Political Memes

Hormones are the thing that defines development, more or less. There's lots of things that effect hormones, and everyone has verying degrees of testosterone and estrogen, and other hormones. Chromosomes are associated with hormones, but do not totally define what hormones are in the body when and where. That's even ignoring the fact we can control what hormones are in the body now manually, which directly changes how the body develops.

The issue is that you claim that a causes b. So at a, we can know that b will follow. Therefore we can identify b when we see a.

They say, a don't cause b for certain. So at a, we can't know that b will follow. Therefore we can't identify b when we see a, as we could misidentify.

That is not defining the norm at all. That is pointing out that it is logically invalid to identify b at a.

Think about it like this, most people who are born will be 23yo at some point but not all. So while it is a fair assumption to assume that a child will be 23yo, it would be wrong to claim that it will be 23yo. So when the child is born, there is no way to determine whether or not a child will be 23yo. it probably will but it might not. The norm is still that the child will be 23yo, but that doesn't change the reality that some won't.

You don't define the norm with characteristics of edge cases.

Exactly. So what are you made of, hydrogen or helium?

You don’t define the norm with characteristics of edge cases

Good thing I didn't do that.

The X and Y chromosome groups define biological sex

This is the whole point, no, they don't. Biologists do not define sex in terms of chromosomes because there are multiple different chromosomal systems in use to achieve the function of sex cell differentiation.

Some people are born with vestigial tails, does that mean that humans may or may not have tails? No, a few hundred people have been born with a vestigial tail in recorded history.

Some people are born with a cleft pallette, does that mean humans can be born with or without a cleft pallette? No, 1 in 1,600 people are born with a cleft pallette.

I just...fucking wow. Reread what you wrote here.

If you ever get the chance, I recommend the book A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities: A Compendium of the Odd, the Bizarre, and the Unexpected by Jan Bondeson.

The book talks at length about medical conditions, including the human tail, the cleft pallet and also intersex. It talks about XY females, SRY transposition/deletions, the Guevedoche males from Dominican Republic who are indistinguishable from females until about the age of 12 when their testes drop, and the prevalence of more subtle forms of intersex that go under-diagnosed. It also touches in fetal development and general genetics including the inversion of sexual chromosomes in birds and reptiles.

It's a great dive into the complexity of biology and particularly sexual development. I suspect you won't be so sure of what you think is normal after exploring its barrage of edge cases that deeply contemplate the nature of genetic sex that creates these deviations: Nothing in biology is set and it's all subject to change.

98.5% of those have a gender identity that conforms with their biological sex.

There are many more people today who have incorporated a hybrid gender precisely because they don't fit into neat categories. People call them femboys and tomboys because everything about their gender expression is mixed. You can't tell me with a straight face they're just pretending. The whole category is called "gender non-conforming".

Some people being born with a vestigial tail and most being born without, does mean people are born with or without a vestigial tail. I don't know how to respond to this, what part aren't you understanding exactly?