Having a penis means you are a man. There is no such thing as a female penis.
Question, how do you define those who have XX chromosomes but have a penis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome#:~:text=XX%20male%20syndrome%2C%20also%20known,that%20can%20vary%20among%20cases.
Are they a man or are they a
Per the name of the page you're linking, the answer would seem to be male.
Regardless, extreme edge cases don't and shouldn't define broad rules. Over-specificity will render otherwise useful concepts useless through inflation.
"Cats have four legs" is a true species-level statement even given the existence of mutated or amputee cats.
There's also a tendency to fall into the univariate fallacy when discussing this. That because one magic vector that neatly cleaves the groups cannot be found, the groups themselves are invalid. This is patently false, traits can be clustered.
If an object matches 5/6 characteristics of Item A and 1/6 of Item B, which is it more likely to be? Which of the two boxes do you put it in when sorting?
Ok what about a woman who through surgery to attach a penis. Is this person a man or a woman?
More difficult. It depends on the rest of the cluster of traits, doesn't it? While that's a strong indicator in one direction, whether it's enough to balance out the rest has to be taken as an individual case.
I agree, there should be some flex in what determines who is a man and who is a woman, you seem to be against this.
Some flex maybe, not 100% flex. But my point was more that categories are rarely ever neat but they must be coherent, at the very least. Simply identifying as X is not enough to become X. And defining X as "ABC", without regard to exceptions, is more broadly useful to people everyday than strictly defining X as "ABC, except when D, but also ACE, unless F, or ABD in which case look at GH in conjuction with AB to determine if C."
I agree yet you seem so focussed on saying that this rule doesn't apply to trans people.
I suppose the corollary is that, as I said above, I don't consider all traits to have equal "weight" when determining what category to put someone in.
So having a penis might be 100 "weight" towards considering someone a man. Having XY chromosomes might be 50 "weight". Having a beard might be 5 or 10.
Identifying as a male registers as a 1, if anything.
This is all just numbers pulled from my arse, I've never sat down and quantified how much I consider each trait to be indicative. It's just my attempt to illustrate why someone who spends a lot of time money and effort on passing is an easier "sell" for me than someone like Yaniv, who does not, and why I do not consider the two equivalent.
But even then, anyone who manages to "cross categories" will still have an asterisk next to their designation, as you used as an example above, an "XX male" or "trans male" and I don't think that's inherently unfair. You can be male, subcategory trans, and that can be relevant information sometimes. Especially in medicine, or dating, or, as in the original example, other "intimate" or delicate/vulnerable situations.
I think it's important that trans people just make their peace with that, because a little compromise will go a long way to reconciliation, as opposed to attempting to "inflict" themselves on the unwilling put of a sense of moral indignation.
You personally think that the presence of a penis is more of an indicator than the xx or xy chromosome, I could find other people that disagree and say it is the other way around.
But again... "XX male". it's not Female Penis Syndrome.
Rather than imposing views why not let said people decide for themselves?
Because we don't let people self-identify as doctors, or as engineers. We take umbrage when someone who is noticeably not decides to call themselves clever or beautiful or talented. People's self identification means very little to us in quite a lot of ways.
So what someone identifies themselves as normally has little bearing on how others identify them, and this is right and proper. We are allowed to disagree.
I don't think this is an excuse to deny said person which sex/gender they are.
The argument they make is that if I don't want to date/sleep with them because they have a vagina, and that viscerally repulses me, that I don't "really" see them as a man.
Which, I mean, is right, but how do you reconcile that?
I mean I think both sides could be polite, no-one has to date or sleep with anyone they don't like.
I'm pretty sure that would get you excoriated by most trans activists. (Maybe not trans people, but activists.)
