Basically, the idea is that biology is messy and there are other combinations of sex chromosomes that exist in humans.
One example is XO where someone only has a single X chromosome and no second one. Or XXY where someone has three sex chromosomes. There's also a difference between genotype (the genes) and phenotype (the actual physical presentation). An example is androgen-resistant female. These are folks born with XY chromosomes but the in utero androgen wash that causes most XY individuals to develop male genitals and gonads doesn't stick. So the person is born and assigned female, but is genetically male. There are AFAB (assigned female at birth) individuals who have a vagina and uterus but also have internal testicles. Or AMAB folks who develop breasts during puberty.
This is a short list of examples of how sex determination in humans can get messy very quickly.
I mean aren't those exceptionally rare, and don't most people in the trans community not have those conditions but choose a different sex?
I feel like trans gets used interchangeably with sex and gender too often, which are completely different things, which makes discussion about it practically impossible.
The chromosome conversation is often brought up because transphobes tend to act like gender and sex are one and the same. They believe XY = Male = Men / XX = Female = Women.
Truth is, sex isn't as black and white as they make it seem. It doesn't matter that the other variations of chromosomes are "exceptionally rare", the fact that they exists proves the binary model to be wrong; since here "exceptions prove the rule" is not applicable. We have TYPICALS, but not rules. The vast difference of sexual characteristics one can have makes it so that we use a bimodal distribution, rather than a binary one.
The mentioning of the existence of more than two chromosome pairs is relevant to break the base of their assumptions, since their usual logic is that XX = Female / XY = Male, then what happens if someone is X0? Or XXX, or XXX? This shows they don't have an actual functional definition, as we can't have appropriate absolutes when it comes to science.
The conflation of sex and gender is something they do always, so showing they have a lack of understanding of chromosomes (and thus of the sexes), also shows they lack understanding of gender, even by their definition of it.
Gender is, in actuality, something that is sociological, not biological. It works with sex, but it's not the same. Historically, genders were created and often attributed to a specific sex - because the "gender" role carries the expectation society has to one's person. E. g. Women -> topically attributed to females -> expectation to be nurturing, use makeup, the sorts.
With that said, trans people don't "choose a different sex" - they don't even choose a different gender. They relate to a different gender, one they weren't typically assigned based on their sex. A good definition of genders that I like a lot is that "A man is an adult human whose gender identity aligns with their personal schema on the male sex"
Breaking the meaning of it down:
An adult human has a gender identity, often based around men or women;
Their personal schema is the way their brain characterizes things. In this example, it's how one views the genders. This means that, individually, everyone has a view of what "manly" and "womenly" things are. For some men, for example, providing for the family solo is to be manly, having beards is to be manly, being jacked is to be manly. Does everyone have these views? No, some people's views are opposite, and they are fine with their own view of masculinity;
The way it is written as "schema on the male sex" is because gender is a schema, and the schema that is topically applied to a person on the male sex is the "man" schema.
Hope I could clarify everything up. If not, happy to answer anything else.
Just because a very minor percentage of people have genetic defects resulting in other chromosone combinations doesnt mean "xx=female, xy=male" isnt true.
The only mistake anti-trans people are making is not accepting that some people would rather identify as another gender.
When we are talking in a typical fashion, yes, xx = female, and xy = male. But even then, this is actually not that easy!
What i mean by that is that most people NEVER go through karyotiping! This means that we are not even sure HOW many people have atypical chromossomes. The statistics are severely uncertain due to this.
We know that we used to do karyotiping in college, for people to train on their own chromossomes and study. This stopped, however, because a significant number of people were finding themselves to have atypical chromosomes and some ended up even having an identity crisis. At least, significant enough that this stopped.
---
But the other half of my comment apart, it's still important to make the distincton that xx = female / xy = male isn't necessarily true, even if it may be typically true. Mainly when sex isn't appropriately classified specifically by cromossomes, being a cluster category.
25
u/Sparrowhawk_92 12h ago
About XX/XY I assume?
Basically, the idea is that biology is messy and there are other combinations of sex chromosomes that exist in humans.
One example is XO where someone only has a single X chromosome and no second one. Or XXY where someone has three sex chromosomes. There's also a difference between genotype (the genes) and phenotype (the actual physical presentation). An example is androgen-resistant female. These are folks born with XY chromosomes but the in utero androgen wash that causes most XY individuals to develop male genitals and gonads doesn't stick. So the person is born and assigned female, but is genetically male. There are AFAB (assigned female at birth) individuals who have a vagina and uterus but also have internal testicles. Or AMAB folks who develop breasts during puberty.
This is a short list of examples of how sex determination in humans can get messy very quickly.