though the meme is cool, gender isn’t particularly a biology (or ‘advance biology’) thing. biology deals with sexes, their expressions and functionalities. gender is more of a personal and social concept but often related to sex characteristics (cis).
and yes, advanced biology tells sex determination isn’t as easy as XX or XY or even looking at genitals like a creep.
Adding to this: XX and XY works for mammals, but not for other vertebrates (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians). Birds and reptiles have Z and W chromosomes, and unlike in mammals where females are homozygotes, males in these groups are homozygotes. Some reptiles have temperature dependent sex determination, where ambient temperature above some value will produce males or females (depends on species). Some reptiles are composed entirely of females.
Some fish will straight up change sexes depending on age and male-female ratio in a social group.
In other groups it’s not even different chromosomes but simply copy number of specific genes.
Plants can do all sorts of whacky things like produce seeds and pollen in the same individual.
Fungi are an entirely different cluster fuck because they have mating types which are not simple binaries.
Eukaryotic sex determination isn’t a binary and it isn’t even a nicely categorizable spectrum. It’s a grab-bag of whatever doesn’t perma-fuck your genome.
Source: me, I’m a biologist. Though admittedly I work on animals so my understanding of fungi and plant stuff is fuzzy at best.
But it easy, we just make it complicated with social bullshit and attention craving. The fact that no one is exactly set to be perfect copies, doesnt mean anything. The fact that outliers exist, doesnt mean anything. You ask the owner of a dog if its a boy or a girl, they will tell you. And you wanna know how they know? They looked between its legs. It really is, that easy.
The kind of logic being pushed today, is basically saying that you cant class human beings as a bipedal species because 200 per million people are born with no legs. Which is dumb as fuck.
I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
I think in clinical and scientific contexts the term “gender dysphoria” is used, but the trans community would probably prefer trans be used as an adjective and not a noun, someone is transgender, but not “a transgender”, if that makes sense.
also, the twin studies show gender identity is genetic and heritable:
The significant percentage of identical twin pairs in which both twins are trans and the virtual absence of dizygotic twins (raised in the same family at the same time) in which both were trans would provide evidence that transgender identity is significantly influenced by genetics if both sets were raised in different families.
In 2018 a review of family and twin studies found that there was “significant and consistent evidence” for gender identity being genetically heritable.
gender dysphoria is not what I’m talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria.
To be clear – “transgender” the noun is not referring to a person (“that person is a transgender”* – proscribed) but rather as a substitute for “transgenderism”* (proscribed). Personally, using “transgender” seems linguistically strange to me and it just reminds me of Trump saying “transgender for everybody” but if it’s what people prefer then who am I to judge.
Anyway – yes, I agree that it seems very probable that there are strong genetic components to transgender, but it’s also clearly not purely genetic, given there are identical twins where one is cis and the other not.
gender dysphoria is not what I’m talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria
right, I get that, but most research has not
treated being trans outside the context of gender dysphoria, so when talking about studies or the clinical and scientific context usually non-binary and non-dysphoric trans folks are left out of the picture.
It is good to be expansive in our concept of being trans for social justice reasons, and to not gatekeep for harm reduction reasons, but since scientists and clinicians are gatekeepers, what we can say about their findings are limited to the criteria they use. It is usually more accurate to say “a study found X or Y about people with gender dysphoria”, even though it’s not uncommon for that to be presented as “a study found X or Y about trans people” in more mainstream contexts.
To be clear – “transgender” the noun is not referring to a person (“that person is a transgender”* – proscribed) but rather as a substitute for “transgenderism”* (proscribed).
I have never seen this usage, and like you I’m skeptical that is right. I could see “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”, but not just “transgender”.
but it’s also clearly not purely genetic, given there are identical twins where one is cis and the other not.
The presence of identical twins where one is cis and one is trans is not proof that gender identity is not genetic - there are many reasons people do not transition or acknowledge their gender identity, such as the strong social pressure to not be trans. There can also be epigenetic differences so while identical twins may share a genome, how it is expressed differs based on a variety of conditions that alter epigenetics, such as stress or illness.
We see the same with sexual orientation by the way.
Granted, it’s not proof, but I find it very hard to believe that all cases of identical twins with apparently differing gender identities is explained by one of the twins simply electing not to transition while the other does. This is particularly hard to believe given that the twins grow up in similar environments, so if one is in a transition-hostile environment the other likely is as well. I think we should believe people when they insist they are not transgender, especially if they are part of a study where their identical twin is comfortable being open about it. If this were a rare occurrence, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but it is not rare at all.
“transgender”
One instance where I have seen “transgender” used this way is from the same article where I learned about the link between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyperflexibility:
it’s at least possible that EDS and transgender are linked
It’s no typo; other articles by this same author use the same grammar. I have also for sure seen this used on other sites, including by trans authors, but in 5 minutes of searching I can’t find those instances. “Being transgender” does seem grammatically fitting to me, but it doesn’t always make sense to use “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”*/“transgender.” Anyway we more or less agree here and I have little interest in semantics.
though the meme is cool, gender isn’t particularly a biology (or ‘advance biology’) thing. biology deals with sexes, their expressions and functionalities. gender is more of a personal and social concept but often related to sex characteristics (cis).
and yes, advanced biology tells sex determination isn’t as easy as XX or XY or even looking at genitals like a creep.
and oh, for giggles consider fungi :)
Adding to this: XX and XY works for mammals, but not for other vertebrates (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians). Birds and reptiles have Z and W chromosomes, and unlike in mammals where females are homozygotes, males in these groups are homozygotes. Some reptiles have temperature dependent sex determination, where ambient temperature above some value will produce males or females (depends on species). Some reptiles are composed entirely of females.
Some fish will straight up change sexes depending on age and male-female ratio in a social group.
In other groups it’s not even different chromosomes but simply copy number of specific genes.
Plants can do all sorts of whacky things like produce seeds and pollen in the same individual.
Fungi are an entirely different cluster fuck because they have mating types which are not simple binaries.
Eukaryotic sex determination isn’t a binary and it isn’t even a nicely categorizable spectrum. It’s a grab-bag of whatever doesn’t perma-fuck your genome.
Source: me, I’m a biologist. Though admittedly I work on animals so my understanding of fungi and plant stuff is fuzzy at best.
And bee queen generate full-animal-sized flying sperm, aka drones.
https://xkcd.com/435/
I would say gender is probably centered about around psychology, ranges mostly from sociology to biology, with a just little bit going into chemistry
maybe like
What’s the y-axis?
practical importance to gender
As perceived by me
(only the most scientific of measurements)
it’s a normalized distribution. The y-axis is unitless.
purity.
as in whether it applies to the real world is entirely a symbolic construct that has no use/reflection of the real world.
More yes
Reason for another XKCD comic about bad graphs (or ten).
Slime mold(which is not a mold or fungi) looks around nervously in it’s 13 different sexes.
plenty of animals can gender swap, be hermaphrodites, or produce asexually.
But it easy, we just make it complicated with social bullshit and attention craving. The fact that no one is exactly set to be perfect copies, doesnt mean anything. The fact that outliers exist, doesnt mean anything. You ask the owner of a dog if its a boy or a girl, they will tell you. And you wanna know how they know? They looked between its legs. It really is, that easy.
The kind of logic being pushed today, is basically saying that you cant class human beings as a bipedal species because 200 per million people are born with no legs. Which is dumb as fuck.
I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
just FYI, “transgenderism” is a word to avoid (at least if you don’t want to be perceived as transphobic)
and yes, gender identity seems to be biological, and genetic.
my bad, updated to “transgender,” I read online that’s the preferred noun form (though it looks more adjectival to me)
gender identity is clearly not primarily genetic, as twin studies suggest otherwise.
I think in clinical and scientific contexts the term “gender dysphoria” is used, but the trans community would probably prefer trans be used as an adjective and not a noun, someone is transgender, but not “a transgender”, if that makes sense.
also, the twin studies show gender identity is genetic and heritable:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_gender_incongruence
gender dysphoria is not what I’m talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria.
To be clear – “transgender” the noun is not referring to a person (“that person is a transgender”* – proscribed) but rather as a substitute for “transgenderism”* (proscribed). Personally, using “transgender” seems linguistically strange to me and it just reminds me of Trump saying “transgender for everybody” but if it’s what people prefer then who am I to judge.
Anyway – yes, I agree that it seems very probable that there are strong genetic components to transgender, but it’s also clearly not purely genetic, given there are identical twins where one is cis and the other not.
right, I get that, but most research has not treated being trans outside the context of gender dysphoria, so when talking about studies or the clinical and scientific context usually non-binary and non-dysphoric trans folks are left out of the picture.
It is good to be expansive in our concept of being trans for social justice reasons, and to not gatekeep for harm reduction reasons, but since scientists and clinicians are gatekeepers, what we can say about their findings are limited to the criteria they use. It is usually more accurate to say “a study found X or Y about people with gender dysphoria”, even though it’s not uncommon for that to be presented as “a study found X or Y about trans people” in more mainstream contexts.
I have never seen this usage, and like you I’m skeptical that is right. I could see “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”, but not just “transgender”.
The presence of identical twins where one is cis and one is trans is not proof that gender identity is not genetic - there are many reasons people do not transition or acknowledge their gender identity, such as the strong social pressure to not be trans. There can also be epigenetic differences so while identical twins may share a genome, how it is expressed differs based on a variety of conditions that alter epigenetics, such as stress or illness.
We see the same with sexual orientation by the way.
Granted, it’s not proof, but I find it very hard to believe that all cases of identical twins with apparently differing gender identities is explained by one of the twins simply electing not to transition while the other does. This is particularly hard to believe given that the twins grow up in similar environments, so if one is in a transition-hostile environment the other likely is as well. I think we should believe people when they insist they are not transgender, especially if they are part of a study where their identical twin is comfortable being open about it. If this were a rare occurrence, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but it is not rare at all.
One instance where I have seen “transgender” used this way is from the same article where I learned about the link between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyperflexibility:
It’s no typo; other articles by this same author use the same grammar. I have also for sure seen this used on other sites, including by trans authors, but in 5 minutes of searching I can’t find those instances. “Being transgender” does seem grammatically fitting to me, but it doesn’t always make sense to use “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”*/“transgender.” Anyway we more or less agree here and I have little interest in semantics.
What kind of fungi should I consider for the maximum giggles?
Psychology is technically a branch of advanced biology