And again, those are conditions, not something you choose to be, you are simply born like that.
I was pointing out how XX doesn’t always mean female and XY doesn’t always mean male. I didn’t say you could change your chromosomes. I think you might be misunderstanding the OP. When it says ‘some XX people become cis men’ it means that embryos with XX chromosomes develop into cis men, not that they decide to be later in life.
Well than, waht is someone with Chappel syndrome?
Usually a man.
Oh yes, it’s also the malformations that you were born with
How do you differentiate between “normal” and a malformation? These are just arbitrary categories we made up. The reality is that we can observe that some humans just are like that and that’s fine and normal.
oh so you need drugs to mimic traits from the opposite sex (there are only two after all) and gender is given by your sex.
You’re moving the goalposts. You were arguing that you can’t change sex and now you’re retreating to ‘you need drugs to change sex’, which is true for HRT, but not necessarily for gynecomastia.
It’s also not “mimicking” traits. Someone with gynecomastia or someone who takes feminising HRT grows the same kind of breasts as a cis woman.
Yes, language is not “made up” it evolved and will evolve naturally, demanding language to change to cater to you is not natural.
Even if this was true it would just be an appeal to nature. Natural doesn’t mean good and unnatural doesn’t mean bad.
But I don’t think you can differentiate between ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ changes to language. Do you think language just evolves on its own without any human interference? Language is by definition something we do.
BrinkBreaker@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
You’re approaching this discussion from a place of certainty, but the reality of biology, language, and human variation is more complex than the rigid model you’re presenting.
A few key points:
1 in 50 people has a variation of sex development (VSD). That’s not an anomaly, but a substantial population.
Genetic chimerism, which is rarely tested for, suggests as many as 12% of people have mixed chromosomal expressions—that’s 3 in every 25 people who do not neatly fit XX or XY.
Any woman who has ever had a child is a genetic chimera, because she retains some of her child’s DNA, meaning many women carry male DNA within their bodies.
If sex were as simple as XX/XY, these biological realities wouldn’t exist. But they do, and they complicate the notion that sex is an unchangeable binary.
Puberty is a hormonal process. It reshapes bodies, voices, muscle structure, brain development, and reproductive function.
If sex were truly “fixed,” introducing testosterone or estrogen wouldn’t fundamentally change these same traits in adults. But it does.
So which is it? If hormones don’t influence sex, then puberty doesn’t matter either. If they do, then transitioning alters biological characteristics in ways that contradict your claims.
Modern Italian was not a natural evolution—it was imposed on Italy’s diverse dialects by the state.
After WWI, German was banned in schools and public institutions in parts of the U.S.
The French government has actively tried to suppress regional languages like Breton and Occitan to enforce a singular linguistic identity.
These weren’t “organic” shifts—they were deliberate policy changes. If language only changes on its own, these documented historical events should not have been possible.
If entire nations have altered their linguistic structures through conscious intervention, why would the evolution of gendered language be any different?
Left-handed people make up about 10% of the population—a minority, but we don’t dismiss their existence because they aren’t the majority.
The number of people with red hair is lower than the percentage of intersex people, yet no one claims red hair is “unnatural.”
Statistical frequency doesn’t determine what is real. Something doesn’t need to be common to be biologically significant.
You’ve repeatedly expressed personal relief that trans people are not common in your area. That’s not a neutral scientific observation—that’s a personal bias.
You dismiss contradictory biological realities by calling them “defects” rather than engaging with what they actually mean.
You insist this discussion is about “logic,” yet when presented with genetic, medical, and linguistic evidence, you shift the argument rather than addressing the inconsistencies.
If you want to engage with this topic honestly, you’ll have to account for these contradictions instead of sidestepping them. If your argument is strong, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. If it can’t, then maybe the issue isn’t with the facts—it’s with the assumptions you started with.