By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 21 June 2020
Edit Thread
KLAMarine said:

sundin13 said:

I mean, that is largely my point. You can't assess the entirety of biology based simply on phenotypic variation. To do so is "convenient" but it is far from accurate. That is why I don't really like the phrase "biological female". It is a convenient simplification of biology to use that as a synonym for "someone born with a vagina", but we should still recognize that the two statements do not mean the same thing, despite that convenience.

Well a great many people like convenience and for convenience's sake, biological female means "born with a vagina". It's that simple. In a majority of instances in the day-to-day, hormone levels or genetic variations aren't going to come up and play a role.

But hey, if you wanna bust out the blood tests every time you want to assess someone's sex, who am I to stop you?

You asked why I used quotations around "biological" and I explained it. You seem to have no qualms with the content of that explanation. I am not suggesting we "bust out the blood tests" to assess someone's sex, so I'm not sure where that came from. I am just saying that we should acknowledge that biology goes beyond phenotype. That seems utterly and completely uncontroversial to me. What exactly are you taking umbrage with?

And is "assessing someone's sex" something that you do often? Seems weird...