If you're born with a penis, you're a male. If you're born with a vagina, you're a female. End of story

If you're born with a penis, you're a male. If you're born with a vagina, you're a female. End of story.

...

sorry, umm... are you anti-science?

>'Basically...There's no such thing as biological sex...And I could explain why, but I won't."

You are. Retard.

MEME DEGREE

>No such things as X and Y chromosomes
>No such things as genital organs
>No such things as Testosterone, estrogen and other sexual hormones.


I don't care what kind of mental gymnastic you will pull out, your ideology is not scientific at all.

okay nice job making fun of disabled people bigot

>If you're born with a vagina, you're a female.
There are genetic defects where a person with XY chromosomes can develop as a female with underdeveloped breasts and ovaries and still have a vagina.

Still, there are only two genders and biological sex is real.

goddammit straya every time

>disabled people
THEY'RE CALLED DIFFERENTLY-ABLED, BIGOT

god doesnt exist retard

What if you have a mullerian system but have a dick? Or have swyer syndrome? Or have 5 alpha reductase deficiency?

I'll bite, does he have a source for his claims?
A research paper, or study, anything?
No sociology shit either, I mean actual biology.

I'm pretty sure what he's referring to is that there are like three things that determine sex, only one of which is dick and balls/vag. There's a lot more lines of intersex than your average person knows about, and some of these intersex people just live as one gender, but it raises the question of "if they have a uterus and a dick what are they" or "if they have a vagina but everything else develops like a man, what are they". It's a little more gray than Sup Forums would probably make it out to be but #1 these things are all very rare and play essentially no role in the transgender debate unless people like this dunce act like biological sex doesn't exist and #2 guy in op is trying to say this has something to do with gender, well no, fuck you, we just say that they're a man but can live as a woman because it's biologically easier that way, or just define x special case as male with a vagina.

(if you want sources for my above post look up sexual differentiation. I learned about this in a neuroendocrinology course I took but it's a been a while so I'm a bit rusty and I'm just shitposting here to procrastinate on a research paper.)

i have klinefelter's you fucking fuck face. do not tell me to 'fuck off'. i know MUCH more than you do about this stuff.

JP's face when that guy says "because there's no such thing as sexism, right?" is a picture that tells a thousand words.

Nice bants cunt, almost made me believe you're a woman, keep it up, you might actually trick some fags

>syndrome
>deficiency
Then you're a disabled freak.
Still only male and female.

epic troll bro. XXY isn't even really intersex anyway.

Alright but is that disabled freak a male or a female? We classify certain aspects of the human body as essential parts of maleness or femaleness (ovaries, testes, uterus) so if you have a weird mix-match what are you? If you have swyer syndrome you're XY with no cock and balls. You can say they're freaks but that's not scientific and you're just applying your own definitions because you're a special snowflake. You haven't classified them as male or female, so guess what, your 1-2 dichotomy simply doesn't apply to reality.

Gas the fags

Then you're one in five thousand, or 0.02% of the population. If you have 99% certainty about something in medical science, you publish it as valid. In this case, 99.98% of the population does not have one of the defects you mentioned, which is also why they are called "defects": they are aberrations from the rule, which is that human beings each have one of two sexes.

If you have swyer syndrome or whatever else shit there is that can actually be proven and you feel like a male / female, you should be either male or female.
If you feel like neither then you're an insane person and should be treated as such.
Stop making this complicated.

So we're basing sex on muh feelings now? You do realize you just completely validated transsexuality by saying "it doesn't really matter what's there, just go with what you feel like", don't you?

I'm not even trying to make this complicated, this is simply reality, and it's a reality that is especially real for the thousands of people who have these legitimate, medical differences. You're only showing that your little statement does not line up with reality. This is where you should revaluate your opinions and consider that maybe you are wrong about your perception of a specific aspect of the world, or live with the conclusions of your sentiments (that transsexuality is totally valid), which I don't think you want to do. Otherwise you're a muh feels don't challenge my opinions with facts baby like all the SJWs I see in the humanities department.

That's absolutely not how science works. If gravity didn't work on one in five thousand planets we wouldn't say "gravity works like this, regardless of those exceptions", we'd alter our theory of gravity. For experiments, yes, you take averages, but that doesn't mean you don't then later examine why you had some crazy but definitely significant trend of data. You examine that trend to further understand the broader mechanism by which science works. You can say "male = dick female = vag...most of the time, with notable exceptions a b and c", but if it fully contradicts the rule you've set out (say, "XY = a dick and male, XX = a vag and female", which DIRECTLY contradicts reality in certain instances), then you alter your theory.

>When Free Speech isn't a human right

...

Yeah you know what, I have no idea.


I was more talking in terms of what the government would look at you as, not scientifically.

So, dudes have mitochondrial dna now?

Remember when all those symbols were just Unknowns from Pokemon Kek?

Literally every human in existence has mitochondrial dna, thanks for playing though.

That's fair.