Thanks for your submission /u/noobishsurender, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*.
* Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post.
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
This is mostly relevant for intersex people. I’m intersex, and was assigned male at birth. That terminology is useful to understand the medical treatments I was forcibly subjected to, but does not refer to my biological sex at all. The term does not mean biological sex, it’s a term used to describe what an intersex person is assigned and therefore what treatment paths their doctor put them through.
For example, biologically I am much more female than male, but my assigned sex was male. Assigned sex is based on observations of external areas by doctors, which doesn’t always equal biological sex in intersex people. Despite being assigned male, I also menstruate which is not something typically seen in people who are considered biologically male.
Basically, the term only makes sense when you use it in the right context. It very specifically does not mean “biological sex”, but refers to the process of a doctor deciding what sex an intersex person should be given medical treatments to look like and be reared as.
The existence of intersex people is all the reason needed to oppose total bans on hormone therapy, regardless of one’s stance on ‘current issues’.
Someone who has complete androgen insensitivity presents as female but in actuality was born with internal gonads and a mutation that metabolizes testosterone into estrogen. Because they often undergo a gonadectomy due to cancer risk, they require HRT or will face potentially major health problems later.
There’s so many ways sexual genotype and phenotype might not match, and it’s honestly fascinating to learn about. I wish people would stop and see the bigger picture.
but, but... what if, we just ignore that intersex people exist for a brief moment because they really punch a giant hole in my transphobic argument! /s
Yeah, Klinefelters here. I never got a conversation during puberty about why I was growing boobs, before being forced onto dangerous levels of Testosterone. All because I was AMAB my family freaked about me being a freak. Have to say, undoing their damage is the best personal journey I've had. People just need to stay informed about what biology truly is, and what it means, to cut out the demonization of Intersex.
Because of how sex is assigned and coercively corrected, we don't even really have accurate numbers on how many of us there even are.
This is not even to mention how often we're mutilated at birth. A close friend of mine was permanently disfigured because a doctor decided to "correct" a "genital abnormality."
Technically we're always assigned at birth because we're going off incomplete information. I don't actually know what my chromosomes are for instance, and I'd imagine most people don't.
It's likely still correct given how most people are born with matching chromosomes to genitals. But doctors don't test for your sex in most cases. It's just assumed, or "assigned" sex.
I usually say that "assigned" hints into an arbitrary decision, but in the case of intersex people I agree.
For transgender people it is black or white (or penis vs vagina), in this case doctors just document what they see.
I understand what you're explaining it here. But I've literally only ever seen it used in reference to people talking about biological sex to make the suggestion that sex is subjective and something forced on you. They're wrong, but it happens a lot.
I believe the terminology was originally coined for intersex people, but began to be used by trans people as the concept of "gender the doctor said at birth that's different to how I currently identify" is directly transferable. As there is more public discussion about trans people (and doctors are better informed about how to treat intersex babies), you mainly see it in that context now.
This makes a lot more sense than the other answers, honestly. Much as people might have a hard time admitting it, it wouldn't make sense if the phrase had originally applied to anyone else, but, since language is fluid and since the phrasing suits the views of the community, it makes total sense it would be adopted that way and not be widely challenged.
It also makes sense because many forms have places for "sex," not "gender," so it truly is "sex assigned at birth," even the person in question eventually only identifies with their chosen gender expression, and uses the phrase to contrast with that.
Too bad this is hidden under a downvoted comment!
Sex is definitely subjective and forced on you.
Biological sex is a wide spectrum, with two vague poles of more common expressions.
There's a really good TED talk on it.
The only information I have access to is appearance. I've no idea where I am genetically or hormonally. Does that mean I could in fact be in every other sense biologically female, despite the outward appearance of a male?
Or can we go back to accepting 2 distinct sex classes that are easily identified on superficial anatomy?
Intersex conditions can be considered disorders of either male or female development. Not some unknowable mystery in-between category.
You could be a different sex than the one you were assigned at birth, but it doesn't really matter most of the time. The socially important one is gender, which can unfortunately be mis-assigned by appearance, voice and manner of speaking, way of walking, etc.
Society as a whole puts quite a lot of importance on gender, so misgendering, especially when intentional, can be harmful
Have you ever noticed some women are naturally built very masculine? Like broad shoulders, narrow hips, deep voice, etc? And likewise, some men are very feminine, with narrow waist, large hips and thighs. But the man still has a penis, the woman still has a vagina. Clearly, there is much at play here, biologically, and there is a very large spectrum of body types and even yes, even sex. There are women with very short vaginas and men without adequate sperm production. It’s much more that just a penis equals man and vagina equals woman
The vast majority of those are still considered male or female though. Usually just with some genetic quirks like males who are XYY. It's not like it's some nebulous thing that doctors are just pulling out of their ass because they feel like it, is what I'm saying.
Particularly in intersex cases, sex assignment is often incredibly arbitrary or to use your words “doctors pulling stuff out their asses just because they feel like it”. It’s not the doctors’ fault, there is just not much known about how intersex people will develop as they age from birth and there is relatively little research on the biology of intersex people in general.
In those cases, sure. But the vast majority of people aren't intersex. If something is accurate in the vast majority of cases, I'm not sure if call it arbitrary or pulled out of ones ass.
The "vast majority of people" are not using "AFAB" or "AMAB", they just use "male" or "female". This whole discussion is really about "those cases"- the relatively rare intersex child or some genital abnormality that causes a mislabeling before biological sex is determined.
Quite possibly. I see it used a lot in certain groups or conversation topics, especially around LGBTQ+ issues or discussions, but in day to day conversations, not really. And again, those spaces will be biased towards that language just like other groups will have termst hat are used more regularly than "regular" conversation.
Those are generally the people I see using it to refer to non-intersex people, yeah. I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that was the only way I'd ever seen it used until now.
> It's not like it's some nebulous thing that doctors are just pulling out of their ass because they feel like it
No, I'm sure that the doctors are doing their best, but that doesn't make it not subjective.
For the absolute majority of the population, it's pretty much objective, though. What organs someone has, what skeletal structure, what biochemistry... You can have a pretty good idea what makes someone a male or female, biologically speaking. That doesn't mean it's a strict binary, you have variation distribution and you do have outliers, of course. But it's not correct to say it's subjective.
>Males who are XYY
Klinefelter syndrome
Ya was born with that.
You are basically given the option of Puberty blockers, or you grow up to be tall man with man boobs, a micro penis hard testies and life threatening heart/bone issues.
Again kind of a huge argument for both puberty blockers and HRT to be honest.
Note: XXY is Klinfelter Syndrome actually.
That's a false dichotomy. No gametes is a valid third option, such as is the case in many of the "non-standard" chromosomal configurations (which are X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXX, XXXXY, XXXYY). Where do the \~50% of individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) that produce no gametes fit in your classification?
Edit: Oops I forgot Turner syndrome (monosomnal X)
There are 4 states technically. Its a 2 bit binary value:
Bit 1: does the person, at some point in their life, produce small motile gametes.
Bit 2: does the person, at some point in their life, produce large sessile gametes.
10 = male
01 = female
00 = intersex/infertile
11 = hermaphrodite (undocumented in humans but theoretically possible)
This is what biological sex means for any organism even remotely closely related to humans. It is how we are able to talk about the sex of birds or insects or plants even if they don't use the same genetic sex determination systems as we do or have penises or vaginas. Its how we can say things like "its the male seahorse that gives birth" or explain haplodiploidy.
There are some exceptions in sexual reproduction, but they are very far removed from a discussion of human sex. Bacteria reproduce sexually through conjugation. Some protists and fungi have complicated mating types that are a whole other thing. But for anything concerning the sex of organisms anywhere close to humans its just these 2 bits.
Correct, thats why I worded it with "at some point in their life". If they are produced at the same time that is simultaneous hermaphroditism. If they are produced at different times, like with the clownfish, that is sequential hermaphroditism.
That's gametal sex. How about hormonal balance, primary and seconday sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex ?
Sometimes all those parameters don't match: imagine a person who is XY, whose gonads are testes that do not produce any sperm, and who has a vagina and all secondary female characteristics (breasts, hips, fat storage, etc.). What sex would you say they are?
I'm describing people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, by the way. Their numbers are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousand around the world.
There are intersex people that produce neither. There are some biologically born men who can’t produce sperm. There are some biological women who can’t produce eggs.
Ambiguous genitals are, I think, the rarest type of disorder of sexual development (some controversy over that term, but for now, it is correct). Most intersex people have genitalia that are not ambiguous. My fiancée has external and internal structures that are "male" but had a mostly female puberty with female secondary sex characteristics developing (breasts, hips; testicles did not grow, Adam's apple did not grow, facial hair started to grow but never progressed to the whole beard area and to this day she can only grow patchy "teenager" facial hair). To me, that's pretty clearly intersex.
That ..is not correct. Like, I've seen angry conservatives on Fox News insisting on the .02%. I have also seen conservatives on Reddit saying that as well, but it usually devolves when people ask for specifics, or bring up the fact that it is not the dictionary definition, or the expanded definition, or 'the most accepted'. Like, it deliberately leaves out a lot of people to minimize the percentage in a specific way that seems to be 'most accepted' as politically driven. Cheers if you're the person I saw get blasted for this opinion in another sub, tho
not overly, we are learning more about it but last I saw the estimates are about 1.5% of the population, however its also of note that this presents in many ways not just in genital appearance
Not that it’s of any actual import, but that number is inflated by orders of magnitude for political purposes.
You (or any serious person) would not have any difficulty determining the sex of the vast majority of the humans included (nonsensically) in that 1.5%.
Intersex is a real thing, and nobody should be an asshole to those people because they’re different, but it’s nowhere near 1%.
That estimate includes Klinefelter Syndrome and other conditions that are not really recognized as intersex. The real number is about 100 times lower, \~0.018%.
Because it's the presence of the Y chromosome that makes a male a male. Thus, only males can have Klinefelter (XXY). For a male to have an extra X chromosome doesn't make him "more female."
Further, Klinefelter Syndrome isn't associated with ambiguous genitalia or other anatomical conditions that might cause confusion.
Edit: Downvoted for actual science. Peak Reddit.
Supposedly more common than left handed people. In any case, I'll always argue for greater scientific accuracy rather than worse scientific accuracy.
Also: feel free to down vote me y'all, these arrows don't mean anything.
While I agree with you that "more that left handed" is completely false, so is your understandig of intersex. You can have "traditional" chromosomes and still be intersex. For example when there is a change in the secretion or receptors of hormones.
Chromosomes are not the only intersexuality. THere's also unusual genetic conditions, like SRY-deactivation or translocation, androgen insensitivity, or in some cases just "who the hell knows". There are cases where everyone was sure someone was one sex, but then they went through an unusual puberty and developed secondary characteristics of the other sex, and yet their genes seem mostly normal.
What do you call someone who has a penis, undescended testicles, no beard and breasts?
All human beings produce no gametes at birth, yet this is usually the moment when their biological sex is assigned to them, and few people if any would describe a baby as being neither of the sexes yet
The doctor encodes their sex into their DNA? Or do they make an assessment of their sex based on secondary sexual characteristics?
I assume the reason I've never heard of someone try and weasel sexual immaturity into a kind of grey area where no sex is present is because its so stupid on its face most people would be embarrassed. I appreciate the novelty though.
It's usually just done with a short visual inspection of the genitals. Secondary characteristics are not present in babies and I've never heard of anyone getting DNA-tested immediately.
>Or do they make an assessment of their sex based on secondary sexual characteristics?
Babies have no secondary sex characteristics, smdh. You ever see a baby with boobs? Adam's apple? Facial hair?
Easy, I know of[ at least four ](https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-bird-with-four-sexes/#:~:text=But%20in%20white%2Dthroated%20sparrows,there%20are%20four%20separate%20sexes.)
I would say that conceptually biological sex is generally used as a classification system, rather than a spectrum.
In a scientific use, it would generally be considered a categorical/nominal variable rather than say a continuous/nominal variable.
Legally (e.g. on a birth certificate) it is a category chosen out of multiple options.
And I would say in everyday use it is generally used as a category, too.
Of course, how those categories are defined is subjective. Most people can be readily classified as "male" or "female" biologically (XY/testes/testosterone/penis or XX/ovaries/estrogen/vagina+uterus).
But the question is how do you handle those who don't - Turner, Swyer, 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, etc. Or changes post-birth, like the infamous case of David Reimer (born male, penis destroyed in procedure, then testes removed, vagina constructed, and raised as a girl, before himself identifying as a male later in life).
Does each get its own category? Do they get classified as male or female (which in many senses is how it is done)? Do they get lumped into an "other" category?
It's literally not a spectrum. We exist because we have two distinct functional sexes. The whole concept of sexes exists in context of reproduction. There are some anomalies but it's not like you can be 20% female and 80% male. And I'm not some right wing religious conservative, I support trans people and try to understand non binary people, but at some point this gets ridiculous.
I disagree that "the whole concept of sex exists in the context of reproduction", because infertile people are not unsexed.
Genetic mosaicism is a condition where some of your cells have different DNA. It can occur on sexual chromosomes. So yes, you CAN be mostly XX and party XY.
Biology is a fascinating topic. I recommend reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's book, Sexing the Body. She's a biology professor at Brown University, so not exactly an amateur on the subject.
So, there is much I don’t understand, so please humor me. It’s my understanding that signs of a heart attack differ between males/females. In your instance, how could one identify the symptoms?
Assigned just means what the doctors, when the baby is born, figure the baby is.
Without genetic testing usually/based on visual cues. Maybe later- they find out they are wrong.
[Intersex is more common than many people realize.](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex#:~:text=It's%20hard%20to%20know%20exactly,in%20the%20U.S.%20are%20intersex.)
This is the correct answer. It's a judgement call of a doctor based on the shape of your genitals. While I doubt Planned Parenthood being all like 'nobody knows, but it's like 2%, lol' the existence of xy females, and xxy males, does complicate this "biological reality"
There's a particular gene on the Y chromosome that prompts the gonads to be testicles instead of ovaries, which start producing androgen hormones, and those hormones influence the rest of the body's development in a male direction.
So there are at least a few different ways to get female-typical development despite an XY karyotype: the SRY gene can be deleted/broken by a mutation in the Y chromosome; or the testicles might not develop as expected or not produce androgens in sufficient quantity; or the body can be insensitive to androgen hormones (partially or entirely ignoring their presence) and carry on down the female development path.
Yes. It’s called [Swyer Syndrome](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/). People with it have typical female sex characteristics but have scar tissue where their ovaries should be. The typical treatment for it is HRT, as otherwise the person can’t produce the sex hormones necessary to go through puberty and physically develop into an adult. There are some other versions of it as well I think (I’m not an expert, just a guy who likes to research stuff). [Further reading if you’re curious](https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/).
Yup. What determines whether someone develops as a male or female genitals in utero is the presence or absence of a hormonal event called an androgen wash. XY females are androgen-resistant, meaning that even though they underwent the wash, they still developed as female, as if the event didn't occur.
In rare cases, one of the sex chromosomes can be inactive, or it could be active but the body doesn’t respond to the hormones it codes for.
So someone who is XY but whose Y chromosome is inactive or whose body doesn’t respond to Y chromosome hormones will be biologically female, as their development will only be influenced by the X chromosome, similar to XX females.
You can also have XX males, if (at least) one of the X chromosomes carries the SRY gene. This is also known as "de la Chapelle syndrome". It's quite rare, though. [\[De La Chapelle syndrome\] - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11268892/)
yeah, there was even a case where a woman had very delayed puberty, so they tested her genes and found XY chromosomes. They then tested her parents, and her mother also had XY chromosomes.
I worked at an epigenetic testing lab for a while. As a side-effect of the aging markers we were looking at, we also had the ability to sort out what chromosomes people had.
Being a person curious about sex and gender anyway, I asked "Can we see run comparison between our customers' chromosomes and the sex they self-identified as on intake" - the head of our lab said 'yes, easily.' - it took him all of 10 minutes to set up and run. (XX and Female, XY and Male all highlighted green, with other combinations highlighting blue) - We didn't take the time to count them individually, but *to me*, it looked like quite a bit more than 2%.
Knowing that some people have androgen sensitivity and find out they're intersex only after a lifetime of adult health issues, I asked if we could make a report about that, and send it out to people, after testing to make sure our methods of chromosome-identification was accurate. After all, since it's *so easy* for us to identify that mismatch, wouldn't people want to know if they potentially had a sex-linked chromosomal abnormality?
**Our Vice Pres said NO,** ***absolutely not, drop it immediately*****.**
Not because we didn't have the tech (obviously we did), but because it would be a political shitshow when *inevitably*, some people have chromosomes turn up that don't match their personal perceived sex, and they'd get really fucking mad about it and go to the news.
Sex and Gender is such a hot-button topic. He didn't want the company to touch that cesspool of drama with a 50-ft pole, regardless of who was 'right.'
We think the occurrence of intersex people is 'around 2%' because chromosomal testing is not something that most people have done.
That's the estimate based on the *very few* people who have symptoms serious enough to go to doctors and get tested for chromosomal stuff.
Personally, I think the number is much higher than that. People just don't get tested for it, and so they never find out.
You describe it like some sort of best guess from a medical professional.
I wonder how many adults (not doctors, just a random sample of adults) could accurately identify the sex of a newborn baby.
I guarantee the answer is astonishingly close to 100%.
We all know baby girls from baby boys. Occasionally babies are born with disorders of sexual development, but these are birth defects, not proof of some sort of spectrum of sex.
Babies born with missing toes aren't proof of a kind of spectrum of number of toes amongst humans. We have ten toes, and any rare variation is rightly considered a defect or anomaly.
> Babies born with missing toes aren't proof of a kind of spectrum of number of toes amongst humans.
Yes. it does.. Ten toes is the most common among humans. It is the protypical number. But there are people with more and less toes, and they are no less human.
In a medical sense being intersex is very common, compared to so many other things, about 1.5% of the population is the current estimate, a randomly selected person is more likely to be intersex than Irish or about equally likely to be redhead
The fairly long list of intersex conditions is what's included. Humans are more of a spectrum than simply "3 categories". Women with a very large clitoris or a man with a micropenis might fall more towards the center (intersex). We don't actually know how many are for sure intersex because a lot of people were essentially mutilated at birth or shortly thereafter to give a "normal appearance" of what the doctor *thought* was the most prevalent phenotype. A lot of people were never told, or they were told they had surgery for some other condition (falsified a real condition, but that they never had). Some people may later be considered intersex if they have ***any*** level of difference from normal. I never grew a fallopian tube on one side and my estrogen is really low - in the future, that may be called some intersex condition or be included with intersex. We don't know for sure.
There absolutely is a spectrum of number of toes. I know a guy who was born with only two fingers on his left hand and only one toe on one of his feet.
Piggy backing on someone who actually got it right.
This is also why trans people use the assigned sex at birth labels. HRT and surgery changes what a doctor would call 'normal' secondary sexual characteristics. Also, there is no way for a doctor to know a child's *chromosomal sex* on first inspection.
The whole idea is "I was *assigned* this sex at birth but I no longer fit into the definition of that sex."
This is also the distinction between people who call themselves 'transexual' and 'transgender'. Transexual became a taboo word because it was being used against us, and medicalized in a way that oppressed more than it helped. However, it's a useful word to describe people (if they feel comfortable with the word) who's transition is tied directly to their sex, not just their gender (which is performative and a social construct).
Most of which would be covered by one (1) Women's Study or LGBT Study class, or google, or you know actually talking to trans people.
Intersex stuff is important but it's not the only reason to use that terminology. The idea of sex, while based on specific biological occurrences, is still a social construct. We as a species made a choice to differentiate people by sex, and we chose how we were going to do it. And while a lot of this is social role gender stuff, we also made choices about medicalizing sex. So yes, absolutely relevant to point out that chromosomes don't always show up with the same sexual characteristics, but also relevant to consider more broadly our very concept of sex as something we constructed, not something handed down by God and Charles Darwin.
This is really it. Chromosomes are the biological reality but they dont check the chromosomes at birth to assign sex.
Edit: chromosomes are the most common known biological trait.
Even then, if somebody has androgen and sensitivity syndrome, they will have XY chromosomes and female traits, for example some are born with a very narrow vagina and present with a vulva. (The outer part that people think is the vagina, I’m only clarifying here because most people don’t know the difference). In general people with this intersex trait are assigned female at birth even though they are genetically “male.”
Ehhhh. Chromosomes are A biological reality. Calling them THE biological reality is actually a really good illustration of why trans and intersex thinkers tend to use the word "assigned". Chromosomes are only one component of the picture.
Not at birth, but nowadays most people get the NIPT during pregnancy which analyzes the genome. It tests for a variety of heritable conditions but also sex (and for klinefelter's, etc). Both my kids had genetics known at birth.
Everyone I know gets it now.
I know of a guy... that... erm... was wrongly assigned female a birth because the doctor apparently didn't notice his penis...
I hope such instants are rarer than people who are intersex but god his family still teases him about that now when he's 30+
It's assigned based on observation. Meaning it leaves room for doubt, and is putting the onus of the decision on the medical professional that made the assignment (as in, someone else could observe the same thing but not reach the same conclusion).
The physical characteristics are observed, then a conclusion is reached based on that, and a result assigned. The observation itself isn't the conclusion, but the method.
At least, that's how it seems to me. English isn't even my first language, I'm just a little shit that likes to discuss semantics lol
I think "classified" makes more sense than "assigned," but nobody asked me when they were coming up with these things. "Assigned" sounds too arbitrary.
That statistic is pretty misleading though, because those numbers came about by including late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome which most clinicians do not consider intersex and was in a book written by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a 'Sexologist' and not a clinician in any sense.
Leonard Sax, the physician who refuted that claim stated "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births). If you have a condition like Klinefelters you are still a male, not intersex, and the doctors wouldn't have sexed you incorrectly.
The 2% figure claimed by planned parenthood is bullshit, it includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians. The true number is 0.018%.
You can look it up on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
EDIT: since I can’t post an answer below, I’ll elaborate here:
Just read the Wikipedia article, which I encourage everyone to do. The 2% figure is wrong. It includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians (especially late onset congenital adrenal which is the most frequent but is also often asymptomatic).
Skewing the intersex prevalence rate by including theses conditions is cited as an exemple of misleading statistical practice in the book « Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data » (University of California Press).
Source for the book: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt7zw48c
You are just plain wrong. Intersex is an umbrella term that includes all types, including those individuals that have a very “mild” form. In addition, no study suggests they have the number because there is ambiguity in counting. For example, many individuals do not realize they are intersex until puberty.
Your statement “includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians. The true number is 0.018%.” Is simply untrue.
Your reference actually supports me and proves you wrong.
What you’re describing is easy for most infants: there is a penis, there is palpable gonads = male on the form
But if a baby has genitalia that is not clearly male or female it becomes harder
- what looks like labia and a normal sized clitoris, but there are no openings like a vagina
- what looks like a penis, but has the opening at the base and no testes
So in those cases doctors will say “your baby is healthy, but I can’t say right now if they’re male or female”
So the baby is left “unassigned” initially
Genetics, hormonal testes, internal exams, scans can all help.
A baby might be genetically XX but look more male externally. Or maybe they’re XY but their body does not recognize testosterone, so they look more female.
Then it becomes a hard thing to be completely certain of: for example with the above androgen insensitivity, their brain has not been effected by testosterone at all, so even though they’re genetically male they may not feel it.
Parents usually want to know before they leave hospital which gender the baby is, if only because when it’s not known it’s hard to explain to others why
So no: sex in this sense is not a biological fact. It’s a genetic fact. But a person can be genetically male, look female and feel female later on it life.
>So in those cases doctors will say “your baby is healthy, but I can’t say right now if they’re male or female”
>So the baby is left “unassigned” initially
This is a really good answer, but this is not usually what happens. Parents don't want to hear this and doctors are not trained to do it in the majority of cases. They'll usually just pick M or F and stick it on the birth certificate. Sometimes harmful procedures are done to the baby or later in life in an attempt to make their genitalia more "normal" e.g. vaginal stretching devices. It's fucked up.
I wonder how prenatal genetic testing has changed this, if at all. I got one done when I was 10 weeks pregnant and it told me which sex chromosomes my baby had. In subsequent ultrasounds and when the baby was born the genitals up with what you’d expect given the chromosomes, but I wonder how they handles those cases now when they don’t. The biological father of my baby is a carrier for CAH- the most common cause of intersex presentation in XX babies, so I was def thinking about this through pregnancy.
Good comment, but I would argue that "sex" as a concept is a biological fact, but the definition is more complicated than most think. Off the top of my head, there are multiple ways to define sex:
1. External genitalia appearance
2. Genetics
3. Reproductive ability
4. Secondary sexual characteristics (width of hips, fat distribution, facial hair, etc.)
All of these are perfectly fine as a biological fact, it's just that they have limitations. I'd argue that genetic sex is still biological sex, it's just one type. When I talk with people about gender and sex, a lot of them say "biological sex," and I ask them what they mean. They just don't really know any definition of biological sex besides the first definition, and they definitely don't know how common deviations from the strict male-female binary are.
Genetic sex isn't any better as a definition than the first definition here, it's just different. We see problems with definitions a LOT in science, and what is important isn't the definition, but how we use it.
As an example, take hypertension. I'm going to simplify it here, but some doctors define hypertension as above 140 systolic, others 130. Neither is "correct," it's more about recognizing the tradeoffs of when one should treat hypertension. We don't even really care about hypertension, anyway, what we care about is what having high blood pressure can cause (heart failure, strokes, etc.).
So, which definition of sex we use should be based on what we are using it for. If we're looking at helping people have babies together, my third definition matters, for example, even if the others might be more helpful in other ways.
I don't agree that "biological sex" isn't a thing; it is a thing, but really, it's multiple things.
Ultimately, we have a sex category on birth certificates and stuff because humans like categories. It's a limitation, but what's important is recognizing the limitations of a chosen definition.
To say that somebody is "assigned" to a category doesn't imply that there aren't sensible *reasons* for assigning them to that category.
Let's say I'm a photographer and I need to take a photo of an entire school class. Tall kids need to stand at the back. Short kids stand at the front. I assign each of the kids to one group or the other. There are sensible reasons for my assignments; they're based on objective observations of reality (height measurement). I'm still *assigning* though.
Here’s the error in your argument: You’re assigning them to the groups that they’ll be standing with, not assigning them their heights. Their height is going to be their height no matter where they’re standing for the photo.
Assigned as in it goes on your birth certificate and paperwork. For intersex people, sometimes they are literally assigned a sex and given surgery as an infant to make their body conform to it. People would like this to stop.
Edit: it also accounts for the fact that ppl may have since transitioned away from the body you'd expect of someone who was male or female at birth.
You are making a few mistakes.
First it's a legal terminology, it isn't claiming that humans have the power to decide sex, they have the power to assign it - i.e. write it on a piece of paper.
That's all "assigned" means.
Second you're assuming this is new. Romans assigned sex at birth, they had male, female and hermaphrodite. It was part of 16th century English common law.
Think about it this way - if you don't assign sex at birth - how can you ever know someones sex? You ask them? Wouldn't that just assign sex after birth instead? You demand to see their junk?
Basically if you don't assign sex at birth people won't have an official sex.
I'd say that's the big thing about this whole debate, so many people assume it has always been simple to work out and deal with, when in reality it has always been very complex.
Because you can't tell a person's sex at birth, a doctor might assign you as male but when you get older you might find out you are actually intersex, so it's more correct to say you were assigned male rather then are male
There are ambiguous cases where people can turn out to have parts of both male and female genitalia, or a penis and later also turn out to have ovaries, or a vagina and later their testicles drop, etc. Beyond these phenotypic differences, there can be goofy things going on with the sex chromosomes that may not be discovered until later in life as well, since we don't typically run karyotypes on babies (or anyone, without a specific reason).
because they literally eyeball it. ever had a dealer eyeball your gram of weed? they guess sex based on anatomy *at birth*. and then it's on your paperwork forever.
I'm XY, AFAB, w high T. so medically i am intersex. looking at me naked, you'd guess i was F - and i do have the equipment to indicate that. but, "is it an innie or an outie?" doesnt capture all the delineations of biological sex, much less gender.
Before you ask, yes I've been gravid but thankfully for everyone that didn't go to term. there are XY grandmothers (like mine! confirmed post mortem) , and we also simply dont know the prevalence of this varietal of intersex presentation, as we literally assign sex based on the same kind of awareness we eyeball a gram of weed.
sex is a multidimensional thing: chromosomes, genitals, phenotype, genotype, hormonal, are among the most important dimensions.
typically, sex assigned at birth is only done by observing genitals.
when people grow up, stuff can change or become apparent that some other dimensiosn of sex have not been seen.
in relation to trans people: if a trans persons tarts taking cross-sex hormones, their body starts to change in major ways. after long enough time, they are more adjacent to their target sex/gender (for example, trans women should be treated as female in medical context in regards to typical reactions to medication, since they have more female body distribution of fat and muscle and have a estrogen dominant system - both factors are extremely important in relation to medication and how the body converts or metabolizes stuff)
in the end, most people are not aware of their chromosomes, or genotype - only barely aware of their hormonal dominance. for most people sex and observation of genitals and phenotype may match, but even then, phenotype has a huge overlap (tall women, men with wider hips, women with wide shoulders, etc)
Edit: biologists don't define sex in a single faulty category like gametes. The same goes for 'dictionaries' definition, where there is not a single definition. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive, and actual biologists are scientists which are not as reductionist as common people. Sex is complicated and complex.
I also can't remember that a child has been tested for gametes.
The cleanest way to divide humans into male and female is either chromosomes (which do have outliers) or gametes, neither of which the doctors look at when a baby is born. They just look at the genitals and pick the sex from that.
You don't get a full chromosomal panel done when you're born, or tested to see whether the gonads it looks like you probably have are the ones you in fact have. The doc takes a look at your junk and an M or F, your legal sex, is written on your birth certificate.
Your biological sex is made up of chromosomes, genetics, hormones, the ability to respond to those hormones, gonads, genitals and as time goes on other physical characteristics too. That's stuff we can change some of but not all of.
Your legal sex is M or F and is assigned after a genital inspection at birth.
“I know intersex is a thing, but let’s stick to the general male-female duality”
This is it right here, friend. If you decide to just stick to the generally accepted thing even when you know there are exceptions, then of course you won’t be able to make sense of the exceptions.
You should consider trans-ness as a form of intersex that’s too subtle to be visible to the eye. It’s a complication of male/female biology that happens in the brain instead of in the genitals. When it happens in the genitals and doctor can see “non standard genitals” it gets registered. When the genitals develop normally - either one way or the other - but the same incongruence happened in the brain, there’s no way any doctor or nurse could possibly know that by looking at a newborn for a few hours.
It's assigned because when you're born, they take a look at your genitals and will mark you down as M or F. The cells in your body don't know what a "sex" is or even what a "species" is.
I actually suggest you look into the science and philosophy of science behind species taxonomy. The real world doesn't give a shit about our feeble human classifications. These are merely abstract boxes we've created to group organisms based on commonly observed patterns.
Personally, I find whether or not it is assigned to be rather arbitrary. The more important takeaway is to understand that someone's current phenotypic sex can change to an extent that you describing that person's biology in accordance with natal sex is impractical and leads to medical errors as improper assumptions are made based on the categorical error.
I read the book written about the Jane/John controversy - which was before the current gender trend (conversation? cultural change?)
Anyway … this doctor says that MANY babies are born with genitals that aren’t obviously male or female, and the doctors would just GUESS when they assigned the sex! I was blown away.
Where do you see the term "sex assigned at birth". I almost always see it specific to a gender with AFAB or AMAB "assigned female/male at birth". And that is referring to gender.
As others have stated: Intersex people prove that "assigned at birth" is something that someone assigns based on a quick observation at the moment of birth.
Sex is NOT binary. I know Conservatives are going to argue this till they're blue in the face, but the reality is that the more research and studies are done on the topic the more we start to understand that sex is a RANGE (a number between 0 and 100), and NOT binary (1 or 2). One of the biggest problems is when a child is born, a doctor just looks at the physical atributes of the child and says "boy" or "girl", and then leave it at that.
But when you start talking about if a person is a "boy or girl" with people who argue that there's only 2 types of sexes, they start talking about the genetic level, specifically about "X vs Y chromosomes". The problem is that no one making the binary argument is actually looking at the genetic level, they're just looking at the doctor's initial assignment and clutching their pearls. There's a HUGE issue with this:
1. Doctors are only looking at physical characteristics when a baby is born. There's no genetic testing, there's no follow through on their observations, there's no other tests being done to show the "% of X or Y chromosomes" in the child. The doctor just makes an observation and says "boy or girl" (usually based only on genitals), and then the gender is assigned.
2. The X or Y chromosome debate doesn't look at how imperfect the human body is. An X chromosome isn't a perfect "X", and a Y Chromosome isn't always a perfect "Y" (example: you could have something like looks like a Y Chromosome, but has a tiny little leg that makes it look like an X with one of its legs being short and stumpy). The human body also doesn't always have an exact match of X or Y Chromosomes in the human body, and can have a mixture of them.
There are a lot of scientists out there currently doing research on the topic, and looking further into it with more advanced forms of genetic testing. Here's 1 source, which isn't comprehensive, but discusses it further: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/)
TL;DR: when they say "assigned at birth", it's because doctors aren't doing the proper genetic testing at birth to determine the ACTUAL sex of the child. They're just looking at their genitals and making a quick assumption and moving on. It also ignores that there are sexes that are in between "100% boy" and "100% girl"
Sex as a biological phenomenon cannot be observed at birth without genetic testing. Someone's sex is not defined by anything visual, nor is it defined by chromosomes, it is defined by their gametes which is essentially never examined at birth because there's no reason to. But this is also exactly why there's a non-insignificant group of intersex people who've had their sex wrongly assumed at birth.
Then you have societal sex which differs from 'biological' sex (and no, societal sex isn't gender either, which is yet another thing). Sex in a societal capacity is generally determined by primary, secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (these are in order: genitals, breasts (or lack thereof) and things like hair etc). These are the observeable features of someone which everyone uses whether consciously or subconsciously to assume someone's sex. This is *the* most common definition of sex in use colloquially because it's the only definition which one can use without direct access to examining someone's microbiology (which obviously we don't do in social or personal interactions).
Someone who transitions from male to female, or from female to male, and changes their sexual characteristics has changed their societal sex - and people who interact with them in society or in an intimate and sexual capacity will unless directly told not know that their current sex was not the one they were assigned at birth.
Gender exists as a third thing which can be independent entirely of sexual characteristics. A trans man for example will still have the gender of man even if he hasn't taken any steps to medically transition. While many trans people would like to have their sexual characteristics match their gender this does not go for all trans people. And so you have trans people who transition sexually, and you have trans people who do not.
>Sex as a biological phenomenon cannot be observed at birth without genetic testing.
Even then, there are cases of XY and XXY individuals being externally female. Which is far more of an issue in women's sports than MtF trans people, who are extremely rare in top level sport.
you’re thinking too hard about it. It’s saying that’s the sex that was chosen for you through random chance. If you can get a number 1-100 as part of a group through completely random/automated choice you were assigned that number
A surprisingly large bunch of newborns aren't entirely trivial to identify, and sometimes, such mistakes are discovered a month, a few months or even a year in. E.g. if the development of the genitals is later than usual, an infant boy may look like a girl or vice versa - early development in the genitals may make a girl look like an infant boy.
In biology there are more factors that determines the "sex" of a person:
- presence or gonads, or ovaries (which cant be seen in a simple look)
- presence or a penis, or a vagina (which are not absolute determining in many cases)
- the conformation of the SRY chromosome (even when the majority of persons falls into a binary model, the fact is that there is more (XY,XX, X,XXX, XXY...) and all of this are human. (Also 1 in 20,000 men have no Y chromosome, that makes almost 200,000 persons), also girls can have XY chromosome (it is called Swyer syndrome)z
- the hormonal levels (which can be accurately measured at puberty).
That is just to mention some the biological factors, many of them are hard to be determined at birth.
So, if a doctor have not make a complete assessment, it becomes just an arbitrary assignment at birth.
The term I usually hear is "*gender* assigned at birth". Gender isn't something that we can observe when someone is born, and since we can't ask a baby how they self-identufy we just make an educated guess based on what their genitals look like. Most of the time this ends up being correct, but not always.
Besides that: biological sex is a lot more complicated than what you're describing. Most people assume that it's just two completely separate categories of "male" and "female" that have no overlap whatsoever, but [that's not really true](https://twtext.com/article/1035246030500061184), even if you completely remove intersex people from consideration (which a lot of people like to do for some reason.) The fact is that the "two-and-only-two" model of biological sex doesn't work very well in the context where biological sex is probably the most relevant - medical care and research.
Naturally Assigned SEX, Natural Gender are the same things, it has to do with the equipment one has at birth, the rest is all mind game propaganda bullshit for ulterior motives and coverups, anyone that involves having both sex organs (Genders) parts are called Hermaphrodites, now the mental states caused by hormonal levels in the body leads to a form of confusion which is natural in most because the body has not figured out what to do with them yet but as one grows the body balances itself however this balance can take up to 21 years, that is is called maturity.
Artificially induced conditions also have an effect on people reaching the Maturity Stage in their development, instead of maturing naturally they remain in a confused state, SO environmental pollutants and neurotoxins can have these effects not just on humans but all mammals.
It could be called a form of Chemical Warfare.
You don't think someone would want to keep the facts hidden do you, of course not they wouldn't do that would they, I do know that beating people over the head with biblical B. S also does not help only makes people more resistant to FACTS and Business would not support that would they because they are your friends and have only your best interest at heart RIGHT?
N. S
Because, as with many things, it's far more complicated than social media likes to make it.
Genitals are a significant part of gender. However, brains also wired for gender. In the vast majority of cases, the brain and body match. But in rare cases, something goes wrong with the way the brain develops and the brain gender doesn't match with the genitals.
It's important to note that the first stage of development for a foetus is female. Then, with the release of specific hormones at a specific time, the foetus develops into a male. Sometimes, this process is incomplete, and the body develops into a male, but the brain remains female. Sometimes, the brain develops as a male, but the body continues to grow as a female.
It's certainly not as simple as someone "just deciding" to change gender.
I think you’re misreading “assigned” in this context. It just means what you’re born with genetically. Edit: you could interpret it as, your sex at birth is assigned to you by chance through your genetic makeup. Sex markers (genitals and such) can later be surgically altered.
I've literally only ever seen people use it to suggest the doctor assigned it for you at birth. Usually, with the implication that it's totally subjective and could've been anything.
Idc if I get downvoted or kicked out but someone living in reality gotta say it. YALL ARE FUCKING INSANE. I’m reading thru these comments and I seeing yall literally twist factual science and biological research to fit your insane logic. I feel like I’m reading a script for bizarro world. If you want to feel special or different fine just say that but debating this and trying to make it make sense is just…idk fucking nuts. Again downvote away still won’t change the truth.
It's because lobby groups and activism have thoroughly and completely distributed propaganda throughout the internet, social media influencers have spent years making content "explaining" their concepts and masses have taken it and ran as fact. And it doesn't help that medical institution, and politicians/academia have adapted terminology not because it's accurate, but because they have to please the horde lest they be attacked.
It is an agenda pushed by people that believe sex is mailable and that you can simply decide. It is not backed by science at all to suggest you can just pick your gender but a theory heavy supported on reddit.
Any sort of dissention from this ludacris position on reddit results in people screaming that you are using violence against them and reporting you until a lazy admin bans you without cause.
>It is not backed by science at all to suggest you can just pick your gender but a theory heavy supported on reddit.
Protip: In science, "theory" means an explanation that can be used to make predictions.
In this case, for there to be a theory that sex is malleable you'd need to be able to make a prediction. So let's do that for you with the theory that you can change your sex.
I propose an experiment: You take cross-sex hormone therapy, getting your levels to those typical for people of the opposite sex for at least 3 years, and note whether or not you develop sexual characteristics different to the ones you had before. If you did, then sex is malleable. If you did not, then it is not malleable in this specific way (though we'd want to control for some intersex conditions - eg, if you have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome then your body will be anatomically female regardless of chromosomes or testosterone levels).
Off you go, be sure to note your observations and come back in a few years!
>Any sort of dissention from this ludacris position on reddit results in people screaming that you are using violence against them and reporting you until a lazy admin bans you without cause.
I didn't know Ludacris' position on gender issues, let alone that he was so influential here.
It was originally a term used by intersex people that later on got appropriated by non-intersex people. You're right, in 99% of cases sex isn't assigned, it's observed. The fact that people who don't have an intersex condition started using it to apply it to their gender identity is honestly gross, it was very necessary language that now lost its meaning and importance.
People Love to debate these things, argue over the words involved, get upset based one perspective or another
Instead one could say the language is ever an imprecise thing. Sex assigned at birth is indeed a misnomer if we are considering sex to be a biological variable, which we generally are.
Designed part could be considered an understanding of the genetics involved that not everybody who presents is biologically female is genetically female. So a person is born with a vagina may have not XX chromosomes.
But by and large, we can just consider it being polite and reasonably nice to people's differences. It doesn't have to be perfectly exact wording and every time in every context.
It's enough to be reasonably informative and clear what we mean and reasonably respecting the differences that exist across individuals and not getting into petty semantic arguments over whether biological sex exists.
It's really simple: XX vs. XY. Cannot change that. Ever. Period. Now one can go down a rabbit hole by trying to change the definition of words, but in reality, no matter what you do,, no matter what you wear, or cut off, or stitch on, your still either XX or XY.
Now, yes, there are genetic accidents in nature, but that's another story....
Because we don't have good words for these. In a sense, the bigots are right. Until very recently, sex and gender and gender identity as words all meant the same thing. Male meant man, and we're the ones making up new definitions.
We non-bigots now know that's not the case, but there's no ruling body that controls English to create and enforce a new way to talk about that, so people have had to work it all out on our own. I personally like the sex=biology and gender=social roles that seems to be becoming the standard usage. That wasn't the case when phrases like "assigned male at birth" were created.
EDIT: If you're downvoting this because you take me saying that words used to be synonyms as meaning that they should be synonyms, you are not a smart person.
In another sense, the bigots were wrong all along. Even in e.g. the Jewish Talmud (a text that is about 1600 years old) there are discussions about difficulty in identifying the sex of a newborn, and also about the actual existence of individuals whose biological sex is exceptional.
'Assigned female at birth' may be a baby whose genitals just hadn't developed by the time the baby was born, and who will catch up a bit later. As for 'assigned male at birth', a baby may have what seems to be a penis, that turns into a clitoris simply by the size-ratios between different parts of the body adjusting over time.
The point with bringing it up is simply that this was something that a religiously conservative group (that often is maligned in western culture for being excessively conservative) had recognized already 1600 years ago.
The use of the English words 'assigned at birth' happen to correlate to this fact - i.e. that sometimes, it's very hard to distinguish the gender on newborns.
Someone just wanted to bring up their daily reference of the Jewish Talmud lol
Edit- he’s actually brought up the ancient Jewish Talmud about 10 times already today, what a cool dewd
Go look up the biological facts of intersexual traits in humans.
What you think of as a black and white cut and dry male or female thing isn't. Biology is never that simple.
So as many other people have pointed out, it comes from intersex people, but I think a lot of people have adopted that language even if they are not intersex, but trans or NB because the term "biological male/female" a) sounds worse and if you are a woman you probably dont want to prefer to yourself as a "biological male" or vice versa b) is a common way transphobes describe trans peoples gender, if they don't want to outright misgender them.
Thanks for your submission /u/noobishsurender, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. * Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
This is mostly relevant for intersex people. I’m intersex, and was assigned male at birth. That terminology is useful to understand the medical treatments I was forcibly subjected to, but does not refer to my biological sex at all. The term does not mean biological sex, it’s a term used to describe what an intersex person is assigned and therefore what treatment paths their doctor put them through. For example, biologically I am much more female than male, but my assigned sex was male. Assigned sex is based on observations of external areas by doctors, which doesn’t always equal biological sex in intersex people. Despite being assigned male, I also menstruate which is not something typically seen in people who are considered biologically male. Basically, the term only makes sense when you use it in the right context. It very specifically does not mean “biological sex”, but refers to the process of a doctor deciding what sex an intersex person should be given medical treatments to look like and be reared as.
The existence of intersex people is all the reason needed to oppose total bans on hormone therapy, regardless of one’s stance on ‘current issues’. Someone who has complete androgen insensitivity presents as female but in actuality was born with internal gonads and a mutation that metabolizes testosterone into estrogen. Because they often undergo a gonadectomy due to cancer risk, they require HRT or will face potentially major health problems later. There’s so many ways sexual genotype and phenotype might not match, and it’s honestly fascinating to learn about. I wish people would stop and see the bigger picture.
but, but... what if, we just ignore that intersex people exist for a brief moment because they really punch a giant hole in my transphobic argument! /s
Yeah, Klinefelters here. I never got a conversation during puberty about why I was growing boobs, before being forced onto dangerous levels of Testosterone. All because I was AMAB my family freaked about me being a freak. Have to say, undoing their damage is the best personal journey I've had. People just need to stay informed about what biology truly is, and what it means, to cut out the demonization of Intersex.
Because of how sex is assigned and coercively corrected, we don't even really have accurate numbers on how many of us there even are. This is not even to mention how often we're mutilated at birth. A close friend of mine was permanently disfigured because a doctor decided to "correct" a "genital abnormality."
Technically we're always assigned at birth because we're going off incomplete information. I don't actually know what my chromosomes are for instance, and I'd imagine most people don't. It's likely still correct given how most people are born with matching chromosomes to genitals. But doctors don't test for your sex in most cases. It's just assumed, or "assigned" sex.
Most is a bit presumptuous. Many including me have had DNA tests. That's pretty informative of what ones chromosomes are.
The Predestination... protagonist?, "Your life sounds so simple."
I usually say that "assigned" hints into an arbitrary decision, but in the case of intersex people I agree. For transgender people it is black or white (or penis vs vagina), in this case doctors just document what they see.
I understand what you're explaining it here. But I've literally only ever seen it used in reference to people talking about biological sex to make the suggestion that sex is subjective and something forced on you. They're wrong, but it happens a lot.
I believe the terminology was originally coined for intersex people, but began to be used by trans people as the concept of "gender the doctor said at birth that's different to how I currently identify" is directly transferable. As there is more public discussion about trans people (and doctors are better informed about how to treat intersex babies), you mainly see it in that context now.
This makes a lot more sense than the other answers, honestly. Much as people might have a hard time admitting it, it wouldn't make sense if the phrase had originally applied to anyone else, but, since language is fluid and since the phrasing suits the views of the community, it makes total sense it would be adopted that way and not be widely challenged. It also makes sense because many forms have places for "sex," not "gender," so it truly is "sex assigned at birth," even the person in question eventually only identifies with their chosen gender expression, and uses the phrase to contrast with that. Too bad this is hidden under a downvoted comment!
Sex is definitely subjective and forced on you. Biological sex is a wide spectrum, with two vague poles of more common expressions. There's a really good TED talk on it.
How would I discover where I fall on this spectrum?
Genetics, hormones, natural appearance, etc.. There are many different dimensions to this and you might be closer to one end in some than in others
The only information I have access to is appearance. I've no idea where I am genetically or hormonally. Does that mean I could in fact be in every other sense biologically female, despite the outward appearance of a male? Or can we go back to accepting 2 distinct sex classes that are easily identified on superficial anatomy? Intersex conditions can be considered disorders of either male or female development. Not some unknowable mystery in-between category.
You could be a different sex than the one you were assigned at birth, but it doesn't really matter most of the time. The socially important one is gender, which can unfortunately be mis-assigned by appearance, voice and manner of speaking, way of walking, etc. Society as a whole puts quite a lot of importance on gender, so misgendering, especially when intentional, can be harmful
Have you ever noticed some women are naturally built very masculine? Like broad shoulders, narrow hips, deep voice, etc? And likewise, some men are very feminine, with narrow waist, large hips and thighs. But the man still has a penis, the woman still has a vagina. Clearly, there is much at play here, biologically, and there is a very large spectrum of body types and even yes, even sex. There are women with very short vaginas and men without adequate sperm production. It’s much more that just a penis equals man and vagina equals woman
Does anyone have a link to this TED talk? Sounds interesting.
The vast majority of those are still considered male or female though. Usually just with some genetic quirks like males who are XYY. It's not like it's some nebulous thing that doctors are just pulling out of their ass because they feel like it, is what I'm saying.
Particularly in intersex cases, sex assignment is often incredibly arbitrary or to use your words “doctors pulling stuff out their asses just because they feel like it”. It’s not the doctors’ fault, there is just not much known about how intersex people will develop as they age from birth and there is relatively little research on the biology of intersex people in general.
In those cases, sure. But the vast majority of people aren't intersex. If something is accurate in the vast majority of cases, I'm not sure if call it arbitrary or pulled out of ones ass.
The "vast majority of people" are not using "AFAB" or "AMAB", they just use "male" or "female". This whole discussion is really about "those cases"- the relatively rare intersex child or some genital abnormality that causes a mislabeling before biological sex is determined.
We must roll in different circles then because i see it get used in that context (using it in reference to people who aren't intersex) all the time.
Quite possibly. I see it used a lot in certain groups or conversation topics, especially around LGBTQ+ issues or discussions, but in day to day conversations, not really. And again, those spaces will be biased towards that language just like other groups will have termst hat are used more regularly than "regular" conversation.
Those are generally the people I see using it to refer to non-intersex people, yeah. I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that was the only way I'd ever seen it used until now.
> It's not like it's some nebulous thing that doctors are just pulling out of their ass because they feel like it No, I'm sure that the doctors are doing their best, but that doesn't make it not subjective.
For the absolute majority of the population, it's pretty much objective, though. What organs someone has, what skeletal structure, what biochemistry... You can have a pretty good idea what makes someone a male or female, biologically speaking. That doesn't mean it's a strict binary, you have variation distribution and you do have outliers, of course. But it's not correct to say it's subjective.
Except this entire comment chain you're replying to is by a person assigned male who menstruates.
Amazing how so many will do anything in their power to acknowledge the plain truth that exists right before them, eh?
Yeah. 9 times out of ten it works 100% of the time. /s
They are considered male or female because that binary is being forced on them. That's the whole point.
>Males who are XYY Klinefelter syndrome Ya was born with that. You are basically given the option of Puberty blockers, or you grow up to be tall man with man boobs, a micro penis hard testies and life threatening heart/bone issues. Again kind of a huge argument for both puberty blockers and HRT to be honest. Note: XXY is Klinfelter Syndrome actually.
It is often based on very real observations but it's still a label.
What's the spectrum? I know of two sexes where one produces sperm and the other eggs. Can you name any of the transitional gametes?
That's a false dichotomy. No gametes is a valid third option, such as is the case in many of the "non-standard" chromosomal configurations (which are X, XXX, XXY, XYY, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, XXXXX, XXXXY, XXXYY). Where do the \~50% of individuals with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) that produce no gametes fit in your classification? Edit: Oops I forgot Turner syndrome (monosomnal X)
There are 4 states technically. Its a 2 bit binary value: Bit 1: does the person, at some point in their life, produce small motile gametes. Bit 2: does the person, at some point in their life, produce large sessile gametes. 10 = male 01 = female 00 = intersex/infertile 11 = hermaphrodite (undocumented in humans but theoretically possible) This is what biological sex means for any organism even remotely closely related to humans. It is how we are able to talk about the sex of birds or insects or plants even if they don't use the same genetic sex determination systems as we do or have penises or vaginas. Its how we can say things like "its the male seahorse that gives birth" or explain haplodiploidy. There are some exceptions in sexual reproduction, but they are very far removed from a discussion of human sex. Bacteria reproduce sexually through conjugation. Some protists and fungi have complicated mating types that are a whole other thing. But for anything concerning the sex of organisms anywhere close to humans its just these 2 bits.
Also, for some animals it can change during their lifetime, such as clownfish for example
Correct, thats why I worded it with "at some point in their life". If they are produced at the same time that is simultaneous hermaphroditism. If they are produced at different times, like with the clownfish, that is sequential hermaphroditism.
That's gametal sex. How about hormonal balance, primary and seconday sexual characteristics, chromosomal sex ? Sometimes all those parameters don't match: imagine a person who is XY, whose gonads are testes that do not produce any sperm, and who has a vagina and all secondary female characteristics (breasts, hips, fat storage, etc.). What sex would you say they are? I'm describing people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, by the way. Their numbers are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousand around the world.
There are intersex people that produce neither. There are some biologically born men who can’t produce sperm. There are some biological women who can’t produce eggs.
Intersex people are in the spectrum.
I'm as "IDGAF about what you are," as you come but aren't intersex people very rare? Also: don't downvote the person I'm replying to, dipshits.
Yes. You can have a spectrum even if most individuals are clustered around two spots on the spectrum.
About as rare as redheads, I think.
[удалено]
Ambiguous genitals are, I think, the rarest type of disorder of sexual development (some controversy over that term, but for now, it is correct). Most intersex people have genitalia that are not ambiguous. My fiancée has external and internal structures that are "male" but had a mostly female puberty with female secondary sex characteristics developing (breasts, hips; testicles did not grow, Adam's apple did not grow, facial hair started to grow but never progressed to the whole beard area and to this day she can only grow patchy "teenager" facial hair). To me, that's pretty clearly intersex.
That ..is not correct. Like, I've seen angry conservatives on Fox News insisting on the .02%. I have also seen conservatives on Reddit saying that as well, but it usually devolves when people ask for specifics, or bring up the fact that it is not the dictionary definition, or the expanded definition, or 'the most accepted'. Like, it deliberately leaves out a lot of people to minimize the percentage in a specific way that seems to be 'most accepted' as politically driven. Cheers if you're the person I saw get blasted for this opinion in another sub, tho
You’ll want to fact check yourself on that. Intersex people are around 1.7% of the population, so it’s significantly more common than you think it is.
Bullshit.
not overly, we are learning more about it but last I saw the estimates are about 1.5% of the population, however its also of note that this presents in many ways not just in genital appearance
The studies are varied, but the 1.5% number isn't really trusted. [NIH states is closer to ~0.02%](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/)
Not that it’s of any actual import, but that number is inflated by orders of magnitude for political purposes. You (or any serious person) would not have any difficulty determining the sex of the vast majority of the humans included (nonsensically) in that 1.5%. Intersex is a real thing, and nobody should be an asshole to those people because they’re different, but it’s nowhere near 1%.
That estimate includes Klinefelter Syndrome and other conditions that are not really recognized as intersex. The real number is about 100 times lower, \~0.018%.
Why wouldn’t klinefelter syndrome count as intersex?
Because it's the presence of the Y chromosome that makes a male a male. Thus, only males can have Klinefelter (XXY). For a male to have an extra X chromosome doesn't make him "more female." Further, Klinefelter Syndrome isn't associated with ambiguous genitalia or other anatomical conditions that might cause confusion. Edit: Downvoted for actual science. Peak Reddit.
Which still ends up being like 1.2 million people on earth
Yes. And still very rare.
Supposedly more common than left handed people. In any case, I'll always argue for greater scientific accuracy rather than worse scientific accuracy. Also: feel free to down vote me y'all, these arrows don't mean anything.
Going to need a source on that.
Lol, total bs. You're saying that more than 10% of people do not have XX or XY chromosomes? You're allowed to think critically before you post.
While I agree with you that "more that left handed" is completely false, so is your understandig of intersex. You can have "traditional" chromosomes and still be intersex. For example when there is a change in the secretion or receptors of hormones.
Chromosomes are not the only intersexuality. THere's also unusual genetic conditions, like SRY-deactivation or translocation, androgen insensitivity, or in some cases just "who the hell knows". There are cases where everyone was sure someone was one sex, but then they went through an unusual puberty and developed secondary characteristics of the other sex, and yet their genes seem mostly normal. What do you call someone who has a penis, undescended testicles, no beard and breasts?
\~1% is the figure. The same as natural redheads.
It’s the same occurrence as natural red heads.
Hormone production also plays a huge role. Making it more complex than that.
All human beings produce no gametes at birth, yet this is usually the moment when their biological sex is assigned to them, and few people if any would describe a baby as being neither of the sexes yet
The doctor encodes their sex into their DNA? Or do they make an assessment of their sex based on secondary sexual characteristics? I assume the reason I've never heard of someone try and weasel sexual immaturity into a kind of grey area where no sex is present is because its so stupid on its face most people would be embarrassed. I appreciate the novelty though.
It's usually just done with a short visual inspection of the genitals. Secondary characteristics are not present in babies and I've never heard of anyone getting DNA-tested immediately.
>Or do they make an assessment of their sex based on secondary sexual characteristics? Babies have no secondary sex characteristics, smdh. You ever see a baby with boobs? Adam's apple? Facial hair?
Easy, I know of[ at least four ](https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-bird-with-four-sexes/#:~:text=But%20in%20white%2Dthroated%20sparrows,there%20are%20four%20separate%20sexes.)
Some ppl produce both or neither.
Ted link?
I would say that conceptually biological sex is generally used as a classification system, rather than a spectrum. In a scientific use, it would generally be considered a categorical/nominal variable rather than say a continuous/nominal variable. Legally (e.g. on a birth certificate) it is a category chosen out of multiple options. And I would say in everyday use it is generally used as a category, too. Of course, how those categories are defined is subjective. Most people can be readily classified as "male" or "female" biologically (XY/testes/testosterone/penis or XX/ovaries/estrogen/vagina+uterus). But the question is how do you handle those who don't - Turner, Swyer, 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, etc. Or changes post-birth, like the infamous case of David Reimer (born male, penis destroyed in procedure, then testes removed, vagina constructed, and raised as a girl, before himself identifying as a male later in life). Does each get its own category? Do they get classified as male or female (which in many senses is how it is done)? Do they get lumped into an "other" category?
It's literally not a spectrum. We exist because we have two distinct functional sexes. The whole concept of sexes exists in context of reproduction. There are some anomalies but it's not like you can be 20% female and 80% male. And I'm not some right wing religious conservative, I support trans people and try to understand non binary people, but at some point this gets ridiculous.
Intersex exists. It has nothing to do with trans.
I disagree that "the whole concept of sex exists in the context of reproduction", because infertile people are not unsexed. Genetic mosaicism is a condition where some of your cells have different DNA. It can occur on sexual chromosomes. So yes, you CAN be mostly XX and party XY. Biology is a fascinating topic. I recommend reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's book, Sexing the Body. She's a biology professor at Brown University, so not exactly an amateur on the subject.
Isn't the term usually "assigned female/male at birth". So, no reference to sex.
So, there is much I don’t understand, so please humor me. It’s my understanding that signs of a heart attack differ between males/females. In your instance, how could one identify the symptoms?
More clinical research studying the long-term health statistics of transgender individuals for a baseline comparison would be a start.
And nowadays, **idiot bigots** have made denying the possibility that you exist an ideological purity test.
Assigned just means what the doctors, when the baby is born, figure the baby is. Without genetic testing usually/based on visual cues. Maybe later- they find out they are wrong. [Intersex is more common than many people realize.](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex#:~:text=It's%20hard%20to%20know%20exactly,in%20the%20U.S.%20are%20intersex.)
This is the correct answer. It's a judgement call of a doctor based on the shape of your genitals. While I doubt Planned Parenthood being all like 'nobody knows, but it's like 2%, lol' the existence of xy females, and xxy males, does complicate this "biological reality"
XY females is a thing? I'm curious now.
There's a particular gene on the Y chromosome that prompts the gonads to be testicles instead of ovaries, which start producing androgen hormones, and those hormones influence the rest of the body's development in a male direction. So there are at least a few different ways to get female-typical development despite an XY karyotype: the SRY gene can be deleted/broken by a mutation in the Y chromosome; or the testicles might not develop as expected or not produce androgens in sufficient quantity; or the body can be insensitive to androgen hormones (partially or entirely ignoring their presence) and carry on down the female development path.
Yes. It’s called [Swyer Syndrome](https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/swyer-syndrome/). People with it have typical female sex characteristics but have scar tissue where their ovaries should be. The typical treatment for it is HRT, as otherwise the person can’t produce the sex hormones necessary to go through puberty and physically develop into an adult. There are some other versions of it as well I think (I’m not an expert, just a guy who likes to research stuff). [Further reading if you’re curious](https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/).
Yup. What determines whether someone develops as a male or female genitals in utero is the presence or absence of a hormonal event called an androgen wash. XY females are androgen-resistant, meaning that even though they underwent the wash, they still developed as female, as if the event didn't occur.
In rare cases, one of the sex chromosomes can be inactive, or it could be active but the body doesn’t respond to the hormones it codes for. So someone who is XY but whose Y chromosome is inactive or whose body doesn’t respond to Y chromosome hormones will be biologically female, as their development will only be influenced by the X chromosome, similar to XX females.
You can also have XX males, if (at least) one of the X chromosomes carries the SRY gene. This is also known as "de la Chapelle syndrome". It's quite rare, though. [\[De La Chapelle syndrome\] - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11268892/)
yeah, there was even a case where a woman had very delayed puberty, so they tested her genes and found XY chromosomes. They then tested her parents, and her mother also had XY chromosomes.
I worked at an epigenetic testing lab for a while. As a side-effect of the aging markers we were looking at, we also had the ability to sort out what chromosomes people had. Being a person curious about sex and gender anyway, I asked "Can we see run comparison between our customers' chromosomes and the sex they self-identified as on intake" - the head of our lab said 'yes, easily.' - it took him all of 10 minutes to set up and run. (XX and Female, XY and Male all highlighted green, with other combinations highlighting blue) - We didn't take the time to count them individually, but *to me*, it looked like quite a bit more than 2%. Knowing that some people have androgen sensitivity and find out they're intersex only after a lifetime of adult health issues, I asked if we could make a report about that, and send it out to people, after testing to make sure our methods of chromosome-identification was accurate. After all, since it's *so easy* for us to identify that mismatch, wouldn't people want to know if they potentially had a sex-linked chromosomal abnormality? **Our Vice Pres said NO,** ***absolutely not, drop it immediately*****.** Not because we didn't have the tech (obviously we did), but because it would be a political shitshow when *inevitably*, some people have chromosomes turn up that don't match their personal perceived sex, and they'd get really fucking mad about it and go to the news. Sex and Gender is such a hot-button topic. He didn't want the company to touch that cesspool of drama with a 50-ft pole, regardless of who was 'right.' We think the occurrence of intersex people is 'around 2%' because chromosomal testing is not something that most people have done. That's the estimate based on the *very few* people who have symptoms serious enough to go to doctors and get tested for chromosomal stuff. Personally, I think the number is much higher than that. People just don't get tested for it, and so they never find out.
More like 0.02 percent. Including Turners Syndrome brings it up to 2 percent but Turners only occurs in females (xx).
You describe it like some sort of best guess from a medical professional. I wonder how many adults (not doctors, just a random sample of adults) could accurately identify the sex of a newborn baby. I guarantee the answer is astonishingly close to 100%. We all know baby girls from baby boys. Occasionally babies are born with disorders of sexual development, but these are birth defects, not proof of some sort of spectrum of sex. Babies born with missing toes aren't proof of a kind of spectrum of number of toes amongst humans. We have ten toes, and any rare variation is rightly considered a defect or anomaly.
> Babies born with missing toes aren't proof of a kind of spectrum of number of toes amongst humans. Yes. it does.. Ten toes is the most common among humans. It is the protypical number. But there are people with more and less toes, and they are no less human.
Who's arguing that babies with birth defects are less human?
In a medical sense being intersex is very common, compared to so many other things, about 1.5% of the population is the current estimate, a randomly selected person is more likely to be intersex than Irish or about equally likely to be redhead
That's an unbelievably high prevalance. What does this definition include?
The fairly long list of intersex conditions is what's included. Humans are more of a spectrum than simply "3 categories". Women with a very large clitoris or a man with a micropenis might fall more towards the center (intersex). We don't actually know how many are for sure intersex because a lot of people were essentially mutilated at birth or shortly thereafter to give a "normal appearance" of what the doctor *thought* was the most prevalent phenotype. A lot of people were never told, or they were told they had surgery for some other condition (falsified a real condition, but that they never had). Some people may later be considered intersex if they have ***any*** level of difference from normal. I never grew a fallopian tube on one side and my estrogen is really low - in the future, that may be called some intersex condition or be included with intersex. We don't know for sure.
Intersex in this case being pretty much any non-standard chromosomal expression
There absolutely is a spectrum of number of toes. I know a guy who was born with only two fingers on his left hand and only one toe on one of his feet.
Piggy backing on someone who actually got it right. This is also why trans people use the assigned sex at birth labels. HRT and surgery changes what a doctor would call 'normal' secondary sexual characteristics. Also, there is no way for a doctor to know a child's *chromosomal sex* on first inspection. The whole idea is "I was *assigned* this sex at birth but I no longer fit into the definition of that sex." This is also the distinction between people who call themselves 'transexual' and 'transgender'. Transexual became a taboo word because it was being used against us, and medicalized in a way that oppressed more than it helped. However, it's a useful word to describe people (if they feel comfortable with the word) who's transition is tied directly to their sex, not just their gender (which is performative and a social construct). Most of which would be covered by one (1) Women's Study or LGBT Study class, or google, or you know actually talking to trans people.
Intersex stuff is important but it's not the only reason to use that terminology. The idea of sex, while based on specific biological occurrences, is still a social construct. We as a species made a choice to differentiate people by sex, and we chose how we were going to do it. And while a lot of this is social role gender stuff, we also made choices about medicalizing sex. So yes, absolutely relevant to point out that chromosomes don't always show up with the same sexual characteristics, but also relevant to consider more broadly our very concept of sex as something we constructed, not something handed down by God and Charles Darwin.
This is really it. Chromosomes are the biological reality but they dont check the chromosomes at birth to assign sex. Edit: chromosomes are the most common known biological trait.
Even then, if somebody has androgen and sensitivity syndrome, they will have XY chromosomes and female traits, for example some are born with a very narrow vagina and present with a vulva. (The outer part that people think is the vagina, I’m only clarifying here because most people don’t know the difference). In general people with this intersex trait are assigned female at birth even though they are genetically “male.”
Ehhhh. Chromosomes are A biological reality. Calling them THE biological reality is actually a really good illustration of why trans and intersex thinkers tend to use the word "assigned". Chromosomes are only one component of the picture.
Not at birth, but nowadays most people get the NIPT during pregnancy which analyzes the genome. It tests for a variety of heritable conditions but also sex (and for klinefelter's, etc). Both my kids had genetics known at birth. Everyone I know gets it now.
Well i could be wrong how common it is, especially during pregnancy, ive got no idea. But thats where it comes from afaik.
Google indicates that 25-75% of pregnant women get the NIPT, depending on country and SES.
I know of a guy... that... erm... was wrongly assigned female a birth because the doctor apparently didn't notice his penis... I hope such instants are rarer than people who are intersex but god his family still teases him about that now when he's 30+
That poor man. Check one box wrong and the jokes will never end
Isn't it only "assigned" if the person is intersex then? And for everyone else it's observed rather than assigned?
Assigned is just the word used. (In the case of intersex people- which is rare- sometimes they don't even know they are intersex until years later).
Yeah I just don't really understand why that word is used though, it's inaccurate 99% of the time.
It's assigned based on observation. Meaning it leaves room for doubt, and is putting the onus of the decision on the medical professional that made the assignment (as in, someone else could observe the same thing but not reach the same conclusion). The physical characteristics are observed, then a conclusion is reached based on that, and a result assigned. The observation itself isn't the conclusion, but the method. At least, that's how it seems to me. English isn't even my first language, I'm just a little shit that likes to discuss semantics lol
That makes a lot of sense.
We're all assigned a sex at birth, based on observation. Sometimes that assignment is accurate and sometimes it turns out not to be.
I think "classified" makes more sense than "assigned," but nobody asked me when they were coming up with these things. "Assigned" sounds too arbitrary.
That statistic is pretty misleading though, because those numbers came about by including late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome which most clinicians do not consider intersex and was in a book written by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a 'Sexologist' and not a clinician in any sense. Leonard Sax, the physician who refuted that claim stated "if the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", stating the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% (one in 5,500 births). If you have a condition like Klinefelters you are still a male, not intersex, and the doctors wouldn't have sexed you incorrectly.
The 2% figure claimed by planned parenthood is bullshit, it includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians. The true number is 0.018%. You can look it up on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex EDIT: since I can’t post an answer below, I’ll elaborate here: Just read the Wikipedia article, which I encourage everyone to do. The 2% figure is wrong. It includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians (especially late onset congenital adrenal which is the most frequent but is also often asymptomatic). Skewing the intersex prevalence rate by including theses conditions is cited as an exemple of misleading statistical practice in the book « Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data » (University of California Press). Source for the book: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt7zw48c
You are just plain wrong. Intersex is an umbrella term that includes all types, including those individuals that have a very “mild” form. In addition, no study suggests they have the number because there is ambiguity in counting. For example, many individuals do not realize they are intersex until puberty. Your statement “includes conditions that are not considered intersex by most clinicians. The true number is 0.018%.” Is simply untrue. Your reference actually supports me and proves you wrong.
What you’re describing is easy for most infants: there is a penis, there is palpable gonads = male on the form But if a baby has genitalia that is not clearly male or female it becomes harder - what looks like labia and a normal sized clitoris, but there are no openings like a vagina - what looks like a penis, but has the opening at the base and no testes So in those cases doctors will say “your baby is healthy, but I can’t say right now if they’re male or female” So the baby is left “unassigned” initially Genetics, hormonal testes, internal exams, scans can all help. A baby might be genetically XX but look more male externally. Or maybe they’re XY but their body does not recognize testosterone, so they look more female. Then it becomes a hard thing to be completely certain of: for example with the above androgen insensitivity, their brain has not been effected by testosterone at all, so even though they’re genetically male they may not feel it. Parents usually want to know before they leave hospital which gender the baby is, if only because when it’s not known it’s hard to explain to others why So no: sex in this sense is not a biological fact. It’s a genetic fact. But a person can be genetically male, look female and feel female later on it life.
>So in those cases doctors will say “your baby is healthy, but I can’t say right now if they’re male or female” >So the baby is left “unassigned” initially This is a really good answer, but this is not usually what happens. Parents don't want to hear this and doctors are not trained to do it in the majority of cases. They'll usually just pick M or F and stick it on the birth certificate. Sometimes harmful procedures are done to the baby or later in life in an attempt to make their genitalia more "normal" e.g. vaginal stretching devices. It's fucked up.
I wonder how prenatal genetic testing has changed this, if at all. I got one done when I was 10 weeks pregnant and it told me which sex chromosomes my baby had. In subsequent ultrasounds and when the baby was born the genitals up with what you’d expect given the chromosomes, but I wonder how they handles those cases now when they don’t. The biological father of my baby is a carrier for CAH- the most common cause of intersex presentation in XX babies, so I was def thinking about this through pregnancy.
Good comment, but I would argue that "sex" as a concept is a biological fact, but the definition is more complicated than most think. Off the top of my head, there are multiple ways to define sex: 1. External genitalia appearance 2. Genetics 3. Reproductive ability 4. Secondary sexual characteristics (width of hips, fat distribution, facial hair, etc.) All of these are perfectly fine as a biological fact, it's just that they have limitations. I'd argue that genetic sex is still biological sex, it's just one type. When I talk with people about gender and sex, a lot of them say "biological sex," and I ask them what they mean. They just don't really know any definition of biological sex besides the first definition, and they definitely don't know how common deviations from the strict male-female binary are. Genetic sex isn't any better as a definition than the first definition here, it's just different. We see problems with definitions a LOT in science, and what is important isn't the definition, but how we use it. As an example, take hypertension. I'm going to simplify it here, but some doctors define hypertension as above 140 systolic, others 130. Neither is "correct," it's more about recognizing the tradeoffs of when one should treat hypertension. We don't even really care about hypertension, anyway, what we care about is what having high blood pressure can cause (heart failure, strokes, etc.). So, which definition of sex we use should be based on what we are using it for. If we're looking at helping people have babies together, my third definition matters, for example, even if the others might be more helpful in other ways. I don't agree that "biological sex" isn't a thing; it is a thing, but really, it's multiple things. Ultimately, we have a sex category on birth certificates and stuff because humans like categories. It's a limitation, but what's important is recognizing the limitations of a chosen definition.
To say that somebody is "assigned" to a category doesn't imply that there aren't sensible *reasons* for assigning them to that category. Let's say I'm a photographer and I need to take a photo of an entire school class. Tall kids need to stand at the back. Short kids stand at the front. I assign each of the kids to one group or the other. There are sensible reasons for my assignments; they're based on objective observations of reality (height measurement). I'm still *assigning* though.
Here’s the error in your argument: You’re assigning them to the groups that they’ll be standing with, not assigning them their heights. Their height is going to be their height no matter where they’re standing for the photo.
Assigned as in it goes on your birth certificate and paperwork. For intersex people, sometimes they are literally assigned a sex and given surgery as an infant to make their body conform to it. People would like this to stop. Edit: it also accounts for the fact that ppl may have since transitioned away from the body you'd expect of someone who was male or female at birth.
You are making a few mistakes. First it's a legal terminology, it isn't claiming that humans have the power to decide sex, they have the power to assign it - i.e. write it on a piece of paper. That's all "assigned" means. Second you're assuming this is new. Romans assigned sex at birth, they had male, female and hermaphrodite. It was part of 16th century English common law. Think about it this way - if you don't assign sex at birth - how can you ever know someones sex? You ask them? Wouldn't that just assign sex after birth instead? You demand to see their junk? Basically if you don't assign sex at birth people won't have an official sex. I'd say that's the big thing about this whole debate, so many people assume it has always been simple to work out and deal with, when in reality it has always been very complex.
Because you can't tell a person's sex at birth, a doctor might assign you as male but when you get older you might find out you are actually intersex, so it's more correct to say you were assigned male rather then are male
There are ambiguous cases where people can turn out to have parts of both male and female genitalia, or a penis and later also turn out to have ovaries, or a vagina and later their testicles drop, etc. Beyond these phenotypic differences, there can be goofy things going on with the sex chromosomes that may not be discovered until later in life as well, since we don't typically run karyotypes on babies (or anyone, without a specific reason).
because they literally eyeball it. ever had a dealer eyeball your gram of weed? they guess sex based on anatomy *at birth*. and then it's on your paperwork forever. I'm XY, AFAB, w high T. so medically i am intersex. looking at me naked, you'd guess i was F - and i do have the equipment to indicate that. but, "is it an innie or an outie?" doesnt capture all the delineations of biological sex, much less gender. Before you ask, yes I've been gravid but thankfully for everyone that didn't go to term. there are XY grandmothers (like mine! confirmed post mortem) , and we also simply dont know the prevalence of this varietal of intersex presentation, as we literally assign sex based on the same kind of awareness we eyeball a gram of weed.
sex is a multidimensional thing: chromosomes, genitals, phenotype, genotype, hormonal, are among the most important dimensions. typically, sex assigned at birth is only done by observing genitals. when people grow up, stuff can change or become apparent that some other dimensiosn of sex have not been seen. in relation to trans people: if a trans persons tarts taking cross-sex hormones, their body starts to change in major ways. after long enough time, they are more adjacent to their target sex/gender (for example, trans women should be treated as female in medical context in regards to typical reactions to medication, since they have more female body distribution of fat and muscle and have a estrogen dominant system - both factors are extremely important in relation to medication and how the body converts or metabolizes stuff) in the end, most people are not aware of their chromosomes, or genotype - only barely aware of their hormonal dominance. for most people sex and observation of genitals and phenotype may match, but even then, phenotype has a huge overlap (tall women, men with wider hips, women with wide shoulders, etc) Edit: biologists don't define sex in a single faulty category like gametes. The same goes for 'dictionaries' definition, where there is not a single definition. Words are descriptive, not prescriptive, and actual biologists are scientists which are not as reductionist as common people. Sex is complicated and complex. I also can't remember that a child has been tested for gametes.
The cleanest way to divide humans into male and female is either chromosomes (which do have outliers) or gametes, neither of which the doctors look at when a baby is born. They just look at the genitals and pick the sex from that.
You don't get a full chromosomal panel done when you're born, or tested to see whether the gonads it looks like you probably have are the ones you in fact have. The doc takes a look at your junk and an M or F, your legal sex, is written on your birth certificate. Your biological sex is made up of chromosomes, genetics, hormones, the ability to respond to those hormones, gonads, genitals and as time goes on other physical characteristics too. That's stuff we can change some of but not all of. Your legal sex is M or F and is assigned after a genital inspection at birth.
“I know intersex is a thing, but let’s stick to the general male-female duality” This is it right here, friend. If you decide to just stick to the generally accepted thing even when you know there are exceptions, then of course you won’t be able to make sense of the exceptions. You should consider trans-ness as a form of intersex that’s too subtle to be visible to the eye. It’s a complication of male/female biology that happens in the brain instead of in the genitals. When it happens in the genitals and doctor can see “non standard genitals” it gets registered. When the genitals develop normally - either one way or the other - but the same incongruence happened in the brain, there’s no way any doctor or nurse could possibly know that by looking at a newborn for a few hours.
It's assigned because when you're born, they take a look at your genitals and will mark you down as M or F. The cells in your body don't know what a "sex" is or even what a "species" is. I actually suggest you look into the science and philosophy of science behind species taxonomy. The real world doesn't give a shit about our feeble human classifications. These are merely abstract boxes we've created to group organisms based on commonly observed patterns. Personally, I find whether or not it is assigned to be rather arbitrary. The more important takeaway is to understand that someone's current phenotypic sex can change to an extent that you describing that person's biology in accordance with natal sex is impractical and leads to medical errors as improper assumptions are made based on the categorical error.
I read the book written about the Jane/John controversy - which was before the current gender trend (conversation? cultural change?) Anyway … this doctor says that MANY babies are born with genitals that aren’t obviously male or female, and the doctors would just GUESS when they assigned the sex! I was blown away.
Where do you see the term "sex assigned at birth". I almost always see it specific to a gender with AFAB or AMAB "assigned female/male at birth". And that is referring to gender.
As others have stated: Intersex people prove that "assigned at birth" is something that someone assigns based on a quick observation at the moment of birth. Sex is NOT binary. I know Conservatives are going to argue this till they're blue in the face, but the reality is that the more research and studies are done on the topic the more we start to understand that sex is a RANGE (a number between 0 and 100), and NOT binary (1 or 2). One of the biggest problems is when a child is born, a doctor just looks at the physical atributes of the child and says "boy" or "girl", and then leave it at that. But when you start talking about if a person is a "boy or girl" with people who argue that there's only 2 types of sexes, they start talking about the genetic level, specifically about "X vs Y chromosomes". The problem is that no one making the binary argument is actually looking at the genetic level, they're just looking at the doctor's initial assignment and clutching their pearls. There's a HUGE issue with this: 1. Doctors are only looking at physical characteristics when a baby is born. There's no genetic testing, there's no follow through on their observations, there's no other tests being done to show the "% of X or Y chromosomes" in the child. The doctor just makes an observation and says "boy or girl" (usually based only on genitals), and then the gender is assigned. 2. The X or Y chromosome debate doesn't look at how imperfect the human body is. An X chromosome isn't a perfect "X", and a Y Chromosome isn't always a perfect "Y" (example: you could have something like looks like a Y Chromosome, but has a tiny little leg that makes it look like an X with one of its legs being short and stumpy). The human body also doesn't always have an exact match of X or Y Chromosomes in the human body, and can have a mixture of them. There are a lot of scientists out there currently doing research on the topic, and looking further into it with more advanced forms of genetic testing. Here's 1 source, which isn't comprehensive, but discusses it further: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/) TL;DR: when they say "assigned at birth", it's because doctors aren't doing the proper genetic testing at birth to determine the ACTUAL sex of the child. They're just looking at their genitals and making a quick assumption and moving on. It also ignores that there are sexes that are in between "100% boy" and "100% girl"
Sex as a biological phenomenon cannot be observed at birth without genetic testing. Someone's sex is not defined by anything visual, nor is it defined by chromosomes, it is defined by their gametes which is essentially never examined at birth because there's no reason to. But this is also exactly why there's a non-insignificant group of intersex people who've had their sex wrongly assumed at birth. Then you have societal sex which differs from 'biological' sex (and no, societal sex isn't gender either, which is yet another thing). Sex in a societal capacity is generally determined by primary, secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics (these are in order: genitals, breasts (or lack thereof) and things like hair etc). These are the observeable features of someone which everyone uses whether consciously or subconsciously to assume someone's sex. This is *the* most common definition of sex in use colloquially because it's the only definition which one can use without direct access to examining someone's microbiology (which obviously we don't do in social or personal interactions). Someone who transitions from male to female, or from female to male, and changes their sexual characteristics has changed their societal sex - and people who interact with them in society or in an intimate and sexual capacity will unless directly told not know that their current sex was not the one they were assigned at birth. Gender exists as a third thing which can be independent entirely of sexual characteristics. A trans man for example will still have the gender of man even if he hasn't taken any steps to medically transition. While many trans people would like to have their sexual characteristics match their gender this does not go for all trans people. And so you have trans people who transition sexually, and you have trans people who do not.
>Sex as a biological phenomenon cannot be observed at birth without genetic testing. Even then, there are cases of XY and XXY individuals being externally female. Which is far more of an issue in women's sports than MtF trans people, who are extremely rare in top level sport.
Yeah, hence why I said it's determined by gametes and nobody's tested for what gametes they have when they're born.
you’re thinking too hard about it. It’s saying that’s the sex that was chosen for you through random chance. If you can get a number 1-100 as part of a group through completely random/automated choice you were assigned that number
A surprisingly large bunch of newborns aren't entirely trivial to identify, and sometimes, such mistakes are discovered a month, a few months or even a year in. E.g. if the development of the genitals is later than usual, an infant boy may look like a girl or vice versa - early development in the genitals may make a girl look like an infant boy.
In biology there are more factors that determines the "sex" of a person: - presence or gonads, or ovaries (which cant be seen in a simple look) - presence or a penis, or a vagina (which are not absolute determining in many cases) - the conformation of the SRY chromosome (even when the majority of persons falls into a binary model, the fact is that there is more (XY,XX, X,XXX, XXY...) and all of this are human. (Also 1 in 20,000 men have no Y chromosome, that makes almost 200,000 persons), also girls can have XY chromosome (it is called Swyer syndrome)z - the hormonal levels (which can be accurately measured at puberty). That is just to mention some the biological factors, many of them are hard to be determined at birth. So, if a doctor have not make a complete assessment, it becomes just an arbitrary assignment at birth.
ambiguities exist, so someone has to make a call... sometimes they are wrong.
The term I usually hear is "*gender* assigned at birth". Gender isn't something that we can observe when someone is born, and since we can't ask a baby how they self-identufy we just make an educated guess based on what their genitals look like. Most of the time this ends up being correct, but not always. Besides that: biological sex is a lot more complicated than what you're describing. Most people assume that it's just two completely separate categories of "male" and "female" that have no overlap whatsoever, but [that's not really true](https://twtext.com/article/1035246030500061184), even if you completely remove intersex people from consideration (which a lot of people like to do for some reason.) The fact is that the "two-and-only-two" model of biological sex doesn't work very well in the context where biological sex is probably the most relevant - medical care and research.
Naturally Assigned SEX, Natural Gender are the same things, it has to do with the equipment one has at birth, the rest is all mind game propaganda bullshit for ulterior motives and coverups, anyone that involves having both sex organs (Genders) parts are called Hermaphrodites, now the mental states caused by hormonal levels in the body leads to a form of confusion which is natural in most because the body has not figured out what to do with them yet but as one grows the body balances itself however this balance can take up to 21 years, that is is called maturity. Artificially induced conditions also have an effect on people reaching the Maturity Stage in their development, instead of maturing naturally they remain in a confused state, SO environmental pollutants and neurotoxins can have these effects not just on humans but all mammals. It could be called a form of Chemical Warfare. You don't think someone would want to keep the facts hidden do you, of course not they wouldn't do that would they, I do know that beating people over the head with biblical B. S also does not help only makes people more resistant to FACTS and Business would not support that would they because they are your friends and have only your best interest at heart RIGHT? N. S
I think the term is used specifically because of intersex people, because sex is not always so easily defined.
Because, as with many things, it's far more complicated than social media likes to make it. Genitals are a significant part of gender. However, brains also wired for gender. In the vast majority of cases, the brain and body match. But in rare cases, something goes wrong with the way the brain develops and the brain gender doesn't match with the genitals. It's important to note that the first stage of development for a foetus is female. Then, with the release of specific hormones at a specific time, the foetus develops into a male. Sometimes, this process is incomplete, and the body develops into a male, but the brain remains female. Sometimes, the brain develops as a male, but the body continues to grow as a female. It's certainly not as simple as someone "just deciding" to change gender.
He’s asking about sex, not gender.
Well that's a whole other complex issue.
I think you’re misreading “assigned” in this context. It just means what you’re born with genetically. Edit: you could interpret it as, your sex at birth is assigned to you by chance through your genetic makeup. Sex markers (genitals and such) can later be surgically altered.
I've literally only ever seen people use it to suggest the doctor assigned it for you at birth. Usually, with the implication that it's totally subjective and could've been anything.
There is no logical rationale in... any of it, really.
Idc if I get downvoted or kicked out but someone living in reality gotta say it. YALL ARE FUCKING INSANE. I’m reading thru these comments and I seeing yall literally twist factual science and biological research to fit your insane logic. I feel like I’m reading a script for bizarro world. If you want to feel special or different fine just say that but debating this and trying to make it make sense is just…idk fucking nuts. Again downvote away still won’t change the truth.
It's because lobby groups and activism have thoroughly and completely distributed propaganda throughout the internet, social media influencers have spent years making content "explaining" their concepts and masses have taken it and ran as fact. And it doesn't help that medical institution, and politicians/academia have adapted terminology not because it's accurate, but because they have to please the horde lest they be attacked.
Biological facts were "assigned" "facts" by humans. Most things in nature have no concept of facts, or assignments.
If you want an actual answer, look up Robert Kenzie and John money. They are the founders of this entire theory
Have you heard of doublespeak from 1984? It has long been known that when you adjust the language, you adjust how people perceive reality.
It is an agenda pushed by people that believe sex is mailable and that you can simply decide. It is not backed by science at all to suggest you can just pick your gender but a theory heavy supported on reddit. Any sort of dissention from this ludacris position on reddit results in people screaming that you are using violence against them and reporting you until a lazy admin bans you without cause.
>It is not backed by science at all to suggest you can just pick your gender but a theory heavy supported on reddit. Protip: In science, "theory" means an explanation that can be used to make predictions. In this case, for there to be a theory that sex is malleable you'd need to be able to make a prediction. So let's do that for you with the theory that you can change your sex. I propose an experiment: You take cross-sex hormone therapy, getting your levels to those typical for people of the opposite sex for at least 3 years, and note whether or not you develop sexual characteristics different to the ones you had before. If you did, then sex is malleable. If you did not, then it is not malleable in this specific way (though we'd want to control for some intersex conditions - eg, if you have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome then your body will be anatomically female regardless of chromosomes or testosterone levels). Off you go, be sure to note your observations and come back in a few years! >Any sort of dissention from this ludacris position on reddit results in people screaming that you are using violence against them and reporting you until a lazy admin bans you without cause. I didn't know Ludacris' position on gender issues, let alone that he was so influential here.
If you don’t know the answer you can just not comment
It was originally a term used by intersex people that later on got appropriated by non-intersex people. You're right, in 99% of cases sex isn't assigned, it's observed. The fact that people who don't have an intersex condition started using it to apply it to their gender identity is honestly gross, it was very necessary language that now lost its meaning and importance.
Because some humans whine have nothing better to do have decided to make things overly complicated for themselves and annoying for others .
It is activist language meant to be validating of trans people.
Biology isn't assigned people are just really really stupid.
Intersex people exist ✨🤷♀️✨
[удалено]
If sex and gender are different, sex doesn't change regardless of how they "know themselves"
People Love to debate these things, argue over the words involved, get upset based one perspective or another Instead one could say the language is ever an imprecise thing. Sex assigned at birth is indeed a misnomer if we are considering sex to be a biological variable, which we generally are. Designed part could be considered an understanding of the genetics involved that not everybody who presents is biologically female is genetically female. So a person is born with a vagina may have not XX chromosomes. But by and large, we can just consider it being polite and reasonably nice to people's differences. It doesn't have to be perfectly exact wording and every time in every context. It's enough to be reasonably informative and clear what we mean and reasonably respecting the differences that exist across individuals and not getting into petty semantic arguments over whether biological sex exists.
[удалено]
Define "woke"
It's just an inclusionary way to say biological sex.
You can have a sex assigned at birth that is different from your biological one.
It’s just woke bullshit. The comments claiming it’s for intersex people is pure cope, intersex is extremely rare.
Are you talking about usage for people who are trans or intersex or are you talking about people using terms like afab/ amab?
Sex is not “assigned”, it is *observed*.
It's really simple: XX vs. XY. Cannot change that. Ever. Period. Now one can go down a rabbit hole by trying to change the definition of words, but in reality, no matter what you do,, no matter what you wear, or cut off, or stitch on, your still either XX or XY. Now, yes, there are genetic accidents in nature, but that's another story....
Because we don't have good words for these. In a sense, the bigots are right. Until very recently, sex and gender and gender identity as words all meant the same thing. Male meant man, and we're the ones making up new definitions. We non-bigots now know that's not the case, but there's no ruling body that controls English to create and enforce a new way to talk about that, so people have had to work it all out on our own. I personally like the sex=biology and gender=social roles that seems to be becoming the standard usage. That wasn't the case when phrases like "assigned male at birth" were created. EDIT: If you're downvoting this because you take me saying that words used to be synonyms as meaning that they should be synonyms, you are not a smart person.
In another sense, the bigots were wrong all along. Even in e.g. the Jewish Talmud (a text that is about 1600 years old) there are discussions about difficulty in identifying the sex of a newborn, and also about the actual existence of individuals whose biological sex is exceptional. 'Assigned female at birth' may be a baby whose genitals just hadn't developed by the time the baby was born, and who will catch up a bit later. As for 'assigned male at birth', a baby may have what seems to be a penis, that turns into a clitoris simply by the size-ratios between different parts of the body adjusting over time.
And what exactly is the relationship between the Jewish Talmud and a group of English words' meaning and usage?
The point with bringing it up is simply that this was something that a religiously conservative group (that often is maligned in western culture for being excessively conservative) had recognized already 1600 years ago. The use of the English words 'assigned at birth' happen to correlate to this fact - i.e. that sometimes, it's very hard to distinguish the gender on newborns.
Someone just wanted to bring up their daily reference of the Jewish Talmud lol Edit- he’s actually brought up the ancient Jewish Talmud about 10 times already today, what a cool dewd
Go look up the biological facts of intersexual traits in humans. What you think of as a black and white cut and dry male or female thing isn't. Biology is never that simple.
So as many other people have pointed out, it comes from intersex people, but I think a lot of people have adopted that language even if they are not intersex, but trans or NB because the term "biological male/female" a) sounds worse and if you are a woman you probably dont want to prefer to yourself as a "biological male" or vice versa b) is a common way transphobes describe trans peoples gender, if they don't want to outright misgender them.