Notices by Aurochs (aurochs@mastodon.social)

@Levi_atar @Lunnaris @Iferballes

@Colophonscrawl I haven't said anything about chromosomal mismatch, that's NOT what I said at all. I just make the point that biological sex does exist, if you find that offensive, that's on you.

@tetrabrik Nah! solo a las favoritas!

@XanaAsturiana Buen punto!

@Colophonscrawl I understand the misunderstanding. What I said (and meant) is that, even though that in 0.5% of cases sex is not predicted by chromosomal configuration (such as transgenders or gonadal dysgenesis, and that is only assuming that biological sex and gender self-identification is the same), in 99.5% of the cases it does, and a very high accuracy.

@Colophonscrawl No, I am not saying that, obviously. But I am challenging your claim that chromosomes (Xx-XY) do not predict reliably your sex, when actually they do in more than 99% of cases (that doesn't mean that the other 1% have to be dismissed in any way or that it doesn't exist!). Also you seemed to claim that phenotype does not depend on genotype which, if that's what you meant, is blatantly wrong.

@Aranyazul @bolardovoy @AmbrosTheGreat En el desván de la casa de mi abuelo sigue habiendo dos cajas (y no de zapatos precisamente,de las grandes) con años y años de revistas Interviú. Anda que no pasé buenos ratos!

@Lunnaris 👍

@Colophonscrawl @esvrld But phenotypes do downstream from causative genotypes, that's the basis of genetics and heredity. That is undeniable. Also, sex is practically universal in multicellular organisms (in different forms).

@monorail @esvrld ... even if not all of us fall into the two much more common categories.

@monorail @esvrld Actually, what got me is this: "any notion of 'biological sex' we can try to identify is always already gender, always already social," and: "why do you think such-and-such a biological characteristic would be masculine or feminine? if you look at it on a microscope, where will you locate the masculinity or femininity?" Perhaps I misanderstood it but there really are molecular mechanisms that influence and mostly determine our sex, even if not all of us fall into the two...

@monorail @esvrld I honestly don't mean to offend anybody. I don't deny transexuality and other non-binary forms, and that they are all fine. I just say that all that does not mean that biological sex does not exist, because it does.

@Colophonscrawl @esvrld That section is right, we do not need to deny the existence of biological sex to accept that some people is transgender or any other thing and that it is fine.

@Colophonscrawl @esvrld At best, it may just not apply to you, and that is fine.

@Colophonscrawl @esvrld In short, I guess that what I mean is that you (or whoever, I don't know if that is your case) may be a woman who developed with a penis and an XY Chromosome, or vice-versa or whatever. And that is fine. But that does invalidate the existence of biological sex just as the fact that I don't have wings does not invalidate the existence of wings.

@Colophonscrawl @esvrld I don't think I am wrong, but at the same time I don't think you are completely wrong, but partially. It is true that there is A LOT of individual variation which can not be understated, also there is a minority of people whose development does not match their cromosomal composition (in lack of a better word) but in biology, as opposed to math, exceptions do not necessarily invalidate the general rule.

@revolverocelot @esvrld I am truly appalled that my comment caused you any discomfort.

@esvrld I got that, and I agree, I am sometimes a clown :-). I am right about what I said before though.

@Colophonscrawl @FirstProgenitor That is my self-portrait I use a monocule by medical prescription.