What’s the relevance of incredibly rare chromosomal conditions, to whether males without such incredibly rare chromosomal conditions, should be considered female on their say so?

Could you explain the reasoning?

No, sex is binary, even when that binary exists in a single organism.

What has this to do with males identifying as women, women who don’t have incredibly rare chromosomal conditions?

Do biological males have a right to access spaces intended for females if they consider themselves female?

Is that a right?

Why would it be?

Are you suggesting we shouldn’t have separate male and female spaces in any circumstance?

Or that access to male or female spaces should be based on chromosomes?

Or that we should ignore chromosomes and let anyone access any space on their say so?

What rights are you suggesting?

Could you explain the relevance?

What is the relevance of incredibly rare chromosomal conditions?

Why are they relevant to anything in everyday society?

A foetus’s sex is determined at fertilisation.

From that point they go down either the Müllerian or Wollfian pathway, incredibly rare chromosomal conditions notwithstanding.

What do incredibly rare chromosomal conditions have to do with unambiguous males being considered female?

So you think it would be wrong to describe humans as bipedal?

That would seem a little strange.

Sex is defined by the body development towards the production of either large or small gametes, regardless of the production of those gametes.

The Mullẽrian or Wolffian pathway.

Female or male.

No, that’s not a thing.

I refer you to my previous post.

And even if you found some lost tribe in Borneo that had sequential or simultaneous hermaphrodites, it would make no difference to the question of whether males should access female only spaces,

Why?

Are you objecting to commonly understood words now?

Pretty sure they do.

The binary of sex is an evolved material reality.

It just is.

There’s no way around that.

No, observed material reality about which pathway a foetus goes down from the point of fertilisation.

Well, no.

There nonsense.

Chromosomes do not determine sex. But they’re a very reliable indicator about 99.98% of the time.

Sex is binary, immutable (in humans), and sometimes matters.

This is a pretty mainstream position.

It’s unlikely to change much.

These aren’t things.

And even if they were, what would it matter to how males without incredibly rare chromosomal conditions, who consider themselves female, be treated in society?

What’s the link?

No, I’ve provided the definition.

You just don’t like it.

Is it your position that , because you could get a drink that was a mix of Diet Coke and Coke, men who declare themselves to be women should be treated as such?

Are you insane?

Solid reference.

No question.

🤣

Not producing sperm or ova is not the issue you are proposing.

You’re suggesting there are people who produce both.

Good luck with that.

Do parents ask for a mix of a bit female and a bit male when having a child?

How do they go about deciding where on the”spectrum” their child will be?

What relevance has that to the biological reality of sex in humans!

But those aren’t accurate descriptions of human biological sex.

Well obviously it is, depending on the species.

No.

It’s obvious.

No, because that doesn’t happen

And even if it did, in incredibly rare cases, what relevance would that have to males without incredibly rare medical conditions, accessing female only spaces on their say so?

Clownfish and humans are different things.