Well, "baby girls born with Y chromosomes" is very clearly begging the question, and I'm not sure where you're getting your "millions" figure from. Even the upper estimates of CAIS have it around 1 in 20,000 XY individuals, which would put global numbers in the order of 200,000.
My mental arithmetic was bogus . The point is the same though. These are children who were assigned female at birth, their parents think they are girls, they think they are girls, and then in teens or adulthood they find out about the genetic issue. Calling them men seems ridiculous.
"Seems ridiculous" is a very subjective thing, though, and very dependent on context. It can seem ridiculous that a boxer with male physical advantage since puberty (i.e. 5-ARD) can beat the ** out of a female boxer while the world's media looks on and applauds, but here we are.
Personally I'm sympathetic to the idea that CAIS individuals should be a reasonable exception, i.e. they're still biologically male, but in most social contexts there's no obvious gain to treating them as such. I can see why many people have arrived at a hardline "XX or GTFO" position given the absolute state of activism on the other side, but yes, there's definitely room for nuance. On the other hand, obviously, testicular cancer doesn't care what you were "assigned at birth"; there is a fact of the matter, and it matters.
Appreciate the civil discussion, btw. It's a rarity in this subject.
The problem with the genetic definition is that it means that nobody knows whether anyone is a man or a woman until they get tested. Nobody pre-genetic testing ever knew. Most people alive today don't know. And that's clearly not how society works, or ever has worked.
I think we're in severe danger of spiralling toward epistemology here, but there's a huge difference between "nobody knows" in the sense you're using it and "nobody has any idea". Society (or more broadly biology) doesn't need us to get it right 100% of the time; these are very, very rare conditions. Going off secondary sexual characteristics is going to get you the right answer as near as dammit every time, especially in premodern contexts, and society has always been happy to work with tiny or even not-so-tiny uncertainties. (Is that kid really mine? Is the accused really guilty?)
The way I see it, the sex binary is fundamentally about reproduction. It's why we can use the same concept for everything from pondweed to platypuses. All across nature, male=small gametes, female=large gametes. In humans that's driven (with the potential for things to go haywire occasionally, sure, but still driven) by the XX/XY system, so that strikes me as a reasonable thing to base a definition on.
Side note re "nobody knows whether anyone is a man or a woman until they get tested" - I'd say that giving birth or fathering a child is a pretty big clue. AFAIK the only cases where that doesn't line up perfectly with genetic sex relate to mosaicism, where I'll freely admit my intuition goes completely kablooie.
Unfortunately, all the political noise is about gender rather than sex. Reproduction doesn't even ever the conversation. It's all about which restroom you should use or which sports team you should be on.
Agreed, and I think that's entirely deliberate. Using the existence of DSDs to try to discredit the sex binary and then leverage that into dismantling sex-based protections.
Those "sex based protections" aren't going to get you what you want though. I really didn't think people have thought this through. Do a Google image search for trans men and take a good look at what you see. Those are all people whose birth certificates say female. Do you think anybody is going to be comfortable with them in the women's rest room?
In the UK, a recent Supreme Court decision has clarified that "sex" in this sort of context refers to biological sex, and is not affected by any shenanigans with birth certificate changes or GRCs.
Right. These guys are "biologically female" by that ruling. Do you think the people pushing these bathroom bills are going to be comfortable with them in the ladies room? I doubt it.
Ah, sorry, I misread your previous comment. And yes, the general gender-critical position is that transmen are welcome in women-only spaces, since they're women.
Though in practice I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually converge on "women only" and "unisex" as some sports have done. The risks posed by self-identification are very much one-way; this isn't a symmetrical situation.
I would guess both the trans men and the cis women in question are going to be uncomfortable with this. But it's possible I'm out of touch with the zeitgeist in the places where these bathroom bills are being passed.
My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.
> My mental scenario is one of these guys trying to go into the women's restroom they are now legally obligated to use, and a whole bunch of bystanders bringing violence to the table to prevent it.
That's the desired outcome for them. They want us to either die or comply.
