If I were to clone a transgendered person what sex would they be
>>5865094
Genes, do you know em.
>>5865094
Yes
>>5865094
It's simple.
If you clone a female you'd receive a female.
If you clone a male you'd receive a male.
Regardless of what gender they think they are.
>>5865094
If you cloned an MtF, you would get a natal male, if it's an FtM, you would get a natal female. And if you corrected whatever went wrong during the gestation of the original, they might even be cis.
>>5866061
pretty much this. if artificial wombs become a thing, accommodating optimal hormone and nutritional levels throughout gestation, i doubt trans people as well as a lot of people with other neurodevelopmental disorders would even exist.
>>5865094
>>5866093
good luck convincing people with CAIS that that even matters.
>>5866109
Matters for 99.99% of people.
>>5866118
if people with CAIS and who have female gender identity can be counted as women whilst having XY chromosomes, why can't transgender women be counted as women whilst having XY chromosomes.
CAIS individuals are clear proof that a Y chromosome alone does not endow a person with a male gender identity, so a Y chromosome alone shouldn't allow you to invalidate a trans woman's gender identity.
the mismatch between chromosome and gender identity just comes from a different causal factor.
Depends on whether you would deactivate their SRY gene. You could get a range of results from cis male to CAIS female.
>>5866137
I'm not >>5866093
and I don't think that having a y chromosome doesn't mean you can't identify as a woman. It sure as fuck means you can't be a female though. You can be viewed as a female by most people, but medically speaking, you are not.
I agree. Most people go off of what they see, and what they have been conditioned to view as male and female. That doesn't make it so.
Man and woman are just social constructs informed by biology, but don't adhere to it.
Male and female however, are biological facts. And so, no person with a y chromosome is actually a female. A 0.01% medical anomaly doesn't mean that all transgendered people will be considered the gender that doesn't match their sex.
>>5866168
granted the complexities of actually defining biological sex though, and given that the body can be made coherent with gender identity with endocrine therapy and surgery, biological sex only has one use. a big one, sure, but only one, reproduction.
i'm not refuting your claim that we aren't biologically female, but what i'm saying is that in everyday social interaction, gender ought to hold prevalence.
there was a good thread about this earlier, about how to define biological sex, and it ought to be in terms of a person's current and predicted breeding capacity.
-fertile, produces sperm and is able to impregnate
-fertile, produces eggs and is able to carry pregnancy
-blanket group for anyone infertile for any reason, from intersex to castration to having a severe hereditary condition that isn't a disorder of sexual development
and then gender. identity is one thing but i think as a legal marker, gender expression is a better indication for how people should be classified, so
-male
-female
-blanket third gender for special snowflakes, mentally ill weirdos, and trainwreck trannies who have no hope of passing (and for intersex if they choose, although from what i've read, intersex people are usually happy with conforming with a single gender identity)
>>5866232
>but what i'm saying is that in everyday social interaction, gender ought to hold prevalence.
Actually, gender expression and how well they pull it off should be what defines it, because that's what people actually take into consideration in our society. Not that that's a good thing, or the right thing. But that's the reality.
>but i think as a legal marker, gender expression is a better indication for how people should be classified
I suppose. I don't particularly care, but for the sake of trans people, it might be helpful for there to be some sort of indication that they are trans, at least when if this legal marker would help doctors deal with them correctly. Say a trans woman shows up passed out at a hospital and all they have is her I.D. it'd be useful to know she's trans.
Aside from that. We'd need a new words for biological considerations when talking about gender vs. sex. I think it's just hugboxy to give them the 'male' 'female' words when those have always been used primarily in a biological context. I'm fully happy to let whoever call themselves man or woman, but if someone goes around saying they're female when they have a y chromosome (and more than likely have a penis and other secondary sexual characteristics of males).
>blanket third gender for special snowflakes, mentally ill weirdos, and trainwreck trannies who have no hope of passing (and for intersex if they choose, although from what i've read, intersex people are usually happy with conforming with a single gender identity)
If you can "feel like" a gender, I don't see the issue with also accepting that some people don't identify with a gender at all, or identify with both.
>>5866283
Sorry, the post was long and I was talking to 2 other people in real life, so there's some weird grammar and dead end sentences.
>>5865094
The clone (assuming nothing weird happened in the cloning process) would have the same genotype as the original. MOST LIKELY, they'd have the same phenotype as their genotype, but that would really depend on the hormones they're exposed to in early development.
>>5866283
at this point i think we're splitting hairs, we basically agree on the broadest terms.
>>5865094
the... same sex? im not even sure if this is supposed to be bait, it doesn't actually bait anyone but its still really stupid?
>>5866328
It's in the hairs where people get annoyed with each other.
I guess the summation for me is I don't care about gender, but some people do, and so I'll respect that to an extent, but when people with y chromosomes who more than likely have/had a penis and other secondary sexual characteristics insists they are a female even when made aware of it's definition, and how tied it is to medical and biological realities, I can't really take that seriously.
Boys have xy
Girls have xx
The 0.01% anomalies are not trans people and the trans trying to use them as an example are not these anomalies either. They have nothing to offer in this discussion.
Trans are delusional sickos who hide behind the gays as a front for their weird fetishes and blatent misconceptions that grow into denial.
Because they are mentally ill psycho sickos.
>>5870851
>The 0.01% anomalies are not trans people and the trans trying to use them as an example are not these anomalies either. They have nothing to offer in this discussion.
The fact that the vast majority of trans people do not have chromosomal abnormalities is irrelevant. What matters is that the existence of those with chromosomal abnormalities indicate that the "xy male xx female" model is nothing more than a useful approximation. If there is even a single XY person who you would not classify as biological male, you CANNOT use someone having XY chromosomes to argue that they are biologically male. The MOST you could argue is that they have a trait which has a very strong correlation with being biologically male.
>Trans are delusional sickos who hide behind the gays as a front for their weird fetishes and blatent misconceptions that grow into denial.
The medical experts don't classify transgenderism as a fetish, why should we? And it doesn't make sense either - some people have fetishes related to crossdressing or being the other sex, but that's not sufficient evidence that all forms of transgenderism is a sexual fetish. That's like saying "The Titanic was an ocean liner and she sunk on her maiden voyage, therefore all ocean liners sunk on their maiden voyage."
>>5870970
>The fact that the vast majority of trans people do not have chromosomal abnormalities is irrelevant.
YES IT DOES. It does not apply to them at all.
You using it for your example and proof then it is irrelevant
>>5871177
The existence of intersex people proves that biological sex isn't an absolute binary. That doesn't stop being true just because an individual isn't intersex. If there is ANYONE who is XY and not male, then you cannot say being XY proves you're male.
>>5866089
As a MtF I've never even thought about this. I'm kinda laughing to my self about the thought of "trannies being extinct" right now. Thanks for the laugh and SCIENCE.
>>5871305
>intersex people
Again for the LAST time trans people do not have anything to do with these rare 0.01% anomalies. They are not these anomalies. your comparison is absolutely useless and 100% irrelevant.
>>5875460
For the last time, it DOESN'T MATTER. Intersex people prove that the XX/XY binary is false. I'm not claiming trans = intersex, or that trans people biologically don't fit the binary. You may argue that mtfs are biologically male, but don't do so using XY = male. Because that's circular reasoning at this point.
