It has a genetic sex, but it doesn’t have a phenotypal sex. Phenotypal sex can of course change throughout an organism’s lifetime. We know this is true in general because the sex of a crocodile is determined by temperature around the egg. And we also see it in humans when humans take hormones to transition, so we know it’s true for humans too.
It’s not true though because taking hormones doesn’t change the sex of the person.
The person is unable to develop a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and unable to have a baby.
Some superficial external changes take place, perhaps that is what you are referring to?
No, we’re not talking about how a baby is formed. We’re talking about the categories of sex. You’re making the assertion that’s the same as making babies, but that is an ideological assertion, just as is my assertion that hormones are part of sex. Sex is a social construct, so all definitions are necessarily ideological in nature. Sex is not a rule of physics, it’s a guideline of biology, and nature breaks it all the time. We invented that guideline to describe nature, it does not prescribe nature. That is the unbiased, non-ideological science. How we choose to invent sex is the ideology.
The thing is, it does have a sex. The sex is decided with the sperm that fertilised the egg.
I think of it more like saying “we don’t know what version of Windows will boot up until we see the loading screen”
We do, we know what version was installed on hard drive.
But the BIOS is the same for every, uhh, baby computer.
It has a genetic sex, but it doesn’t have a phenotypal sex. Phenotypal sex can of course change throughout an organism’s lifetime. We know this is true in general because the sex of a crocodile is determined by temperature around the egg. And we also see it in humans when humans take hormones to transition, so we know it’s true for humans too.
It’s not true though because taking hormones doesn’t change the sex of the person. The person is unable to develop a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, and unable to have a baby.
Some superficial external changes take place, perhaps that is what you are referring to?
It does not change the sex absolutely, but it does change most parts of the sex that are not developing whole new organs.
So it doesn’t change the sex; that is what is being discussed, please stop pushing your ideology into this conversation, I’m not interested.
Quit pushing your ideology that sex is reproduction. Sex has dozens of different dimensions that can differ in any combination.
We’re talking about about how a human baby is formed. If you want think that’s ideology then you’re too far gone for any kind of conversation.
No, we’re not talking about how a baby is formed. We’re talking about the categories of sex. You’re making the assertion that’s the same as making babies, but that is an ideological assertion, just as is my assertion that hormones are part of sex. Sex is a social construct, so all definitions are necessarily ideological in nature. Sex is not a rule of physics, it’s a guideline of biology, and nature breaks it all the time. We invented that guideline to describe nature, it does not prescribe nature. That is the unbiased, non-ideological science. How we choose to invent sex is the ideology.