Definitions of sex side conversation

I’m not really following why that is, though. To my knowledge, a lot of professionals (psychosexual health (maybe that’s even outdated? I’m probably far behind) and the like) use that phrasing. I guess terminology does become outdated at a certain point, to be fair. Is it just that “assigned” isn’t quite the same as “is”?

1 Like

I think you’re falling victim to a logical error here. You’re saying that you can almost always determine a binary sex at birth based on reproductive organs. What others are saying and what you are somewhat acknowledging by qualifying with “almost always” is that determination of a binary sex at birth is the imposition (approximation) of a simplified, and thus inaccurate, system of sex categorization.

This reminds me of Ptolemy mapping the cosmos. He was able to predict movement of stars with some predictability, but since his model was wrong, there was always something incorrect in his cosmos.

Your binary model of treating human sex is predictive in sex assignment most of the time, but it misses the mark on occasion. Because your model is wrong.


But that’s no excuse to call sex “assigned” in the vast majority of cases. Yes, there are incorrectly sexed people, but that doesn’t make accurate sexing sex assignment.

In most contexts in which people speak of sex as “assigned”, it would be better to speak of it as “biological” instead. In the cases in which someone really needs a synonym for “sex assigned at birth”, it should be “sex recorded at birth”.

Human sexing isn’t 100% accurate, but it’s accurate enough to make sex “assignment” a ridiculous term for it in the vast majority of cases.

1 Like

Obviously it is not well defined, because the definition you are claiming for it is based purely on phenotypic sex. But if you look up the definition of biological sex, you get:

refers to their status as female, male, or intersex depending on their chromosomes, reproductive organs, and other characteristics.

By that definition, phenotype (ovaries vs. testis) is only one of several things that “determine” a person’s biological sex. But again,

I agree, the carbon dating comparison is way out of left field; I only addressed it because you seemed to think it was relevant. But I don’t see anything wrong with saying things that are carbon dated are assigned an age range. Assigned isn’t a dirty word. It’s more problematic to claim you are “measuring” one thing when in reality you are only measuring a component; which I think is what you are doing if you claim “biological sex” when you are actually only considering phenotype.

No, because when recording sex on a birth certificate, they aren’t listing a range of sex traits. A range of sex trait combinations might inform what they record, but again, most typically they assigning sex based on phenotype only.


They may not write something along the lines of “Ovaries, vagina, uterus, XX chromosomes and labia” on a birth certificate, but they are essentially doing that when they write “Female”. It’s similar to how they might say a fossil is from the Cretaceous period when carbon dating it, rather than 145 to 66 million years ago.

I think this sentence perfectly illustrates alex_abair’s point:


Possible causes of failures in parthenogenesis in mammals are briefly discussed here.


New Mexico Whiptail does that too!


Also inappropriate. Stop equating ‘sex deniers’ with hate organizations. I see you’re specifically mentioning that because you saw i was autistic. Which tells me you are likely malicious rather than ignorant, and not worth engaging with any more. I see you. That is all.


@thomasphantom Welcome to the forum!

To clarify, in the context of the post, “sex” was referring to male/female/intersex not intercourse. What they meant by “sex denier” is someone who doesn’t subscribe to their (Cyanfox’s) narrow definition of “biological sex”.

1 Like

I don’t mean this as an accusation but isn’t that kind of transphobic? I’ll openly admit I’ve been having a difficult time following the conversation but that summary of it makes it seem a little bit like transphobia (to me). But again, I got lost pretty much right away with this part of the thread so I dunno.

Edit: I’m rereading and thinking you mean “their” as that user’s views, not as one’s biological sex. I read it initially as “sex deniers” are people who reject their “biological sex”. I think I just misunderstood the wording.

Edit 2: I’m going to leave what I said up though, even though I’m pretty sure I just misinterpreted it, in case anybody else has the same misinterpretation.


Yes, I did mean it in this way. Thanks for clarifying!

1 Like

A doctor may record sex at birth but the government then assigns that as the legal sex when you file the birth certificate.


guys, Cyanfox at this point is just trolling and probably a TERF, ignore and or flag their posts .

Their entire argument at this point is transphobic nitpicking and equating trans people with autism speaks, aka a eugenecist hate group that targets autistic people like myself and many others in this thread.


I agree the discussion with @cyanfox on this matter is fruitless, but I don’t think they are trolling. There is fundamental disagreement about whether or not sex is a projection of a false binary, and I think @cyanfox is attempting to articulate their belief structures as best they can.

Its interesting that the discussion here keeps getting sucked into the topic of neologisms and language. It shows where the discomfort is with society in a fascinating way.


This. Dont engage them, flag and report. I stopped responding as soon as i realized they werent a good faith interlocutor

Interesting? Maybe, but this still not what this thread should be about. Its exhausting and inappropriate for this stuff to keep coming up. Believe me, there are plenty of places online to have this discussion that arent this particular forum thread.


No argument there. It’s still a learning experience (as irritating as it is).


I kinda felt like this is what it was but try to be polite to everybody. I think my confusion maybe was a good thing, now. Because the point didn’t make a lot of sense to me, even when explicitly stated to me.


Why are we talking to a blue fox?


I’d love to talk to a real blue fox, but would hope for better conversation than this if so. Even if it were the horrifying yelps i’d prefer that to be honest.