Laci Green Tranny Autism/Sperging -

[BlueSpark]

Someone recently got a lot of attention for tweeting a screenshot of an old thread where someone named ScienceVet "proves" to Laci Green that identifying as multiple genders/no gender is backed by science:

In the responses Laci Green and her boyfriend, Chris Raygun, get dragged by leftists:

"I don't give a shit what he identifies as"

The tweet that Green is replying to in that screenshot is this batshit nonsense by Chuck Tingle:

The original tweet thread:
https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035186664497397760

And here is the thread that ScienceVet links Green to, also started by Chuck Tingle:

Spoiler: 'Science' says you're a bigot

ScienceVet gloats:

I know barely anything about biology, but from looking up the things that ScienceVet and the other "scientists" in that thread mention it seems that they're using genetic disorders and physical deformities as "proof" that multiple genders exist naturally.
But that isn't what Tingle is saying, he isn't talking about fringe physical occurrences, Tingle is saying that you can identify as any or no gender at will and that's scientifically valid.

For anyone else curious, the Wikipedia pages for the disorders that ScienceVet is using as evidence that Tingle's lunacy is backed by science:

45,X/46,XY mosaicism, also known as X0/XY mosaicism and mixed gonadal dysgenesis, is a rare disorder of sex development in humans associated with sex chromosome aneuploidy and mosaicism of the Y chromosome. This is called a mosaic karyotype because, like tiles in mosaic floors or walls, there is more than one type of cell.

The clinical manifestations are highly variable, ranging from partial virilisation and ambiguous genitalia at birth, to patients with a completely male or female gonads. Most individuals with this karyotype have apparently normal male genitalia, and a minority with female genitalia, with a significant number of individuals showing genital abnormalities or intersex characteristics. A significantly higher than normal number of other developmental abnormalities are also found in individuals with X0/XY mosaicism. Psychomotor development is normal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism

Klinefelter syndrome (KS) also known as 47,XXY or XXY, is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males.
The primary features are infertility and small testicles.
Often, symptoms may be subtle and many people do not realize they are affected. Sometimes, symptoms are more prominent and may include weaker muscles, greater height, poor coordination, less body hair, breast growth, and less interest in sex.
Often it is only at puberty that these symptoms are noticed.
Intelligence is usually normal; however, reading difficulties and problems with speech are more common.
Symptoms are typically more severe if three or more X chromosomes are present (XXXY syndrome or 49,XXXXY).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

Again, maybe I'm wrong, but what it seems like is happening here is the equivalent of saying that people who identify as animals are validated by science because embryos have tails and some people are born with them.
Or that being blind isn't a disability because some people are born that way.

ScienceVet's thing seems to be getting retweets by saying that [insert progressive cause here] is proven correct by science:

He has an enormous tweet thread (in the wacky, zany tone that appeals to millennial retards) pinned at the top of his twitter where he uses the existence of medical anomalies to push his opinions, going as far to say that diagnosing intersex people as having medical problems is outdated science.
Link to the twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/ScienceVet2/status/1035246030500061184
I've also included a (very long) screenshot of that thread as an attachment at the bottom of this post).

He says at the end that there are "rational scientists" who disagree with him, which at first sounds like he's being reasonable and mature. Except when an actual doctor responds and says that he's wrong, ScienceVet accuses him of ruining medical care for intersex people:

Someone else points out that changing the definition of sex makes it more complicated to advocate for people who are discriminated against because of their sex:

ScienceVet didn't respond to this guy.

He also claims that intersex people are 2% of the population (I looked this up, the only references even close to 2% are from "intersexequality.com - an intersex activist site, and from isna.org (Intersex Society of North America) - another activist site where the front page says they changed their name and started a new organisation because medical professionals didn't want to associate with them due to their bias (and their old page on the "myth" that intersex people are a small percentage of the population implies that people should vote Democrat):

Spoiler: Isna.org

ScienceVet is also an anti-Comicsgater and frequently freaks out over it and has even had direct conversations with the leftist comics spergs:

Like most virtue-signalling white male cucks, he isn't a fan of white people and is very vocal letting people know that he's one of the good ones:

Spoiler: As a woke white person, let me tell you how bad we are

Sorry for the ScienceVet tangent, just felt that it was worth offering some background on this guy and his credibility, given his bold claims.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Going on the above, I suppose, technically, you could say there are an infinite number of genders and sexes. You could say that. Then, you'll have to claim that each individual is their own species, since everyone is their own gender and there are an infinite number of them. Classifications exist for cataloging and understanding patterns. These labels are for predicting and understanding the world around us; they are not family crests or a coat of arms to proudly wear. The whole "My gender is what I claim it is" should be as believed as the people that claim they have multiple personalities when DID is basically a bullshit diagnosis (as believed not only by me but many actual psychologists). Do we believe the "multiple systems?" In what other instance is something about a person decided solely by what they "feel" like claiming they are?

ScienceVet is right about the biology of sex, above. That actually is true, I just posted a bit about this in another thread--look up Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome for one example-- take note of the genotype/phenotype distinction. Taking in account how biology has no teleological aims, and whatever is, is, and if it survives, then it'll possibly continue on--something like a "deformity" is a human imposition based on our perception of it or its survival value. There is no "platonic form" of a kidney, for example. If something we thought was or looked deformed but it conferred survival value it could theoretically become the norm later down the road. And this will include sex. But...

Biology (for most sexually-reproducing creatures on earth) only has two reproductive sexes, that occur with a surprising (to an SJW) frequency in human beings, where the exceptions are rare. And anything in-between is actually an amalgam of these two standard sexes, not actually a a separate sex unto itself. What's the point in thinking up an infinite amount of names to name configurations of male/female genitalia instead of just denoting by the two actual main categories--"a mixture of male or female parts," for example. "Male and female," and only those two, work because the vast majority of instances fall into those two categories and those that don't are only a combination of those two and not a "new" structure. Nobody considers a dude with gynecomastia to be his own separate sex. Even the Intersex Society of North America says intersex is "not a discrete or natural category." Maybe there are some people that don't neatly fit into either male or female--they are not a new sex, they are a combination of the sexes. Humans are sexually dimorphic, not sexually infinimorphic, by virtue of there being two sexually reproductive categories, there is no reason to divorce "gender" from behavior or biology. Once you do that you go into "my aura is yellow"-tier shit. Gender should be understood as sex is, in terms of male and female development, and if there is ambiguity, that ambiguity should be described in those terms and in that light.

And true intersex is rare. No way are even half of these transtrenders or genderqueer people anything other than mentally ill or severely depressed and trying to find a community and meaning in their lives.

tl;dr, this is more of a philosophical problem than anything else, and the social justice crowd is taking an absurd position where, if there is any amount of deviation, each particular "configuration" gets to be its own category. They are creating an absurdity in language.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

ScienceVet is right about the biology of sex

Is this a fucking joke? This man is insane. There are NO infinite number of sexes. Even intersex people aren't a third sex.

 

[Petronella]

"Infinite genders and sexes exist because I believe in parallel universes" is probably the worst take on this ever, we should almost be impressed.

 

[X-Shaped Weeaboo]

you could say there are an infinite number of genders and sexes.

This isn't fucking rocket science, it's not complicated in the slightest. Listen:

A penis and a vagina make a baby. There are no in-betweens in that scenario.

That's why it's called sex.

 

[Melkor]

Nobody considers a dude with gynecomastia to be his own separate sex.

That isn't a good example though, considering breasts are a secondary sex characteristic like an Adam's Apple.

Going deeper into this briefly, sex is different from gender, however, intersex conditions cannot and should not fall under a separate category of gender. People may claim that other societies and civilizations had "third genders", when in actuality these "third genders" were simply societal labels for gay men and intersex people.

While gender and sex are different, there are only two of each. Making up new words for feelings makes things complicated and it's just plain pointless, because gender isn't a feeling.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Is this a fucking joke? This man is insane. There are NO infinite number of sexes. Even intersex people aren't a third sex.

I said he's right on the biology, which I was specifically referring to the chromosomal part. For example, XY "females." I know I wrote a lot there, but you should probably not just skim what I wrote, I addressed all of that. I... basically concluded what you just said, so you obviously only read part of it. I was saying you "could" say that as nature does not really (at least often) produce true discrete categories, which is why I brought up species--but if you take that philosophic attitude towards what a"sex" is, then you doing the same thing as claiming that every individual organism is its own species as each organism within a species differs in ways to all other conspecifics.

This isn't fucking rocket science, it's not complicated in the slightest. Listen:

A penis and a vagina make a baby. There are no in-betweens in that scenario.

That's why it's called sex.

I'm not even sure what you mean. True intersex is literally an in-between, and given that there's a difference between genotype and phenotype you literally can get (for example) XY women given that hormones mediate development and chromosomes don't just cause biological structure like a computer program might construct something top-down.

If we're talking about how someone with XY chromosomes can't be "female," that's wrong. Well, by definition, XY genotype is "genetic male," and nothing will change that, but that does not necessitate that only "male" genes will get expressed. CAIS women are genotypically male and, for the most part, phenotypically female, to the extent that many CAIS women lived and died having no knowledge of their genotype their entire lives. The fact that the phenotype can differ from the genotype means we need to look at multiple factors on whether to label male or female, and sometimes they're a bit of both.

That isn't a good example though, considering breasts are a secondary sex characteristic like an Adam's Apple.

It was the slightest example I could find of why one exception in a male, a man with boobs, does not make that person somehow have a different sex than other "men," to highlight the absurdity of the implicit social justice definition of sex. The social justice crowd, obsessed with snowflakism, thinks deviation from the norm in some way gets you put you in a special category.

Going deeper into this briefly, sex is different from gender, however, intersex conditions cannot and should not fall under a separate category of gender. People may claim that other societies and civilizations had "third genders", when in actuality these "third genders" were simply societal labels for gay men and intersex people.

I'm not sure that's true--I am just ignorant of this topic--but I wouldn't be surprised if it is at all, and I've long suspected that is the case. These people love to misrepresent stuff from exotic cultures to fit their narrative. I listened to Ben Shapiro talk about how Jewish law was misrepresented as recognizing a third gender when in reality it was just an ancient way of addressing how intersex people should be treated in regards to male and female standards, which basically just means erring on the side of caution and requiring these individuals to follow the restrictive elements of both sexes.

While gender and sex are different, there are only two of each. Making up new words for feelings makes things complicated and it's just plain pointless, because gender isn't a feeling.

I agree that gender isn't a "feeling." That's a problem in psychology. We went from the behaviorists to the "cognitive revolution" (which was really just an elaboration and refining of behaviorism, don't let anyone tell you otherwise) and now it seems like unfalsifiable mentalistic stuff like "gender" is creeping back in. With every other label for a person we base things on their behavior, but "gender" just gets to be a self-report and self-label, due to its politicization, is treated exceptionally in psychological circles, and that scares me because it's a sign politics are influencing science. Gender should be described in behavioral terms.

 

[Jack Awful]

I love how the same people who say "Men and women are 100% equal! Your genitals don't define you!" also say "Transgender people literally cannot function because their genitals don't match up with their soul!"

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

I love how the same people who say "Men and women are 100% equal! Your genitals don't define you!" also say "Transgender people literally cannot function because their genitals don't match up with their soul!"

"Men and women are exactly the same. The only difference is social expectations and gender roles."
"Transgender people are born feeling like they're the other gender even though I just stated society crafts gender roles and they are no behavioral differences between men and women.

 

[Snuckening]

While gender and sex are different, there are only two of each. Making up new words for feelings makes things complicated and it's just plain pointless, because gender isn't a feeling.

"Gender" isn't a thing at all. Gender is a made-up idea that a handful of academics cooked up in the last few decades, to sidestep the binary of sex. Because they knew arguing about "there's actually 78 sexes" would be an untenable position.

Anyone arguing about gender has fallen for a bait-and-switch (especially your Steven Crowder-types smugpsting about "theres only two genders". Because the whole idea of "gender" undermines thier entire position). The subjective, blurry lines of "gender" are being used as a Trojan Horse, and now people are starting to use those same talking points, but about biological sex, to make arguments that would have been laughable 20 years ago ("biological sex is a spectrum, because man-boobs and some women are infertile")

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

"Gender" isn't a thing at all. Gender is a made-up idea that a handful of academics cooked up in the last few decades, to sidestep the binary of sex. Because they knew arguing about "there's actually 78 sexes" would be an untenable position.

Anyone arguing about gender has fallen for a bait-and-switch. The subjective, blurry lines of "gender" are being used as a Trojan Horse, and now people are starting to use those same talking points, but about biological sex, to make arguments that would have been laughable 20 years ago ("biological sex is a spectrum, because man-boobs and some women are infertile")

I'm not sure I would go that far. It honestly depends on things we don't really know at the moment. That is, is transgender really people who are following the script of the opposite sex, presumably due to neurological or hormonal reasons? If so, I think a strong case for gender can be made on behavioral grounds--there's something biologically real going on in the background. Therefore, sex refers to physical characteristics insofar that brain chemistry and such doesn't count, and gender refers to the script of the sex the brain has or is following. The problem, as also seen among some people that can't accept certain things, is that sometimes things can be held on multiple dimensions. Physically male, perhaps neurologically (in some ways) female; genetically male, phenotypically (mostly) female, etc. The all-or-nothing approach isn't always useful. What's important is how it aids us in understanding the world conceptually and what these words are referring to. We just shouldn't go the other way and entertain those absurdities you mentioned.

The problem with "gender" as it's being used now is that it's intentionally and deliberately divorced from biology. They claim that gender is all sociological (the left generally despises evolutionary explanations for gendered behavior in humans) which doesn't at all explain why transgender people become transgender, or why we should judge society's more rigid definition of gender as being worse than the "genderqueer" version... The sociology crowd, the "softer" ends of the sciences including the "softer" sides of psychology, allow themselves to be influenced by politics or ideology very easily.

I suspect, however, that the vast majority of transgender people have issues not directly related to sex itself. Every person I've known that has gone tranny was some sort of narcissist or otherwise had issues. I've seen people go tranny overnight like the body snatchers got them. One minute they're laughing at racist jokes with you and talking about music and shit, the next moment their entire life revolves around gender bullshit and they start being revisionistic about their past behavior and claim that they were always against racist jokes, etc.

I have strong doubts that it's biological, at least in the vast majority of cases. It just seems that trannies have "something wrong with them." Now, if anyone reading this is a tranny and really did have these feelings from an early age and you think there some funky brain chemistry going on, maybe there is for you. I just don't know.

You have to be careful arguing about this issue with the left and the Laci Green style gender "experts." I brought up CAIS and sex earlier because most people have an incorrect assumption of the role chromosomes play during sexual differentiation and development, and I think we shouldn't having a gaping erroneous hole in our rhetoric when we fight them. Not all of their crazy claims are completely untrue when it comes to sex, however, the light they're put in and some of the philosophical implications are not as cut and dry as they want to claim. Sex and gender may be more complicated than the layman understanding of XX = female, XY = male but that doesn't mean that describing sex as "nonbinary" is instrumentally useful, and the same to gender, if it's even a real thing or useful concept.

 

[NiggoPls]

The problem, as also seen among some people that can't accept certain things, is that sometimes things can be held on multiple dimensions. Physically male, perhaps neurologically (in some ways) female; genetically male, phenotypically (mostly) female, etc. The all-or-nothing approach isn't always useful. What's important is how it aids us in understanding the world conceptually and what these words are referring to. We just shouldn't go the other way and entertain those absurdities you mentioned.

So what you're saying is, there's girly men and manly women? It's almost like you could be comfortable with who you are and accept that gender attributes tend to overlap, without chopping your dick off and forcibly altering your body's hormonal balance.

 

[Medicated]

Physically male, perhaps neurologically (in some ways) female; genetically male, phenotypically (mostly) female, etc. The all-or-nothing approach isn't always useful.

That's why theres always been "tomboys" and "dandys". But apparently in this social media age just inferring someone acts differently to the norm means they are now but it a special category and probably need special drugs and mental health treatments.

It's nothing but snowflake syndrome, angst teens and mentally ill 20 somethings, paired with the internet being filled with the same people you would've slammed your door in the face off 50 years ago because they were crazy snake oil salesmen. But now they virtually enter your house, go to your kids bedrooms and talk to them instead and you can't even see it happening because the internet.

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

The best way to defeat the bullshit argument for 78 sexes is to just 1) use it to redefine your own identity while 2) being a person they already decided doesn't deserve rights or respect. Like that college kid who responded to his school declaring all pronouns must be respected by demanding his teachers address him as "your majesty". Whether or not a policy is reasonable can be easily tested by whether or not you'll apply it equally to your allies and enemies and they never understand that.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

The best way to defeat the bullshit argument for 78 sexes

Just say that humans produce only 2 kinds of gametes for repduction and not 78.

 

[lowkey]

The problem with "gender" as it's being used now is that it's intentionally and deliberately divorced from biology

But that's how "gender" was always used. Right from the start.

One of its popularizers after all is John Money. Dr. John Money was ecstatic when he heard of a kid having a botched circumcision, a kid that also had a twin. He convinced the parents to operate, remove the remnants of penis, and raise the kid as a girl. David became Brenda. Cut off his balls. He explained his theories about gender, and that kids really were a blank slate and were socialised to be boys or girls. He also wrote scientific reports on it where he faked data and said the kid was doing really well. These are the scientific studies that were used to legitimise sex reassignment surgery in the first place (they happened before, but not in closely similar numbers).

There were some periodical checkups and when the parents were away he made these twins simulate sex at an age of 6 or 8 with each other (sex positions, clothes on).

When Brenda was 13, he didn't want to go anymore. He threatened committing suicide if his parents made him go again. They stopped going. Money continued to write reports about its success. At 14 he decided that he would be David.

Decades later...

It did not turn out well with David and his twin Brian, nor their parents. Mother had a failed suicide attempt. Father became an alcoholic. Both guilt-ridden. The twin developed schizophrenia. David committed suicide. The twin, Brian overdosed on anti-depressants.
(Though it's worth saying that the mother and Brian's depression may have been genetic clinical depression considering her past prior to it all).

Because John Money never reported the failures, the practice of snipping balls had become common practice in the case of botched circumcission and this happened to about a 1000 more boys.

On top of it all, John Money argued that his critics simply had right-wing bias. Oh and that there should be a distinction between sexual pedophilia and romantic pedophilia, where one can have a mutual equal loving sex with a child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Sex_reassignment_of_David_Reimer

This is one of the prime movers of the usage of "gender" as seperate from sex. It was always intentionally harmful.

It was always a purely sociological concept.

 

[Gone_Fission]

People keep bring up John Money in discussions about troons, which doesn't make sense because the average troon thinks gender is a hardwired neurological thing where a man can be born with a female-wired brain, but Money believed in the radfem/GC idea that gender was 100% a social construct with no innate neurological basis. Both loony troons and Money are cool with castrating boys to make them into girls, but their reasoning is totally opposite.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

People keep bring up John Money in discussions about troons, which doesn't make sense because the average troon thinks gender is a hardwired neurological thing where a man can be born with a female-wired brain, but Money believed in the radfem/GC idea that gender was 100% a social construct with no innate neurological basis. Both loony troons and Money are cool with castrating boys to make them into girls, but their reasoning is totally opposite.

Its because pretty much all of modern gender science and theory (including the idea of separating "gender" from biological sex in the first place) originated with Money. Its also less that trannies think gender is hardwired, and more they think they were wired for a different biological sex than the one they were born with. Admittedly a fine point, but that's modern gender politics for you. A person can be a MtF trans-person and still be outwardly gender non-conforming.

 

[muh_moobs]

I'm not sure I would go that far. It honestly depends on things we don't really know at the moment. That is, is transgender really people who are following the script of the opposite sex, presumably due to neurological or hormonal reasons? If so, I think a strong case for gender can be made on behavioral grounds--there's something biologically real going on in the background. Therefore, sex refers to physical characteristics insofar that brain chemistry and such doesn't count, and gender refers to the script of the sex the brain has or is following. The problem, as also seen among some people that can't accept certain things, is that sometimes things can be held on multiple dimensions. Physically male, perhaps neurologically (in some ways) female; genetically male, phenotypically (mostly) female, etc. The all-or-nothing approach isn't always useful. What's important is how it aids us in understanding the world conceptually and what these words are referring to. We just shouldn't go the other way and entertain those absurdities you mentioned.

The problem with "gender" as it's being used now is that it's intentionally and deliberately divorced from biology. They claim that gender is all sociological (the left generally despises evolutionary explanations for gendered behavior in humans) which doesn't at all explain why transgender people become transgender, or why we should judge society's more rigid definition of gender as being worse than the "genderqueer" version... The sociology crowd, the "softer" ends of the sciences including the "softer" sides of psychology, allow themselves to be influenced by politics or ideology very easily.

I suspect, however, that the vast majority of transgender people have issues not directly related to sex itself. Every person I've known that has gone tranny was some sort of narcissist or otherwise had issues. I've seen people go tranny overnight like the body snatchers got them. One minute they're laughing at racist jokes with you and talking about music and shit, the next moment their entire life revolves around gender bullshit and they start being revisionistic about their past behavior and claim that they were always against racist jokes, etc.

I have strong doubts that it's biological, at least in the vast majority of cases. It just seems that trannies have "something wrong with them." Now, if anyone reading this is a tranny and really did have these feelings from an early age and you think there some funky brain chemistry going on, maybe there is for you. I just don't know.

You have to be careful arguing about this issue with the left and the Laci Green style gender "experts." I brought up CAIS and sex earlier because most people have an incorrect assumption of the role chromosomes play during sexual differentiation and development, and I think we shouldn't having a gaping erroneous hole in our rhetoric when we fight them. Not all of their crazy claims are completely untrue when it comes to sex, however, the light they're put in and some of the philosophical implications are not as cut and dry as they want to claim. Sex and gender may be more complicated than the layman understanding of XX = female, XY = male but that doesn't mean that describing sex as "nonbinary" is instrumentally useful, and the same to gender, if it's even a real thing or useful concept.

Bruh, transgender is the word for a person who suffers from gender dysphoria, which is a sub-illness of body dismorphia, which is an anxiety disorder. Everything about what you just said is wrong.

Further, sex/gender really does just boil down to your chromosomes. All this phenotypical tripe you talk about is no different than someone being born intersex. They're a fucking mutant. Just unfortunately for them, they got shitty junk instead of sticking to walls or healing really fast.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Bruh, transgender is the word for a person who suffers from gender dysphoria, which is a sub-illness of body dismorphia, which is an anxiety disorder. Everything about what you just said is wrong.

Further, sex/gender really does just boil down to your chromosomes. All this phenotypical tripe you talk about is no different than someone being born intersex. They're a fucking mutant. Just unfortunately for them, they got shitty junk instead of sticking to walls or healing really fast.

Gender dysphoria, as defined in the DSM-V, isn't trangenderism per se but the anxieties and emotional problems that stem from being transgender. If you want to argue that the DSM is political and not the be-all, end-all of abnormal psychology, that's fine, but you have to make and defend that argument. I'm guessing that your idea that gender dysphoria is a "sub-illness" of body dysphoria is something you got from watching youtube videos, since I don't believe scientific psychology characterizes them in that way. Steve Crowder isn't a scientist, "bruh." And BDD isn't characterized as an anxiety disorder, although they're frequently comorbid.

As for sex/gender/mutants/intersex, again, you're thinking like you've just watched edgy Milo Yiannopolous youtube videos or something. I think it's telling why you totally ignored the existence of CAIS and its ramifications, because it presents a real-world situation where someone can be XY and not even the person could have any idea they're chromosomally male. I'm guessing you think that chromosomes act like a computer program that construct all the morphological characteristics of a person that variations in the result are the result of radiation, right? And intersex itself does mean that sex/chromosomes is more complicated than just chromosomal sex. If you want to cling to that definition, then great, you've just made the case that Klinefelter's is a separate sex.

Nature doesn't have teleological aims. Nature doesn't know what male or female is. "Mutant" in the pejorative sense that implies that there's something written in the universe that decides what's a normal biological feature and abnormal outside of human value judgments isn't actually real, and intersex people usually aren't "mutants" in the scientific usage of the word. Intersex is usually caused by environmental factors, such as hormonal factors in utero. That means that chromosomes (probably) aren't even the cause of the intersex condition. Thus, exactly my point, sexual differentiation in an organism is not shaped solely by chromosomes. A person with a vagina and large breasts and hidden, "vestigial" testes instead of ovaries isn't someone you're going to stick in the men's locker room.

There's almost no scientist in a related field to this that thinks that "sex and gender" boils down to just chromosomes, if not for the simple fact that chromosomes by themselves do not determine development. Chromosomes aren't some little constructor programs like some hypothetical science fiction nanotechnology shit.

That said there is no utility in describing any sexes other than male and female, and intersex itself is just an amalgamation of male and female parts.

Furthermore, "male" and "female," in common usage, is not a person referring to the XX or XY pattern of a person's sex chromosomes. That's why I view this on more of a multifactor scale and distinguish between phenotype and genotype. Chromosomally, someone will always be either male or female (or one of the few outliers that don't vary significantly from either XX or XY) regardless of how they appear or present because by definition that's chromosomal sex. But chromosomal sex is not the only factor people look at, again, for the same reason that we don't throw in CAIS women in the men's locker room. You can label them "freaks" all you want for your internet good boy points but that doesn't change the fact that externally they appear fully female while having XY chromoomes.

Eagerly awaiting the accusation of me being a "cuck" while you gingerly stroke your signed photograph of Ben Shapiro.

I actually have a degree in a related field to this. I'm not exactly saying stuff that is controversial, except maybe within memelord circles.