Even in extreme cases, someone can still be determined to be male or female. Even if they can’t produce gametes, they still have structures in their body that are required for producing gametes of one type, and not used for producing gametes of the other type.
“centred around” is a subjective projection rather than statement of a fact in cases where gamete production genuinely does not occur. For this person, her gonads never developed into either testes or ovaries, so by this definition she would be of neither sex. I’m OK with that, but it does undermine your point about the strict binary.
My question to you is why does this matter, in the context of accessing bathrooms and changing rooms? Do you think inspecting reproductive anatomy is a proportionate measure?
More broadly speaking, what is the point of recording the ‘biological sex’ of a person who, through transition, has changed their physiology and endocrine profile to that associated with the opposite, and no longer has their natal reproductive anatomy? Who would this benefit?
Underdeveloped or non-functional gonads are still identifiable as sexually differentiated tissue. A streak gonad, dysgenetic gonad, or partially developed gonad is still distinguishable as male or female tissue. That distinction is fact, not subjective projection. It is also true that humans can’t change sex. Some sex traits can be modified, but not sex.
My comment is limited to ensuring scientific accuracy. It makes no claim about whether sex matters for bathroom access and changing rooms.
…nope. Her body can’t produce either. And she has a uterus and fallopian tubes.
Even in extreme cases, someone can still be determined to be male or female. Even if they can’t produce gametes, they still have structures in their body that are required for producing gametes of one type, and not used for producing gametes of the other type.
“centred around” is a subjective projection rather than statement of a fact in cases where gamete production genuinely does not occur. For this person, her gonads never developed into either testes or ovaries, so by this definition she would be of neither sex. I’m OK with that, but it does undermine your point about the strict binary.
My question to you is why does this matter, in the context of accessing bathrooms and changing rooms? Do you think inspecting reproductive anatomy is a proportionate measure?
More broadly speaking, what is the point of recording the ‘biological sex’ of a person who, through transition, has changed their physiology and endocrine profile to that associated with the opposite, and no longer has their natal reproductive anatomy? Who would this benefit?
Underdeveloped or non-functional gonads are still identifiable as sexually differentiated tissue. A streak gonad, dysgenetic gonad, or partially developed gonad is still distinguishable as male or female tissue. That distinction is fact, not subjective projection. It is also true that humans can’t change sex. Some sex traits can be modified, but not sex.
My comment is limited to ensuring scientific accuracy. It makes no claim about whether sex matters for bathroom access and changing rooms.