Asklemmy

They are genetically.
How they feel/identify is their problem

shrug. I mean its true but so.

Would ask to provide separate definitions for woman, man, male and female. We can't jump to conclusions about someone's statement before seeing the whole picture of what is happening in his mind.

In general, please don’t ask loaded, third-rail questions on !asklemmy@lemmy.ml, because

1. it’s a PITA for mods, and
2. that’s not what the community is for:. It’s supposed to be a clone of r/askreddit.

It’s extremely ~~hairy~~ messy to define biological sex. Whoever wants to argue has a middle school level understanding of biology, refuse to learn and completely ignores the science.

See

"You're biologically a loser lmao"

Depends on who's saying it. For most people it's just not worth saying anything. Anything you say goes in one ear and out the other

If they seem like they're asking in good faith or I just want to practice my rhetoric, I'll ask what they mean by "biologically male." Chromosomally, maybe. Hormonally? Maybe not. Breast cancer doesn't care about your chromosomes.

Follow up question:

"And why does it have any importance for you the presence or not of some chromosomes, so you need to be so explicit about it?"

I wouldn't engage in discussion with people saying that. Nothing good can come from it, and they probably aren't people worth spending time with.

breaking their nose

Because this feels like a loaded statement, I'd respond like this: Biology makes mistakes. Biology is fallible. To frame this about biology is not sufficiently complex to address the issue.

1. Talk to experts.
2. The initial statement seems to me is that of a culture warrior, not a curious mind. Therefore it doesn't matter to me.
3. Compassion doesn't require logic. But if you want sonething slightly logical: I don't understand quantum physics either. I'm reliably informed it exists. Me being unable to grasp the uncertainty principle leaves me feeling uneasy and frustrated. Others may feel in a comparable way about gender identity. It's okay to admit that you don't get it. I don't fully understand it either. It's not okay to be an asshole about it.
4. Apples to rotten pears.

Are eunuchs biologically agender?

Are intersex people with chimerism or cryptorchidism biologically two genders at once?

Are women who have had hysterectomies biologically male?

The answer to all of the above is, and I say this with all the respect in the world, a resounding 'no.'

Biological sex (male, female, intersex) refers to the physical aspects of your body, such as primary sex characteristics (reproductive organs), secondary sex characteristics (body hair, breasts, fat distribution, etc), hormone levels (estrogen, testosterone), and chromosomes.

Gender (man, woman, nonbinary, other terms) is more about an internal sense of self, how you see yourself and how you want your body to be, as well as what social category you belong in.

A trans woman is a person who was biologically male at birth, but sees herself as a woman/wants her body to align with her gender (woman). Not all trans women medically transition, and that's ok, but for those who do, it can change various aspects of their biological sex, such as hormone levels and secondary sex characteristics, so it may not be entirely true to say that trans women (post transition) are biologically male either.

There are about 20 different ways of assigning someone a description of "male" or "female" - examples are the gametes someone produces, their genitals, their hormone levels, or how their brains are wired. Other species can have more than 2 genders or change from one gender to another, and it could be argued that mushrooms have hundreds of them. There are also organisms which have both male and female characteristics in the same body - in some cases, they have both genitals. The natural world is a messy place when it comes to gender, and there are no rules.

Humans like to define things, give them names and put them in neat little boxes, but nature isn't like that. Nature doesn't give a fuck that humans like to assign people one gender or another. Nature creates people who have some male and some female characteristics because there is no natural rule that says everything has to be one or the other. A person with male genitals can have a brain wired up in a female style. Their brain says they are female, but they were defined as male at birth. These are the people who society fails miserably in its rigid adherence to the philosophy of male/female, in a world where this distinction does not actually exist.

The words "biologically male" are loaded, creating an assumption that such a thing is easily definable, and that a person must be one gender or another. This is simply not the case.

Humans don't fit neatly into a male bucket and a female bucket. I'm not interested in discyssing this with anyone unless they're referring to studies from scientists and medical professionals who actually have some knowledge behind their statements.

It would depend on the context. The response depends on who is asking, their openness to learn and the reason for the statement. In isolation, it appears inflammatory rather than factual. It can be both.

I would say that is comparing personal identity to a medical definition, two independent and separate concepts.

Personally, I look at people pointing this out like I look at people that feel the need to point out to others that a woman has breast implants. It's her choice to do what she wants to her own body and pointing it out makes you look like a rude asshole.

Edit: forgot point 3

There are many different perspectives on this. I subscribe to the old Judith Butler perspective that sex=gender and they are both a social construct.

1. No, biological gender is not in the sphere of facts. Chromosomes, genitalia, hormones and biology in general are in the realm of facts. Lumping them together into the category "sex" is social construction and not scientific (at least not part of natural science).
2. I don't think it is.
3. See above.
4. Trans women are simply women who were not designated as such at birth. No need to mix in biology. Therefore no contradiction.

I would answer what's a biological male?and at which point you're one anymore?

The question feels already hard to answer, and I am not sure there is a consensus on it.

1. "Biologically fe/male" is a pseudoscientific term created to delegitimize trans individuals, so

2. It does not matter

3. see above

4. It's intended to be a contradiction, an insidious doubt or caveat that delegitimizes the declaration that trans individuals are who they say they are.

Don't fall for it. Don't perpetuate it. Delete this post, is my advice.