Now THAT'S funny
(www.reddit.com)
Comments (11)
sorted by:
"Yeah, but what's a female?"
Someone with XX sex chromo...
"Ha! What about Klinefelter? Huh? Maybe read a book!"
Yes, it's actually anyone who lacks a Y chromos...
"Ha! What about XY DSD! Got ya!"
That's a birth defect, and they won't present female without hormone replacement in puberty. It's a still a male.
"Ha! What about 46 XX/46 XY chimera."
There's only been a couple dozen sex discordant chimeras discovered in the entire world.
"So what you're saying is you can't define what's a female!"
Repeat same conversation a million times because we live in hell world.
To be blunt the answer to that one is in the question. It's a chimera.
Yeah, it actually brings into question "what is an individual human" more than "what's a female."
The term isn't even specific to M/F. It's a general concept of two [or more] combining. M/M, M/F, F/F, and more would all be chimera and even when adding on specifics it doesn't change the fact it's still a topic about a chimera.
Hell, Icewind Dale 2 even has the Legion of the Chimera as the main antagonist group and involves various [evil DND] races that are chimera in some way. The leaders are two Cambions with an army of kobolds, Neo-orogs [orc/ogre hybrids], half-dragons, half-otherthings because they are all a chimera in some way or another and share a sense of rejection from the world as they don't truly belong to what groups make up their heritage.
And creating and tolerating chimeras has been outlawed by the Alchemists' code.
Which makes things very Edwar-, I mean awkward.
If they demand so much leeway in the definition of a woman then it’s completely up to each person to define what a woman is. If they want to make that claim, they can’t demand that I follow THEIR definition. If I perceive it differently than they do, they can’t demand that I see it their way.
That's the wrong tact. Sex is a category to define an organism's role in sexual reproduction. So, a female is an organism who is either:
Capable of producing ova
Would produce ova were it not for some type of disorder/injury
Had the ability to produce ova in the past
Will develop the ability to produce ova in the future, provided disorders and injuries don't prevent it
The definition for male is the same, but swap ova with sperm.
The result is anyone born with ovaries, but not testes is female, even if she has an enlarged clitoris, a Y chromosome, high testosterone, and low estrogen. Likewise, anyone born with testes, but not ovaries is male, even if he has micropenis, two X chromosomes, low testosterone, and high estrogen.
All of that is strictly determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. You are probably correct, but the Y chromosome definition would never disagree with your definition in how it defines an individual and it removes the need to refer to the past, the future or injuries.
I was thinking of the sex episode of Bill Nye Saves the World. He says:
Clearly he and those who think like him think its more complicated than the absence or presence of the Y chromosome. Since they seem to have gotten hung up on chromosomal abnormalities, genital size, and hormone levels, I go to the ultimate question: can you get pregnant? Can you impregnant another member of your species?
"I'll solve the puzzle. Womxn!".