A conservative wackaloon who is very concerned about who uses the bathroom dares us: How to Stump a Liberal: Are Sex Chromosomes Real?. Wow. Do they really think that most of us would be baffled by that question?
The basis of their belief that we can’t answer it is, of all the ludicrous sources, Camille Paglia.
In a 2013 debate at American University, dissident feminist Camille Paglia told a remarkable story of an argument she had with fellow feminists in the early 1970s. When she remarked that males and females have hormonal differences, her colleagues told her that hormones are not real, they were only made up by a conspiracy of male scientists.
Is it possible that Paglia was among a group of left-wing loons? Yes, they exist. Is that view representative of most liberals or most feminists? No, it is not.
One could try to “stump” me with that question, or make me “squirm”, but it wouldn’t work. Sex chromosomes are real entities. Sex hormone concentrations differ, on average, in different individuals. You know, if this person talked to actual, live transgender individuals, rather than Camille Fucking Paglia, they’d learn that transgender men and women are quite aware of the power of estrogen and testosterone to shape their bodies. They also happen to know what arrangement of flesh they have at their crotches, and aren’t confused at all. Neither am I.
In the current debate over transgender bathroom use, acknowledging that sex chromosomes are real and that there are differences between a penis and a vagina would be to concede the conservative position, which would be to acknowledge there are objective reasons for bathroom use policies based upon biological sex differences.
The reasons for differences in bathroom policies have nothing to do with the biological elements of sex differences: both men and women have urethras and rectums, and they are in the bathroom to use them. The reasons are actually entirely cultural, that we have a social history of segregating the sexes for reasons of modesty, religious proscriptions, and the ideological isolation of women in our society. It’s not because penises stop working in the presence of a tampon dispenser, or that those are sex-specific hormones you smell wafting through the air in the john.
There is also the reasonable historical concern that men might use their privileges to take advantage of women alone in a room. That’s also cultural, not biological. But since transgender women and men don’t seem to be using restrooms as places to opress, it’s a hypothetical concern that is unfounded.
Scientists tell us that one pair of the 23 chromosomes that comprise our DNA determine our sex. Those with XX chromosomes are female and those with an XY pair are male. These are the scientific facts we should all agree upon. (Note: a few of us are born with chromosome or genital abnormalities, but this is not the same as being transgender and therefore not relevent to this discussion.)
Nope. Scientists know that between inheritance of a sex chromosome in the zygote and sexual maturity in the adult, there is a whole series of complex steps. You don’t get to say that the personality, interests, sexual orientation, and behavior of an individual are determined in a absurdly simplistic way by the presence or absence of a single gene. That one gene on the Y chromosome only switches on early expression of a male hormone, testosterone, that is then read by thousands of genes on all the other chromosomes…and those other genes implement or modify sexual differentiation in many different tissues. There are genetic differences in the responsiveness of those genes, and their expression is also modulated by environmental factors.
You don’t get to play the game of “scientists say…” and then trot out this ridiculously, excessively reductionist view of what constitutes a human identity. A person can have desires and preferences, you know, those attributes of the brain, that are very different from what the naive interpretation of their genitals says they should have. There ain’t no “should” here. People are people. There’s a lot of individual variation, and you don’t get to split the world into “male” and “female” and tell every person in each category how they should respond to the world.
But our conservative twit has an answer for that!
The conservative position is that sex and gender are the same. Those who believe their gender is different from what their sex chromosomes and genitalia indicate are suffering from gender dysphoria and can recover with proper mental health treatment.
You know, some people do try to cope with the conflict between sex and gender by getting therapy. They’re free to do that, although it’s unfortunate that they’re part of a culture that tries to tell them that who they are is wrong.
Other people deal with it by behavioral adaptation, or hormone therapy, or surgery. Their choice. There isn’t any one way to be oneself, and they’re free to do that, too.
The problem is that the conservative position is to demand all these different individuals must be treated in exactly the same way, and that way is determined by an orthodox authoritarian mindset. Deciding for people that they are mentally ill when they are not, dictating how they are to be treated, and condemning perceptions that do one any harm is just plain wrong, and causes far more suffering than it cures.
I think there’s also the little problem that these “mental health treatments” don’t really seem to work. Again, who we are is a consequence of a long series of intrinsically biological and environmental influences that aren’t going to be undone by late-in-life attempts to condition people out of their selves.
This person goes on and on, and gets rather repetitive, and doesn’t really seem to have evidence for their position other than an obstinate insistence that a chromosome is the only important generator of complex behaviors, but I just have to point out one little irony.
While those in the transgender (and other identities) community truly believe they belong to a different gender than their chromosomes indicate, believing something is true does not make it so. There is no scientific basis for such a belief.
believing something is true does not make it so. There is no scientific basis for such a belief
. Did I mention this was on the Christian Post?
Believing in a god does not make it exist, and there is no scientific basis for such a belief. Therefore, I am justified in claiming that Christians are mentally ill, and we obviously need to enroll them in Reeducation Camps until we eradicate their desire to pray and go to church.
Shouldn’t that be the conservative position?
Camille Paglia also once said that men make better scientists because they pee standing up. So clearly, she is the authority on biological sex differences.
Which is in fact the medical consensus on how to treat gender dysphoria, incidentally.
An apropos article in The Guardian this morning on the cultural origin of public bathrooms: How did bathrooms get separated by gender in the first place?
The writer doesn’t mention the economics of bathroom construction. The gang toilet, rather than uni-sex toilets, is almost certainly a cost saving measure. There would be a significant cost to convert the building where I work to uni-sex toilets.
“Proper mental health treatment”? This is the solution? Just what would that look like? And what “proper mental health treatment” has been demonstrated to be effective?
I paint with a broad brush here, I know, but frankly most “proper mental health treatment” is generally effective for accomplishing fuck all. We certainly know that “talk therapy” won’t do it (outside of cognitive therapy, and this is not a situation where that can be employed), so what does that leave? Electroshock? Medication?
Our society just blithely handwaves away so many really difficult issues by prescribing “therapy,” as if it is simply a matter of referring a person to that nice doctor there, or that clinic here, and everything will be just ducky. Anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system and seen up close the utter failure of “domestic violence counseling” and “alcohol therapy” and “sex offender-specific therapy” knows that, while the sentencing mandates for these and other equally bogus programs work very well as full-employment programs for “therapists” who apparently otherwise couldn’t get real jobs, they in fact accomplish next to nothing. Most people who “get better” either didn’t really have a problem to start with, or are capable of and willing to change with no therapy at all.
“Therapy.” Yeah, that’ll fix everything.
Or, you know, not feminist at all.
Less Wrong had some weird stuff, but I found this post really helpful: http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/.
It helps to realize that “really x” is a meaningless statement. People get stuck on the ‘real’ meaning of sex or gender rather than material issues like treating people with respect and giving them equal rights.
#3 robro
I’ve seen that article before and there may be truth in it, but I have no faith in the author’s scholarship.
The article states, “By the middle of the century, scientists set their sights on reaffirming the ideology by undertaking research to prove that the female body was inherently weaker than the male body.”
And this is the link to prove the claim: http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-teaching-womens-inferiority/
I don’t really trust anything that cites the Institute for Creation Research as a legitimate source.
Thanks, throwawayradstudent. Always check the sources, right?
Typical for Paglia. She professes to share the ideology of legal and social equality for the sexes, yet she discounts the existence of sexism. if you believe her, feminism is dominated by diabolical man-hating fiends who seek enslave men in the estrogen mines. She sounds like a 1950s segregationist blaming racial conflict on troublemaking agitators. The quote above is one more example of Paglia’s sad tendency, as Molly Ivins pointed out, to treat all her personal experiences as seminal and definitive.
Need to add that some people are born with ambiguous genitalia; and some people with two X chromosomes are biologically male; and some people have gender reassignment surgery such that the gender on their birth certificate does not match their current genitalia. All this would seem to complicate the discussion, no?
“Is it possible that Paglia was among a group of left-wing loons? ”
Paglia is not “left-wing”. She claims to be a libertarian.
Explains a lot.
So this Paglia tool is to feminism what Ben Carson is to racism?
Isn’t Paglia the one who said that rape is just how men have sex, and that women should just accept that? I’m slightly worried that this is based on a quotemine, but I have a very hard time taking her seriously as a feminist of any kind. (As a side note, I find it very amusing that anti-feminists love her so much when you consider that, assuming it’s an accurate representation of her stance, she’s a raging misandrist.)
I could believe that this happened. It’s not as if science has been innocent of sexism through its past, and I could easily understand feminists of that era being suspicious of and hostile toward the science. Of course, given how often patriarchy is depicted as a conspiracy theory by anti-feminists today, I could also fairly easily believe that Paglia just wasn’t listening and portrayed their criticisms as assertions of conspiracy. It doesn’t really matter either way, as that’s not a stance held by scientifically literate feminists today, and it doesn’t really have anything to do with what it means to be transgender. The only purpose it seems to serve is to say, “see? Feminists – irrational!”
Erm… what? I’m trying really hard to see a connection between the two statements.
“Sex chromosomes are real, and there are differences between a penis and a vagina.” Yep. Ok. I agree.
“There are objective reasons for bathroom use policies based upon biological sex.” Uh… like what?
Is the fact that there are differences between a penis and a vagina supposed to be an objective reason for this? I can’t say I’ve ever used a bathroom with a vagina, but I’ve shared a bathroom with a person who owned a vagina before, and there didn’t seem to be any difficulty for either of us in any of those instances. I can’t help but think that the experience of bathroom-use is probably fairly similar between the sexes.
For the life of me, I can’t even come up with a weak argument for why people having different sex chromosomes necessitates bathroom segregation. Maybe those of us with XY chromosomes are sometimes embarrassed by our relative lack of genes?
Would that be like the proper mental health treatment that increases LGB people’s risk of suicide and does not in any way help them “recover” from being attracted to members of the same sex? I don’t think that’s something I would want to support.
What is it with people thinking that mental health treatment removes the thing you’re suffering from anyway? I have anxiety, and I’ve had proper mental health treatment to help me with that, which was very, very helpful. I still have anxiety, though, it’s just that I also have a suite of tools that help me pretend to be a functional adult at the same time as being wracked with panic and self doubt. So… if they’re expecting people to be cured of their gender dysphoria by mental health treatment? No. It might help, if they actually get proper treatment instead of anti-trans propaganda, but it’s not going to stop them being transgender.
throwawaygradstudent @7:
I can back that factoid up. The rise of science in the mid-to-late 1800’s also triggered a sort of “scientific sexism,” where researchers tried to use the scientific method to argue women were or were not inferior. This usually took the form of anatomical studies, as mass testing was still a rarity. Stephen Jay Gould wrote of Paul Broca, for instance:
Fortunately, the improvement of the scientific method also led to the myth-busting of sexist tropes. The idea that men have more variety than women, and therefore are more likely to dominate the intelligentsia, dates from around this time but by 1914 it was looking unlikely.
So the source may be dodgy, but the assertion is pretty bang-on.
Is Paglia in any way a credible source? No, she is not. She’s the queen of strawmanning. Notwithstanding that this anecdote is from over 40 years ago.
So when are we going to start widespread karyotyping? I mean, I don’t know for sure what my own sex chromosomes are, and we wouldn’t want to base something apparently so vital on something we haven’t actually checked, would we?
This article has a few examples and some links http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2116-6-ways-things-get-confusing-when-your-gender-mystery.html
As for me, I don’t like being in a bathroom with anybody else present, male or female or androgynous. As for who uses it before I come in or after I leave, I care not.
Also, I’d like to vent on one of my pet peeves: the X chromosome is not a “sex” chromosome. All mammals possess a copy, no matter their sex or gender, and even if you have two of them only one of them is active. To quote myself:
Yes, it does have a gene that’s critical to sex development (DAX1), but then so do chromosomes 11 and 17 (SF1 and SOX9, respectively). Calling it a sex chromosome doesn’t make much sense, unless you’re a biologist studying allosomes.
A nit. Testosterone and its effects are downstream in sex determination. The key feature is the presence or absence of an active sry gene (usually on an Y chromosome, but sometimes translocated to an X). This shifts the differentiation of gonads toward testis. The developing testis first produces anti-Mullerian hormone, that suppresses the development of upper female reproductive tract. Then, at about 7 weeks, we start getting testosterone produced. If the body is sensitive to testosterone and enough is produced (or is present in the fetal environment for other reasons, like taking steroids or an adrenal tumor) we get more male-like internal and external genitalia. If not enough is produced or the body is insensitive to testosterone, we get more female-like internal genitalia (except for the part affected by anti-Mullerian hormone). Levels of hormone (internally produced or environmental) also affect the largest human sex organ–the brain.
Seems most likely to me that Pagila intentionally misrepresented what they actually said so that she could have a convenient straw argument to tear down. There’s just enough in what she reports they said that they could have been saying something vaguely like pointing out that hormones aren’t the only thing that determines sex or gender, and the conspiracy thing could be any talk about patriarchy (so-called “equality feminists” don’t accept anything regarding patriarchy).
I’ve stopped giving these people the benefit of a doubt, because they like to wield that granted doubt like a weapon.
Hj Hornbeck @ 18:
Not only that, but the X-Y sex determination system is just the particular one that mammals use; birds and lizards use another (W-Z) and eusocial insects another again (haploid/diploid). There is nothing magical about the X and Y chromosomes.
And, of course, no mention of people with intersex conditions at all. I wonder what they make of people with androgen insensitivity, for example: they have an X-Y chromosome pair and testes but they appear physiologically female. Many don’t even find out they have the condition until they hit puberty and menstruation doesn’t start. I guess they must be a figment of our imaginations because God doesn’t make mistakes like that.
Cat Mara @21:
And even then, there are exceptions.
The hell intersex people aren’t relevant to the discussion!
These are people whose sex chromosomes don’t match their anatomical sex, or who have intermediate anatomy. You can’t keep insisting that sex chromosomes are the be all and end all of sex and gender when there are women with Y-chromosomes or men with two X-chromosomes. This ignoramus is just arbitrarily declaring that intersex people are irrelevant and that sex chromosomes are absolute. It may be true that transgender people and intersex people differ from each other, but these differences are what are truly irrelevant to the discussion. The end result is someone with intermediate sexual anatomy, whether they were born with it or they induced it.
@ 14 Hj Hornbeck
Thanks, that is a much better source. And I don’t want to give the impression I found the claim unbelievable, it is. It’s just amazing that ICR of all places was cited.
This also ignores things like chimerae and non-standard karyotypes like Turner’s Syndrome or Klinefelter’s syndrome.
@24
I think the lines between transgender and intersex are blurred and often hard to delineate. Depending on the biological situation of any given trans person, there can be a large degree of overlap. An afab non-binary friend of mine mentioned how many similarities in experiences they had with people in the intersex community, especially given that they were currently undergoing hormone therapy.
There’s certainly more overlap than that whole “INTERSEX PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT FROM TRANS PEOPLE AND WANT YOU TO NEVER BRING THEM UP RHETORICALLY” camp would make you think, even if you discount the existence of intersex trans people.
In Roman times, MOST public latrines were unisex – and on up until the 18th century, the only public facilities in “civilized” Europe were for males – females were not expected to have to “go” in public – you were supposed to stay home with the kids, dontcha know. Segregated restrooms were a “new” thing in the 19th century. So, for most of human history, restrooms for males and females were either a novelty or completely unknown.
There seems to be some anxiety around transgendered women going into toilets to perv or harass women in toilets. Instead of, you know, taking a shit. To which I say, what about lesbians and bisexual women. Why aren’t you worried about them harassing women on the porcelain throne. Probably because they too are only in the toilet to pee or shit, and don’t have the least interest in sex whilst they’re talking to brown demon.
Haha, who am I kidding? These toilet tremblers don’t believe that gay women exist.
gijoel wrote:
They don’t believe gay men or transgendered people exist either. So, at least they’re consistently wrong.
Speaking of today’s NRA-approved slaughter in Florida, “conservative” people and other Drumpfh supporters pretending to know anything about basically anything, the ruckus about bathrooms, weird people making all this noise and being freaked out over this truly stupid gender/sex/bathroom issue, here is my theory mostly about males, but a few females are included:
1. Assume that exactly one (1) person as a perfectly statistically normal-sized dick.
2. Of the remainder, 50% of the population has a larger dick.
3. Or the remainder, 50% of the population has a smaller dick.
The smaller the dick, the more panic-strewn fixation on bathrooms and firearms and “the other.” The smaller the dick, the more firearms. After all, the “other” guy has dozens more firearms, straighter firearms, steelier firearms, harder firearms, louder firearms, more virile firearms, more potent firearms, stronger firearms, shinier firearms, etc. ad nauseam.
QED.
So this is one of the few places I can ask this, but please don’t take it the wrong way, this is an actual honest question:
Is it that case that chromosomes uniquely determine genitals? Are things like hermaphrodites only linked to XXY or other such strangeness in chromosomes? Or is there developmental issues at work as well?
Thank you kindly.
corwyn (and anyone else wondering): There is a series of lectures by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute online here that are very informative. The one called “Sexual evolution: from X to Y” in particular talks about the Y chromosome, the SRY gene, the evolution thereof, and what parts of biological sex they control and how.
There is also information on specific conditions affecting sex at the Intersex Society of North America site.
I’m a conservative also adamant on there being 2 genders but I agree with you on many points, this piece made me take a nice look in the mirror and consider a bit more research on the matter. Though I’m in university, younger than the stereotypical conservative, the religious right inarguably has many problems just like these left wing loonies you mention. It’s refreshing to read a piece from the left that leans towards libertarian and has more thought behind it than sensationalist hashtags, totally respect this. :)
re 29:
as I understand it, it is not sexual harassment that’s the problem. More like visual harassment. Women don;t ever want to actually see a penis getting waved around in front of them. The fear is that letting a male into a women’s room is effecitively giving him permission to wave around his appendage at all the women who will be horrified by the site. The fearmongers also don;t want their little girls to ever see a penis, which will naturally disgust them or turn them into naughty girls.
then again, [disclaimer] I might be just fabricating.
uhhh, then again (doubled), sexual harassment by lesbians isn’t an issue cuz pregnancy from that is not a risk. To be consistent with the policy on abortion, the worst possible thing is to burden a women with a rape induced pregnancy that she will be forced to carry to term. but then (3rd time) consistency is never one of their considertions, so that can’t be part of their argument. ugh.
archangelospumoni @31, other than perhaps a few legitimate medical conditions the only thing penis size is an indicator of is how big it is. We really need to stop with the BS that penis size is general represents anything.
Do you know what else Camille Paglia said?
Anyone who can write that with a straight face deserves mocking, at length and repeatedly.
My fear is that she and Sam Harris will fuse like two strains of bacteria and produce some sort super organism of toxic literacy.
This. Exactly this. I couldn’t care less about chromosomes or genitals or hormones or other mental or physical differences between any groups of people… People should be able to be who they are, without repercussions, and the question who they are is up to them to answer en not to anybody else, especially not to some conservative nitwit.
Re: Camille Paglia. I’ve read some of her writings and I find her… interesting, to put it mildly. The problem is that she does not differentiate between “woman” and “feminine”, and between “man” and “masculine”. This seriously messes up her otherwise intelligent thinking. Combined with the foul language she is using every now and then, she does the feminist cause more harm than good.
“will fuse like two strains of bacteria and produce some sort super organism of toxic literacy.”
I think the post-Eisenhower Republican party mutated into a dangerous colony organism. A bit like those cheesy SF films of the 1960s. Sine the colony organism reproduce by invading brains of innocent victims, a good understanding of reproduction outside the slime mold has not emerged. What do you expect?
Jezus. She “needs no name” because there has never been a female major party nominee before. “I’m with her” is a proud statement of the historic nature of this candidacy and an impetus to make it so commonplace that such a phrase could never be used again without confusion.
But that is demonstrably untrue. Check out the intersex society link in my prev. comment right above yours. There are a number of situations that result in sex determination in a human not being categorized in a binary way. Overall rates, on the conservative side, of at least 1 in every thousand births. If you are so adamant that there are 2 possibilities, how do you categorize all of those people? You can’t handwave it away and say something like “they’re not normal” – they exist in the reality that we’re living in and that you want to define with a binary. You can’t make a definition of reality that excludes them all from your categorization. What do you do with all of those people?
Force them to fit in, obviously.
*Plugs ears* LALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA
Something like that.
“All XX people are female and all XY people are male. Except those who aren’t, but we need to discount them because they ruin our argument.”
Conservatives seem to assume men will no longer be able to get kicked out of womens’ restrooms, simply by uttering “I’m transgender” at whatever guard/cop shows up. In reality, a man with no history of trying to live as a woman, or of looking androgynous or feminine, will just end up telling his story to an unsympathetic judge.
Well, I’d be flabbergasted if someone asked me that. I’m sure it would take a while to regain my power of speech.
Then again, there are species with things like sex determination based on incubation temperature. And ones like clownfish or Dren from Splice.
@robro, thanks for the pointer to The Guardian article.
I should’ve expected a reply to the comment, and checked earlier. Here’s what I found with a bit of quick research.
Klinefelter’s Syndrome (KS from here on) as well as other genetic makeups not strictly XX and XY are very real but saying they’re not the norm isn’t hand waving it away, “Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs).” (1) Let’s be generous and say as “many” as 1 in 500 cases on certain populations eventually diagnosed with KS (3) – 0.2% – every other type that follows getting drastically less common, fast. This is not to mention that the grand majority are infertile with a slew of other legitimate medical issues that make no sense in an evolutionary standpoint.
As for “what to do with them?” though more mild cases such as XXX do exist, seek remediation with a professional. It’s a disorder and treating the issue as a “gender spectrum” etc. to be inclusive does nothing to help, just be a decent human and don’t judge for something they had no control over. In terms sex for government classification etc. the presence of a Y chromosome objectively determines sex in biological studies (2) regardless of other conditions.
Gender Dysphoria is largely “social science” so mostly not as concrete as biology but I’d argue those with Gender Identity Disorder can still be classed under the binary system. Reassignment treatment is apparently the best route to cope with depression that comes with the disorder and I have no problems with people “identifying” under the existing classifications as long as they actually have this ailment (A distinction must be made between actual disgust of your own genitilia to the point it makes it difficult to live, and males/females that show some tropes of the opposite sex). With proper diagnosis, the institutions should make it no problem to “officially” change your gender and continue living. Once you’re convinced you’re a never-before-seen gender, “pansexual”, an attack helicopter or what have you there’s another problem on your hands.
This was supposed to be brief but I hope I addressed your points as well as a short internet comment can.
(1) http://www.britannica.com/science/hermaphroditism
(2) http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/library/sex_general/1998_Graves%20chromosomes%20mammal.pdf
(3) https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/klinefelter/conditioninfo/Pages/risk.aspx
@ninomae
I’m much too tired to deal with all of that, and certainly not the most knowledgeable anyway so it’s probably best I don’t muddy the waters by trying… but referencing transphobic memes in support of your argument is… not the best. I would suggest you don’t use 4chan as a primary source. Nobody anywhere “sexually identif[ies] as an attack helicopter.” (Also, pansexual isn’t a gender identity – it’s a sexuality. It is similar to but (arguably) distinct from bisexual… (which is also not a gender identity).)
Oh my god fuck off
Why not?, Pansexual is a perfectly valid orientation, and the “attack helicopter” thing is a shitty transphobic meme, respectively.
Why you think that is a good thing is beyond me.
Trans women don’t have to pass to be valid. Why should they have to live up to an arbitrary standard of appearance in order to use the correct bathroom? Do cis women have to look androgynous or feminine to use the restroom?
Vivec@49: We have actually seen a few cases recently where ciswomen got kicked out of womens’ restrooms for appearing insufficiently feminine. Not that that’s a good thing, but it’s happening.
I’d just as soon see gender-neutral restrooms, but that’s going to be a tough row to hoe with conservatives; I think it’ll be easier to convince conservatives to let transwomen use womens’ restrooms if you can convince them it’s possible to keep cismen out. It’s asymmetric, roughly nobody cares about who’s in the men’s room, so a good interim solution might be “women” (cis or trans) and “everyone else”, and de-gendering single-occupancy restrooms. Restrooms architected for men are admittedly inconvenient for penis-lackers, but I don’t have any better ideas short of going to all-single-occupancy or all-degendered.
ninomae #46
Bless your heart.
So will literally anything but “trans people go in the bathroom that ties to their birth sex”. Making concessions to republicans that don’t even want the watered down version is bad policymaking.
Those are the better options – I’d go so far as to say those are the ideal.
They’re certainly a fair sight better than “you must present this feminine to enter”, which is what you seemed to be advocating by celebrating a male that “did not attempt to look androgynous or feminine” would face an unsympathetic court.
#46:
No, this is totally false. Way too many species don’t even have a Y chromosome, and sexual development is a response to the Y chromosome signal in humans, so obviously other conditions are important.
Also, your source (2) does not support your claim. That’s the kind of thing I’d flunk a student paper on. Using the Encyclopedia Britannica would get them a big red X and a chewing out.
Your handwavey suggestions to “seek professional help” for “disorders” is not at all constructive. These are not disorders. They are part of the range of normal human variation.
Your channish “attack helicopter” remark immediately exposes the origin of your pseudo-scientific nonsense. Fuck off.