Nope. I'm taking the word "biological" away until you prove that you are responsible enough to use it.

That Republican lady the poster pretends might find that a DNA test says is male had 2 children with one of her husbands. So she doesn't need a DNA test, only females can get pregnant.

I just don't have the patience for their pseudoscience any more. It's just boring at this point.

Their misrepresentation of what it means to have a DSD remains as offensive as ever.

I wish I had the energy to write a reasonable, logical criticism of this drivel but I simply do not. Instead I can only say that this is just some of the dumbest shit I have ever read in my entire life, and I have read a lot of dumb shit in my time.

This is sooo fucking stupid. I can't even.

Ah yes, because DSDs exist (affecting EITHER male development OR female development) plain old XY males with no DSDs can be female. I'm so sick of this shit.

This is fractally stupid, no matter what scale you look at it in, it's just as stupid.

Fun fact: the biological definition of sex doesn't mention chromosomes, or genes, we've been able to define sex since before those things were discovered.

God, they sound so stupid and delusional.

Oy vey.

And then they'll ask, "when did we ever say that transwomen are biological women?"

When you show them the receipts, they'll accuse you of bad faith argument or some other bullshit and block you.

r/asktransgender

Archive link

Title: "Biological woman/Biological man". The language of hate.

As seen here:

Nancy Mace Puts Up 'Biological' Women Sign on Capitol Bathroom - Newsweek

Comments:

Statistically, there is going to be a few members of Congress who are intersex.

Imagine if we did DNA tests, and the Republican lady doing all of this shit has to start going in the men's room.

—

Transgender women are biological women and transgender men are biological men. Just by definition.

There is no ambiguity, at least from a dictionary definition standpoint.

However let's say you wanted something more qualitative, you are a doctor and need to determine if a patient is 'biologically male/female' for some reason, only by looking at biological traits.

There is no one single biological trait that can cleanly separate transgender people from their cis counterparts. Therefore there is no biological distinction between the two. The idea a human can be 100% 'biologically male/female' from a provably scientific point of view is nonsense because every human on earth has a mix of different male/female traits and no single one is definitive.

We can stop there, but one thing of interest. So far all evidence points to gender identity having a biological component of some sort.

Logic dictates that if it turns out the only biological trait that cleanly separates men from women (and from non binary) is gender identity, then biological women are people who have a female gender identity, and biological men are all people that have a male gender identity.

Reply:

There isn't a simple biological trait that defines it, it's a lot more complex. Biological gender, distinctively from gender identity, is also a non-binary variable. We trans women are biologically somewhere between biological woman and biological man, but a lot closer to women. We're probably closest to women with uterus and ovaries removed, if you're post-op.

We all carry "man-genes" and "woman-genes", or at least most of them, but it's the E or T that tells which one activates in your body. Genes tell which ones we start to produce, and that's the biggest difference. However our body aren't capable to change all the things after they already have fully developed, so therefore we trans women are left with women genes activated, but with body not fully developed by E (breasts don't develop with T, so therefore they do with E). Therefore we're somewhere in between biological men and women

Reply:

We trans women are biologically somewhere between biological woman and biological man

I agree, not just transgender people but all people on earth are somewhere between 'biological woman' and 'biological man' because that is just how humans work, that is my point.

If you look at every single biological trait a person can have, DNA, sex parts, height, eye color, ect, there is no single trait you can point to and say "that is a man / that is a woman".

So looking at it that way, 'biological woman' and 'biological man' are nonsense terms that have no concrete meaning.

However...

There isn't a simple biological trait that defines it

If gender identity is considered a biological trait, which so far it appears to be, then you COULD point to that and say "that is a man, that is a woman" with 100% accuracy.

So, if for some reason you really wanted to determine what it meant to be a biological man or a biological woman, which I think is basically a nonsense term, but if you insisted, then the simple biological trait you would use to measure is gender identity.

Reply:

Well you can define biological gender traits by which genes activate with T and which genes activate by E. You could say that those people who have ever only had E-genes (of those genes that E or T is effecting) activated their whole life could be counted as biologically woman, and the opposite. But that's one definition, it doesn't say how masculine or feminine your genes cause your body to be