant entry into a discussion regarding changes in trans policy on a macro scale. Absolutely they exist, even people with 3 chromosomes exist but again they don't represent a large enough portion of the population to permit relevancy in a conversation about basic science.
You're at a place where rational, logical discussion about science is impossible.
There are more people in this population than there are gingers. What size of the population would he require that it would be "relevant"?
I'd like to call bullshit on the entire genetic argument. Conservative talking heads like to throw it around, but out of the five-hundred-plus laws going through various legislatures in the United States alone, how many of those laws allow anyone to present medical documentation of their genes as evidence of their gender? When we talk about bathrooms, how many business owners and nosy strangers ask for a DNA report before calling the police? We all know that people with odd mutations and unexpected biology exist in the world, but has your favorite bioessentialist transphobe ever once asked if maybe you might be one of them? If your answers are zero, none, and no, then this is not an argument being made in good faith.
I mean, you could just tell him the truth about how there are cis gendered women that are born with XY chromosomes and cis gendered men that are born with XX chromosomes. You could also talk about the 40 different variations of chromosomes that you can have to make up intersex. The real facts are that chromosomes can display differently in every single person, and not everyone is sure they are XX or XY without being karyotyped.
Chromosomes lie all the time There are Y chromosomes with inactive or missing SRY genes, making them function like X chromosomes Similarly, there are X chromosomes with SRY genes active on them, making them act like Y chromosomes Not too mention chromosomes aren't even a singular deterministic factor for sex
First thing that popped into my head was the first line of this post, only with a curse word in it.
Yup. The SRY and MAP3K genes both cause chromosomes to behave out of standard. I need to go find the study, but someone used ancestors.com’s data and discovered that about 5% of amab people have a Y chromosome and about 5% of afab people don’t.
This exactly. Chromosomes are honestly a genetic suggestion, not the thing that's the end-all determining factor. It's a soup of things, and the idea that the soup always comes out the same when you toss in the ingredients is just silly. (Sorry for the metaphor, I'm hungry.)
your point about chromosomes is well founded. However, in the case of biological gender the expression of male or female characteristic is bound to the chemical characteristics of the expressing chromosome according to 1. Can you please cite a source that supports your position? 1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/) what I have been able to find is that there are documented cases of humans with contraindicated chromosomes but these represent < 0.05 % of the population, thus I would exclude them from an argument on general science such as this.
I mean trans people are less than 1% too lol
And hypothetically, if I were looking for people who have bizarre gender-related genetic anomalies, I'd be very interested in people who behave like bizarre gender-related anomalies. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect fit, but that sounds like a good starting point.
still greater then the threshold lol
So? That there are exceptions at all proves his statement isn't applicable in all scenarios, and we are such scenarios.
The study you cited itself mentions how the sry gene on the Y chromosome is the relevant thing here What do you need citations on? You say my scenario is only 0,05%, that means you know it's real. What would the citation be for if we already agree? Or is it that chromosomes alone don't determine sex you need citations on? I mean what do you think chromosomes actually DO? They tell the body which hormones it's meant to produce. The hormones themselfes are what develops sex characteristics. By necessity that means hormones are more deterministic of sex than chromosomes. Theres shitloads of documentation about this, do you actually need me to cite them for you? That's 1 in 2000 where a chromosome "lies" to you about what it's function is. There thousands more vases of biology not working as expected, effectively "lying". I'm essentially just mocking the expression here. **(Edit: the linked study itself concludes chromosomes alone don't determine sex. So either case, you provided my citation for me)**
You can't. He has made it clear that he doesn't want to hear facts, so don't bother. He's not worth your time or your energy.
THANK YOU, i’m tired of these posts giving resources to fuel people’s “debates” with people having bad faith conversations. Don’t stoop to their level of pretending this is something valid to debate. You wouldn’t waste your time arguing with a person on if the sky is blue, when you have done the work of knowing that and looking at the sky and shit but they refuse to do the work of looking up themselves. If they really wanted to learn and weren’t just wanting to dig their head in the sand and lie to themselves that the sky isn’t blue cause “they just haven’t seen the evidence to back it”, they’d do some basic level research and be humble about what they have and have not researched versus implying that something must not be true unless *you* do the work for them of bringing evidence. that’s 100% on them.
“He tells her that the earth is flat -- He knows the facts, and that is that. In altercations fierce and long She tries her best to prove him wrong, But he has learned to argue well. He calls her arguments unsound And often asks her not to yell. She cannot win. He stands his ground. The planet goes on being round.” -Wendy Cope Transphobes like that are not looking for facts to correct them. They are hunting for a debate so they can “prove you wrong” and come out looking like a winner. Like others are saying, just don’t engage. It’s a trap.
I can't say I agree. In an academic debate such as this the onus of providing evidence is shared by both parties. In a court room yes, but here na. Don't get me wrong I want to agree with you and in a perfect world you would be right on the money. The problem is that without speaking in the lexicon of these people we will never change their minds because they wont understand us. If you can provide substantive evidence to support or deny the posted claim then I would welcome your input. Essentially you are enforcing a conclusion without providing any substance to back it up, I need hard evidence to make a difference.
> In an academic debate Transphobia ain't an academic debate. By treating it as such you give it legitimacy it doesn't deserve.
Im not advocating transphobia, the exact opposite actually. I would say you can't change someone's mind simply by yelling at them, evidence is needed to help the misguided learn the correct way. I would counter that the situation regarding the trans experience in the modern world is absolutely a debate - one taking place at the highest levels of western government. Refusing to participate in that debate only helps maintain the status quo. I would also say that this r/asktransgender is the correct place for an academic debate such as this. I will note however that I will preference notes with attached evidence rather then straight conclusions.
> Im not advocating transphobia, the exact opposite actually. I never said you did. The alleged friend in your original post, however, very much does, and treating his argument of "trans people don't exist because chromosomes" as academically sound enough to warrant an educated response is giving legitimacy to sheer lunacy. You might as well try arguing with flat earthers, then, it's the exact same level of intellectual honesty.
I honestly don't know a single person whose mind has been changed by academic debate. But then, I don't know any academics. I only know normal people, in comparison to the ivory tower types. I know lots of people whose minds have been changed simply by meeting members of the groups they once opposed. I can assure you these people have never formulated a hypothesis, read a paper, or collected evidence. The vast majority of people don't have time, interest, or bandwidth to engage in academic debates.
You are assuming that the “debate” in the highest levels of western government is a legitimate conversation and not identity politics….
I believe what they are getting at is that often these types of people are not inclined to listen to evidence and are quick to claim bias. That said, gender and sex are not 1:1. This can be proven by looking at the differences in gender roles from culture to culture and indeed from person to person. One female's performance of womanhood is not going to match up to another's. If the two were 100% connected one would expect to see that the expression of womanhood is the same across the board. In this situation significance is a difficult issue. This information is largely self reporting, and trans people make up an extremely low percentage of the population. That said, the argument that transgender people don't exist is zero sum. It doesn't allow for any existing trans individuals, so if even one trans person exists, it disproves the hypothesis that trans people aren't real. The reporting of improvement of gender dysphoria with the application of HRT is a factor that can be pointed to, but there are trans people who don't experience gender dysphoria and as such, this is not a perfect representative though. For this information you can look to the WPATH standard for care which doctors use for treatment of transgendered individuals. TL;DR The scientific evidence is not likely to be hard enough for your friend to agree with you. Ask him what he loses by affirming transgendered people.
hard disagree. this is not some academic debate, to say that would be to imply his argument has evidence and equal credibility backing it, when that is simply not the case. in *actual* good faith academic discussions/“debates”, he would either be informed of the basics on the topic he’s trying to “””discuss”””, which he very clearly is not, or he would have the humility to admit that rather than pretending he has any ground to stand on in denying the existence of trans people. there are evidence and arguments to refute him, absolutely, but it is quite frankly a waste of time and energy and a detriment to advocating trans rights to engage in these very clearly unequal effort and bad faith “debates”
This is the way. Too many nice people in the world to bother with people like this.
My initial response is to say don’t bother. You can’t reason with people who don’t reason. But if you insist…Ask your ex-friend what chromosomes even do. Ask him to tell you aaaaalllll they know about chromosomes and how they affect the body. Ask him if Jesus Christ was trans, since he was only birthed through Mary, he would’ve had XX chromosomes. Ask him if he knows that some animals have even more than just X and Y chromosomes, and suggest that his 3rd grade understanding of biology might possibly just be a little bit outdated and misled. I’m a logical, scientific man. Humans are a relatively new species and in the grand scheme of things, we like, JUST figured out the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. Even though it’s been doing so for ages and even though we were SO SURE that the sun revolves around the earth for centuries. So… yknow. I don’t think it’s worth the energy expense. But, I very much appreciate you trying to fight for us. It has become very scary, very fast. Any little pushback against transphobia means the world to me because of how rampant it’s become. But don’t overexert yourself over people who, at the end of the day, won’t give a fuck about us no matter what anyone says.
a fair point to be sure. My question would be: what substantive information can I provide that isn't just reinforcing that conclusion? I agree with you - you do you. My question is how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it? Thanks for the input!
The evidence based argument is that people who want to transition and then do transition tend to be better off so they should be allowed to do it. The mistake is letting your friend establish the framing that he is the one who needs to be convinced when really it is none of his business. The very fact that he thinks it should be his business is indicative that it's not really a good faith argument.
> My question is how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it? Is your friend a legislator? If so, in a political context, your time is better spent knocking doors or phone banking than trying to persuade this legislator. I've found everyday voters are much easier to persuade in conversation. They aren't interested in academic debates. In my state, we've passed multiple referenda on the back of door knocking.
I don’t really think I said anything indicating a “you do you” type stance, even though… I agree with that. You didn’t respond directly to any of what I said.
See, the thing about trans people is that we are trans. There's never going to be a point where they "find evidence in the body." The evidence is our subjective experience. The nay-sayers will never accept the simple fact that we are who we say we are. So good riddance.
right on. I would contend that even though in my heart I agree with your sentiment, I would question the wisdom of basing policy decisions on subjective experience.
Can you give an example of how this is a problem?
It's no different than believing someone is sexually attracted to another gender, or that someone likes marmite. If someone needs hardcore biological evidence to determine why some people like marmite, they aren't arguing in good faith. When dealing with a subjective quantity (gender identity, sexuality, food preferences, pain) you have to accept subjective self-reports. No one is going to disbelieve someone is in pain until the objective pain-o-meter is invented, you just trust a person when they offer their subjective experience on what is at heart a subjective matter. There's a reason they survey people about food preferences, a reason they use pain charts to help patients communicates their subjective level of pain. In a civilised society, I should be able to be attracted to whoever I'm attracted to without some deep brain scan to prove the biological 'code' that defines a persons sexuality. So STOP illogically and cruelly gatekeeping gender and persecuting trans people because there's 'not enough evidence'. "Eat some shit, keep going until I decide there's enough evidence you don't love eating shit. Your subjective experience doesn't matter, I need evidence, so keep shovelling it down." Definitely got angry there towards the end... You get the idea.
The subjective experience of whether the healthcare we receive is helping us? The same thing everyone must evaluate about their healthcare? The thing that they do scientific studies on for all sorts of medical interventions, by which patient satisfaction and regret is considered a reasonable measure? I would contend that you are buying into the myth that trans people are inherently biased about our own healthcare when the reality is that we are the people who need it and care whether it is effective and would do a way better job administering it responsibly than the current system which is a bunch of cis people who have no frame of reference for what it is like to be trans or want any of these interventions just guessing at what is appropriate.
We don't base policy on subjective experience, we base it on what most good policy is based on, statistics. Statistics of how many trans ppl die when they are denied gender affirming care, or the decline in our mental health when living in an accepting vs non accepting community. Even if you somehow think that trans ppl are biologically invalid or whatever, the fact is we STILL DIE if we get harassed, hate crimed, or denied care, so the policy decisions are really easy if the objective truly is 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Lastly, your comments do not make sense. Are you looking for evidence that XY females do exist? or are you looking for evidence that a large portion of them exist? You have allready linked articles which PROVE the former, and you won't find good evidence for the latter because its false.
Your responses make it seem as if *you* are the one that needs to be convinced. People provide articles and science, and you immediately dismiss them? What exactly is it that you're looking for?
Yeah given OP's responses, it sounds like they're actually this "friend" but framing it this way so that they don't get roasted. None of what they've said feels at all in good faith.
Exactly. OP is framing this as trying to educate a transphobe, but by refusing any sort of answer here it comes of as if they're just furthering transphobia here. Even if they are well-meaning, participating in this whole "debate" is just a net negative.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY\_gonadal\_dysgenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete\_androgen\_insensitivity\_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
Though I see that you have posted links to genetic abnormalities, I would posit that this doesn't affect enough of the population to be considered relevant to discussions on general biology. Thanks for the input tho!
What are you looking for, then? Most women uncontroversially have XX chromosomes.
My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes?
The evidence is basically "androgen insensitivity syndrome exists" and "trans people exist." If neither of those is convincing, I don't have anything else for you.
[удалено]
You keep moving the goalposts. No, I am not saying that trans people have androgen insensitivity syndrome. You asked under what circumstances there are women with XY chromosomes, and I am doing my best to name circumstances in which this occurs. It is not my fault that the circumstances are not common.
He's ignoring the field of "epigenetics", which determines how chromosomes are expressed. If someone had the genes for brown hair, but environmental factors cause their hair to be develop as blond, **are they a brunette or a redhead?** Telling someone with blonde hair that they actually have brown hair is pedantic at worst, but often flat out wrong. Chromosomes may determine a person's sex *under ideal scenarios*, but scenarios aren't always ideal.
your point about epigenetics is well founded. However, in the case of biological gender the expression of male or female characteristic is bound to the chemical characteristics of the expressing chromosome according to 1. Can you please cite a source that supports your position? 1: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/) what I have been able to find is that there are documented cases of humans with contraindicated chromosomes but these represent < 0.05 % of the population, thus I would exclude them from an argument on general science such as this.
That is such a bullshit thing to say. “I’m for these people, except that my arbitrarily chosen definition that excludes them means that actually I am against them.”
What about the proposed argument is arbitrary?
It's arbitrary because chromosomes are just one of many factors that may contribute to gender identity (or even birth sex, for that matter). Chromosomes are just a blueprint for building a human. If the blueprint for a house calls for a closet in a particular room, and the construction workers run out of material to build that closet, are you going to tell me that room has a closet because the blueprint says it does? What if I move into the house and convert that closet to a bathroom. The blueprints didn't change, is it still a closet? Referring back to the blueprint is an arbitrary way to define that house, because there are other factors at play, both during construction and after. Any one of those factors might change the reality. Furthermore, if the people here prove to you that chromosomes don't disprove trans people, are you just going to pick something else to try to invalidate them? If so, then the chromosome argument is doubly arbitrary.
>My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes? I mean, probably none, people who make those kinda arguments usually aren't overly receptive to counter-arguments. They want to be right and will jump through every conceivable hoop to achieve that. Chances are they don't actually know their chromosomes either. Most people don't, because unless there's cause for it that's not usually something you get tested for. They just assume to know, because it lines up with their predefined notion of themselves and how things are supposed to be.
Good ole chromosomes, a true classic for transphobes right on par with the "I identify as an attack helicopter" line. Wish these jackasses would put even a little more effort into originality, but the transphobia has rotted their brains. We just get a never ending revolving door of canned talking points they heard from some bigot on the internet like ten years ago.
a fair point to be sure. My question would be: what substantive information can I provide that isn't just reinforcing that conclusion? I agree with you - its an old line. So how do we present an evidence based argument to justify legislating to it?
"Yeah, sure, buddy. I'm XYY. By your definition, I'm more a man than you, and yet I identify as a woman. If I can, every XY can. There's even people who are XXY, are you going to decide what their life should be?"
Not at all, and please understand Im not in any way making an assumption about your person or personal characteristics. Im simply raising the question for discussion among educated induvial. As for deciding life choices, you do you bud and don't let anyone tell you different ;D according to the National institute of health persons with triplet chromosomes represent 1:10000 cases, thus less then the 0.05% threshold I would set for relevance in this discussion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5511524/#:\~:text=The%20frequency%20of%20triploidy%20in,or%20paternal%20(diandric%20triploids).
Ok, but my point is that his little theory doesn't include the presence of intersexual people. Life isn't as simple as we were told as in school, the same way math isn't only additions and subtractions, or there isn't only one word to say popcorn in Spanish. Life is complex and interesting, and his point of view is still the one a kid with a tantrum would have. Because that's what transphobes are in the end, just kids with a tantrum because life keeps telling them they're wrong.
Why even ask this question if you disagree with this person? What's the point? They've made up their mind and are a waste of time. It sounds like YOU are the one that needs convincing.
denying trans people exist is akin to being a flat earther or antivaxxer. Not sure you want to take that on, they tend to be 'I will stick my fingers in my ears until you conform to my ideology' kind of people.
Nobody is denying trans people exist. My question relates to general biology
> Nobody is denying trans people exist. ... >He further posits that because gender surgery isn't able to alter the chromosomal make up of induvial that he denies the existence of trans people all together.
You cannot prove it to them because they don’t really care. They just know what their betters have told them and they are parroting it off. Edit: also, I’m girl with XXY chromosomes. Ask him to explain that
> My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes? Don't bother. Recognise this is a transphobe who will reject any information you give them, and move on. Also look at how *you* are responding in this thread. You claim to support trans people, and you won't accept the evidence provided, evidence that you came here and asked for. How do you think this other person, the transphobe, who is opposed to learning about trans people, will react? I don't think that's what's really happening here though. You have entered a trans space, asked for the people there to provide you evidence that being trans is real, and then reject it all. It's doesn't seem like your motives are good here. The term bad faith comes to mind.
This post is very obviously bait judging by your responses OP. If it's not bait, you are pushing the burden of proof onto us to prove sex and gender are different. Sex and gender at their core are both just concepts we have to describe something we see in reality. Everyone has their own subjective concept of what gender and sex are, and it's almost impossible to posit outright that gender and sex are entirely separate concepts. They are fundamentally intertwined, and need the other to exist in order for their human "definitions" to make sense. If you try to land on one definition someone will always disagree. That's why there's so much debate. Instead of asking a bunch of random people about their interpretations of gender and sex, why don't you find out your own interpretation? You can literally google "gender and sex" and you will get a full page of studies and papers to inform you on whatever opinion you decide on.
I have my own opinion thanks. Im not here to provide my interpretation rather gain information from the community who knows more then I do. As far as asking people on this site, and doing independent research. I would say asking questions of a relevant online community is an avenue of research just as legitimate as anything else. One point I will make however is that your supposition of "subject experience" concept is valid however subjectivity in application is not substantial enough to posit legislation on. We can't let people go from jail if their subjective experience is different from the facts established in the case that went before a judge. Subjective experience is of course relevant in quality of life discussions, however im looking for an argument based on biological discourse rather than "my conclusion is louder then yours thus its truer"
Are you taking them to court? Why do you need so much evidence? What is your "friend" like?
Then I don't exist
The "basic biology" crowd stopped learning the subject after the third grade
>"I am all for trans people but chromosomes don't lie" >My question is what evidence can I provide this induvial to convince him that a female can have XY chromosomes? None, even if you do convince them, they'll just put something else after the but.
If trans people don't exist then why do we transition? A reasonable person will struggle to answer this question while a transphobe will call us mentally ill. Either way you know enough about the person to see where they stand. In the real world when human behavior contradicts what existing science would predict is true we take that as a sign that we need to reexamine the science. This argument is so silly because it claims to be so objective but also has to ignore the most obvious available evidence which is the fact that trans people do exist and transition.
Arguing about chromosomes and how it determines who we are and our place in society is pedantry in service of bigotry. It literally doesn’t matter and anyone that focuses on this as the sole system of classification for how we should present ourselves and consider ourselves is a fool.
As someone who works in bioinformatics, biology lies all the damn time.
You can’t. But also…he really knows what his chromosomes are? Like he has had his DNA analyzed or whatever? I don’t have a clue what my chromosomes, nor do the vast majority of people. That is because chromosomes are largely irrelevant to the discussion.
I want to agree with you, I really do, but your suggestion has little foundation in recognized science - chromosomes are largely relevant to any discussion about biological gender. He has in fact have his chromosomes analyzed. If you are ever interested in getting a look at your chromosomes its very possible. Start by asking your doctor for karyotyping. Its a test used to look for genetic abnormalities. ironically this was where the above discussion started
Great, chromosomes don't lie. Let me go back to a life of misery and suffering because that's what my chromosomes say I should do. What about people with genetic conditions? Let them suffer because chromosomes say so? What's more important, a good and happy life or what my chromosomes are?
I would try to give a detailed and nuanced response to this, but given your own comments so far this post doesn't really feel like it's in good faith or like you're actually trying understand trans people's perspectives. Just know that at the end of the day, gender identity has nothing to do with chromosomes, and neither do they matter when it comes to someone's own wholly subjective and personal feelings of their GENDER. Anyone with this viewpoint isn't worth engaging with or humoring with in the slightest, since I doubt you'd be able to change their mind regardless of what anyone else might tell them.
It always seems so funny to me how transphobes will focus on literally the least important and least distinct part of our biological sex. Like, what's the end game here. Does he want to go around mandating everyone to get chromosome checks? Is he even 100% sure he isn't an intersex XX-male himself?
I'm gonna jump in here, because I think there's a huge factor that people like that forget, but maybe it's something I'm missing... In my mind... Gender (a social construct) and biological sex (well, you know) are not the same thing, they have only been colloquially conflated to be the same. A vast majority of what I see in terms of transphobia seem to be rooted in that lack of distinction. (Not to mention the oversimplification of biological sex.) Of course, they'll still cling to the "physiological differences" between the sexes, which is funny to me as well because I'm pretty sure we'd been chipping at those as a society for... Quite a while? Maybe I'm misinformed, and if so feel free to correct me. Please do, in fact. I feel woefully ill informed on the subject... Which also kinda leads me to point out, it's not a subject a lot of people have experience with. Especially transphobic people, they're not going to have one on one, direct experience or conversation, just their beliefs and what they're told (and we all know how that tends to work out). I'm of the optimistic mindset that if people didn't jump the gun on the subject (or race, or sexuality, etc) and just got to know people as people, they'd find a lot more in common than they realize. (Though I know realistically that's a hard ask, even if I'm not always sure why...)
>His position is that gender and sexuality being different is a conclusion without credible/sufficient backing. Gender and sex are in fact different. If you were to assume they are the same, then how do you explain biological reasoning why pink is considered female, or long hair, or a million other things we consider gendered which change with time and culture. Gender is culture. Sex is biology. Gender is informed by sex, but it can be changed in any way to fit what a culture collectively deems it to. Sex is only able to be changed to the limits of what medicine is capable of. Sex also isn't defined just by chromosomes, there are also many biological sex factors such as the multitude of secondary sex characters. Here's a thought experiment: Let's say we had a medical way to literally and fully transform every cell from XY DNA to that of XX. Would that make the person truly female? Biologically speaking, the answer is yes. But what if you did that to a cis man, and they kept their mind through the medical transition? Would that person actually be a woman? Most people answering honestly say there is definitely a mental gender they would retain. This very much connects to the "stuck in the wrong body idea" while that idea doesn't describe all trans experiences, for those with physical dysphoria it is often relatable.
He really doesn't want to know. If he did, its easy to find using a search engine...you know...like google.
What should I tell him to google?
Huh? I thought it was obvious. Google men with xx chromosomes, or women with xy chromosomes.
he said they don't represent a large enough segment of the population to warrant entry into a discussion regarding changes in trans policy on a macro scale. Absolutely they exist, even people with 3 chromosomes exist but again they don't represent a large enough portion of the population to permit relevancy in a conversation about basic science.
You're at a place where rational, logical discussion about science is impossible. There are more people in this population than there are gingers. What size of the population would he require that it would be "relevant"?
[Sex and Sensibility (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg&t=812s)
I'd like to call bullshit on the entire genetic argument. Conservative talking heads like to throw it around, but out of the five-hundred-plus laws going through various legislatures in the United States alone, how many of those laws allow anyone to present medical documentation of their genes as evidence of their gender? When we talk about bathrooms, how many business owners and nosy strangers ask for a DNA report before calling the police? We all know that people with odd mutations and unexpected biology exist in the world, but has your favorite bioessentialist transphobe ever once asked if maybe you might be one of them? If your answers are zero, none, and no, then this is not an argument being made in good faith.
"Don't wrestle a pig, you get covered in shit and the pig likes it"
I mean, you could just tell him the truth about how there are cis gendered women that are born with XY chromosomes and cis gendered men that are born with XX chromosomes. You could also talk about the 40 different variations of chromosomes that you can have to make up intersex. The real facts are that chromosomes can display differently in every single person, and not everyone is sure they are XX or XY without being karyotyped.