Athletes with gigantism.

Andre the Giant
Giant Baba
George Bell

But yeah, let's just discriminate against this one WOMAN'S genetic condition for politics' sake. Humans will be humans. LOL.

Captain Pablo said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

4100 posts and you've yet to contribute anything meaningful to this board

Congrats

Keep the streak going

---

to no one's surprise, turns out all the conservative hemming and hawing about "basic biology" was because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand biology beyond basic concepts

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

Schneider Electric said:

---

Sickening. They just lie lie lie.

1984 on roids

---

I would like to remind the brethren here that the Biden/Harris Administration has just enacted a new Title IX law

which prohibits stopping anyone who identifies as a female from participating in women's sports.

Andrew99 said:

---

Aust Ag said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Aggie Therapist said:

---

That's someone's daughter. Who trained her whole life to compete in the Olympics.

I hope we wake up soon….

---

That's the dude that wrote Humpty Dance.

---

Nah, he's been dead a couple of years.

---

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

First I've heard of this. Died of fentanyl overdose in 2021.

---

Never knew the backstory on Humpty. Dude was the hip-hop Andy Kaufman with his personas.

And Kaufman definitely belongs in a "should men compete against women" thread since he was the World Intergender Wrestling Champion (undefeated).

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

Old McDonald said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

4100 posts and you've yet to contribute anything meaningful to this board

Congrats

Keep the streak going

---

to no one's surprise, turns out all the conservative hemming and hawing about "basic biology" was because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand biology beyond basic concepts

---

Lol. You have it backwards

We DO understand the basic concepts

That's why this boxer shouldn't be beating up girls

The simplest concepts are beyond your capacity to understand

Amazing

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

LMCane said:

---

Schneider Electric said:

---

Sickening. They just lie lie lie.

1984 on roids

---

I would like to remind the brethren here that the Biden/Harris Administration has just enacted a new Title IX law

which prohibits stopping anyone who identifies as a female from participating in women's sports.

---

Yes we're aware

Hopefully SCOTUS common sense prevails

Old McDonald said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

4100 posts and you've yet to contribute anything meaningful to this board

Congrats

Keep the streak going

---

to no one's surprise, turns out all the conservative hemming and hawing about "basic biology" was because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand biology beyond basic concepts

---

No, not really. It all boils down to two chromosomes.

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

No one just discovered these things.

But let me ask you logically. What makes more sense?

• Being concerned about a woman(s) being dangerously beaten up by someone with an obvious and very unnaturally (considering it's like 0.018%) unfair advantage?
• Or worrying about the extremely rare case where you might have to ban a single individual to protect many others, even if it's deemed unfair for that one person? The whole notion that everyone deserves all the same opportunities, even at the expense of the whole, can be fairly dangerous in some of our minds. This constant push for equal opportunity for all, when in some cases it just isn't in the cards.

This is definitely a grey area. If the reported facts are true, it's not a simple answer as this person was born with an actual vagina and had zero reason to believe they were not 100% a female their whole life. One hundred years ago, we wouldn't even know about the Y chromosome. It's not like they were mentally ill and decided to become one 15 years in.

But at the end of the day, it's an unnatural born advantage that can be dangerous. I lean towards not letting them compete just because of the dangers, but I'm also not quite as hardcore against it as some mentally ill person who transitioned.

Old McDonald said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

4100 posts and you've yet to contribute anything meaningful to this board

Congrats

Keep the streak going

---

to no one's surprise, turns out all the conservative hemming and hawing about "basic biology" was because they lack the cognitive capacity to understand biology beyond basic concepts

---

Again, looking for the political win over safety of naturally born females. Not shocking.

It's very simple.

Anyone with a Y chromone should not compete in women's sports. XY, XXY, XXXY, don't care.

If you disagree and say you are a woman, fine. Take a test of your testosterone level.

Too high, sorry, you can't compete.

Live your life, be happy, but we aren't letting you beat up biologic females.

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

Nor does it fit into the "We can't define everything so we'll define nothing" dogma that some of you subscribe to.

Gigem314 said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

Nor does it fit into the "We can't define everything so we'll define nothing" dogma that some of you subscribe to.

---

OH LOOK. We are ascribing false beliefs to people to win stars. How cute.

Yeah, that's about what I expected your response to be. Your deflection is noted.

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

---

We are demarcating between biological males and females

When there's a question, go with the Y chromosome

As for your other nonsense, how about eye color? Height? Hair color

If you think those should be considered, fire away

For me, male/female is by far the most fundamental of all factors in fair competition, and chromosomal profile is the most fundamental factor in the development of male and female characteristics. Where you draw the line in ambiguous situations is your call to defend.

I am fine with chromosomal profile, because it is by far the most determinative factor comparatively in elite athletic performance between men and women

Genital abnormalities are not

I am fine with starting and ending with sex chromosomal profile, and the absence of a "Y" in athletic competition, in pursuit of fair competition and safety. Everything else contained in your imagination is variation within those parameters. Knock yourself out

I am curious what is your criteria for deciding when a non-XX can compete in women's athletics? Simple self identification? I'd like to hear it

I never expressed that opinion and I don't believe anyone else did in this thread. But you do you, bro.

At least we all agree she should be able to pee in the women's bathroom in the US given being born with a vagina, regardless of whether it's fair to box women with her elevated testosterone and the superfluous Y chromosome crowding the Xs.

rgvag11 said:

---

I never expressed that opinion and I don't believe anyone else did in this thread. But you do you, bro.

---

Nor does this thread prove "both parties can think beyond" biology as you asserted. No need to get defensive. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

---

We are demarcating between biological males and females

She is a female. However, this discussion has been framed as a safety issue in this thread. We already use weight classes in boxing for safety, so that may be feasible a solution for this case.

When there's a question, go with the Y chromosome

As for your other nonsense, how about eye color? Height? Hair color

If you think those should be considered, fire away

For me, male/female is by far the most fundamental of all factors in fair competition, and chromosomal profile is the most fundamental factor in the development of male and female characteristics. Where you draw the line in ambiguous situations is your call to defend.

I am fine with chromosomal profile, because it is by far the most determinative factor comparatively in elite athletic performance between men and women

Genital abnormalities are not

I am fine with starting and ending with sex chromosomal profile, and the absence of a "Y" in athletic competition, in pursuit of fair competition and safety. Everything else contained in your imagination is variation within those parameters. Knock yourself out

I am curious what is your criteria for deciding when a non-XX can compete in women's athletics? Simple self identification? I'd like to hear it

---

I don't have an answer for a genetic discrimination standards. I think there should be such standards for all of competitive sports, but I know the criteria should be more informed, rational and comprehensive (applying to men's and women's sports) than cherry-picking genetic conditions based on a single situation that falls into our bs politics of the day.

Gigem314 said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

I never expressed that opinion and I don't believe anyone else did in this thread. But you do you, bro.

---

Nor does this thread prove "both parties can think beyond" biology as you asserted. No need to get defensive. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

---

People have moved a little beyond 'Kindergarten Cop' biology. That's a win for our society.
Don't be mad about it. Embrace it.

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

---

We are demarcating between biological males and females

She is a female. However, this discussion has been framed as a safety issue in this thread. We already use weight classes in boxing for safety, so that may be feasible a solution for this case.

When there's a question, go with the Y chromosome

As for your other nonsense, how about eye color? Height? Hair color

If you think those should be considered, fire away

For me, male/female is by far the most fundamental of all factors in fair competition, and chromosomal profile is the most fundamental factor in the development of male and female characteristics. Where you draw the line in ambiguous situations is your call to defend.

I am fine with chromosomal profile, because it is by far the most determinative factor comparatively in elite athletic performance between men and women

Genital abnormalities are not

I am fine with starting and ending with sex chromosomal profile, and the absence of a "Y" in athletic competition, in pursuit of fair competition and safety. Everything else contained in your imagination is variation within those parameters. Knock yourself out

I am curious what is your criteria for deciding when a non-XX can compete in women's athletics? Simple self identification? I'd like to hear it

---

I don't have an answer for a genetic discrimination standards. I think there should be such standards for all of competitive sports, but I know the criteria should be more informed, rational and comprehensive (applying to men's and women's sports) than cherry-picking genetic conditions based on a single situation that falls into our bs politics of the day.

---

Noted. You have no answer

Let's be specific - do you agree with the NCAA's decision to allow Lia Thomas to compete as a woman in the 2022 NCAA National Championships?

Do you agree with the IOC's decision to disallow Lia Thomas from competing in the 2024 Olympics as a woman?

That seems like a good place to start

barbacoa taco said:

---

It's why I said elevated testosterone. She is intersex. That is what that condition is. But she is a woman. She was NOT born male. but clearly her condition was an issue, given that she's been DQd from past competitions.

But you and many others are still running with the lie that she is a man.

---

He is a man based on chromosomes.

Again, the IBF & IBA will not allow them to fight women.

The nomenclature (trans, intersex, house plant) is irrelevant to the actual point that they should not be boxing women.

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

---

We are demarcating between biological males and females

She is a female. However, this discussion has been framed as a safety issue in this thread. We already use weight classes in boxing for safety, so that may be feasible a solution for this case.

When there's a question, go with the Y chromosome

As for your other nonsense, how about eye color? Height? Hair color

If you think those should be considered, fire away

For me, male/female is by far the most fundamental of all factors in fair competition, and chromosomal profile is the most fundamental factor in the development of male and female characteristics. Where you draw the line in ambiguous situations is your call to defend.

I am fine with chromosomal profile, because it is by far the most determinative factor comparatively in elite athletic performance between men and women

Genital abnormalities are not

I am fine with starting and ending with sex chromosomal profile, and the absence of a "Y" in athletic competition, in pursuit of fair competition and safety. Everything else contained in your imagination is variation within those parameters. Knock yourself out

I am curious what is your criteria for deciding when a non-XX can compete in women's athletics? Simple self identification? I'd like to hear it

---

I don't have an answer for a genetic discrimination standards. I think there should be such standards for all of competitive sports, but I know the criteria should be more informed, rational and comprehensive (applying to men's and women's sports) than cherry-picking genetic conditions based on a single situation that falls into our bs politics of the day.

---

Noted. You have no answer

Let's be specific - do you agree with the NCAA's decision to allow Lia Thomas to compete as a woman in the 2022 NCAA National Championships?

Do you agree with the IOC's decision to disallow Lia Thomas from competing in the 2024 Olympics as a woman?

That seems like a good place to start

---

I do not think Lia Thomas should be able to compete in women's competitive sports.

My turn.

Since safety has been a concern in this discussion, as it relates to a person's physical size and power, should gigantism be used as a discriminating criteria in women's or men's competitive sports?

Disagree that the genes are "definitive" of sex. The genes are just information. The expression of sex is in our physical bodies, not in our genes. Its about what was made, not what was intended to be made.

We all start out as female, whether you are XX and XY or whatever. Female is that basic point and it requires that certain processes and hormones at the correct moments kick in to have those structures develop us into physical males. So the question is not what did your instruction booklet say, but rather what did you become after the process was finished and thats how physical sex has been determined for all time.

If you buy a table from Ikea and build a chair out of whats in the box, what was made is still a chair no matter that the instructions said you should have built a table.

If someone doesnt become a man because medical processes didnt kick in even though they should have, it doesnt make them a man. Now maybe they got some things like a man, and thats why its gray, but still born with vagina=female.

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

rgvag11 said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

in the past week republicans have discovered that multi-ethnic and intersex people exist and they're being very normal about it

---

From the party that can't even tell us what male or female is.

---

This whole thread proves both parties can think beyond a binary concept of biological sex or gender. Nature does not fit into our boxes.

---

And lines have to be drawn, for decency, fair competition, and safety

That's what's lost on you

---

LOL. No. It's your poor reading comprehension.

I said....

How are we demarcating our genetic discrimination in sports?

For instance, if a man or woman have gigantism, should they be banned from the Olympics?

Will genetic discrimination be limited to women sports? I don't think so.

We have CRISPR so the question of genetic discrimination is one will will have to address for natural and unnatural circumstances.

---

We are demarcating between biological males and females

She is a female. However, this discussion has been framed as a safety issue in this thread. We already use weight classes in boxing for safety, so that may be feasible a solution for this case.

When there's a question, go with the Y chromosome

As for your other nonsense, how about eye color? Height? Hair color

If you think those should be considered, fire away

For me, male/female is by far the most fundamental of all factors in fair competition, and chromosomal profile is the most fundamental factor in the development of male and female characteristics. Where you draw the line in ambiguous situations is your call to defend.

I am fine with chromosomal profile, because it is by far the most determinative factor comparatively in elite athletic performance between men and women

Genital abnormalities are not

I am fine with starting and ending with sex chromosomal profile, and the absence of a "Y" in athletic competition, in pursuit of fair competition and safety. Everything else contained in your imagination is variation within those parameters. Knock yourself out

I am curious what is your criteria for deciding when a non-XX can compete in women's athletics? Simple self identification? I'd like to hear it

---

I don't have an answer for a genetic discrimination standards. I think there should be such standards for all of competitive sports, but I know the criteria should be more informed, rational and comprehensive (applying to men's and women's sports) than cherry-picking genetic conditions based on a single situation that falls into our bs politics of the day.

---

Noted. You have no answer

Let's be specific - do you agree with the NCAA's decision to allow Lia Thomas to compete as a woman in the 2022 NCAA National Championships?

Do you agree with the IOC's decision to disallow Lia Thomas from competing in the 2024 Olympics as a woman?

That seems like a good place to start

---

I do not think Lia Thomas should be able to compete in women's competitive sports.

My turn.

Since safety has been a concern in this discussion, as it relates to a person's physical size and power, should gigantism be used as a discriminating criteria in women's or men's competitive sports?

---

I don't really care. Does "gigantism" give an unfair Competetive advantage? From what I've read, typically people with that condition can have a slew of health problems, including weakness, poor stamina, diabetes, heart conditions, and other stuff. How many people have gigantism, and how many of them excelled at the highest level of sport?. Most of them suck at sports as far as I can tell

Is Andre the Giant your example? A professional wrestler. It's fake, you know. So no, I'm not that torn up about gigantism. We all have variable genetics, within our sex, that result in differences in size, strength, stamina. It's part of sports. But those differences should at least be within genetic sex traits

But if boxing wants to disqualify people with giganticism, whatever

Question - why shouldn't Lia Thomas be allowed to compete in womens' sports?

Isn't Lia Thomas a woman?

Lia Thomas' physical sex is male

JJxvi said:

---

Lia Thomas' physical sex is male

---

Why is Khelif's sex considered female?

rgvag11 said:

---

Athletes with gigantism.

Andre the Giant
Giant Baba
George Bell

But yeah, let's just discriminate against this one WOMAN'S genetic condition for politics' sake. Humans will be humans. LOL.

---

Two of those examples were "professional" wrestlers, one was a Harlem Globetrotter. So all were more entertainers than athletes. Giant baba at least played Pro baseball in the 50's in Japan, but not an actual combat sport.

None of these people competed in the Olympics.

JJxvi said:

---

Disagree that the genes are "definitive" of sex. The genes are just information. The expression of sex is in our physical bodies, not in our genes. Its about what was made, not what was intended to be made.

We all start out as female, whether you are XX and XY or whatever. Female is that basic point and it requires that certain processes and hormones at the correct moments kick in to have those structures develop us into physical males. So the question is not what did your instruction booklet say, but rather what did you become after the process was finished and thats how physical sex has been determined for all time.

If you buy a table from Ikea and build a chair out of whats in the box, what was made is still a chair no matter that the instructions said you should have built a table.

If someone doesnt become a man because medical processes didnt kick in even though they should have, it doesnt make them a man. Now maybe they got some things like a man, and thats why its gray, but still born with vagina=female.

---

Every source I can find disagrees with you. Is there a source you can provide that says sex is based on your genitalia, not your chromosomes?

JJxvi said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

AtticusMatlock said:

---

This boxer and the other one from Taiwan are not trans, they are intersex. They have been presenting as female from birth.

I think the higher levels of testosterone should probably preclude them from competing against women but this is a little bit more difficult of a situation.

---

If they have XY chromosomes, it really isn't that difficult when it comes to women's athletics, and particularly boxing, where they could potentially kill a woman.

The IBA and IBF don't let them fight women. That should be sufficient.

Edited to add:

It should be sufficient, but then you have this insanity:

Quote:

---

International Olympic Committee spokesman Mark Adams said before the Olympics boxing match between Carini and Khelif that "These boxers [Khelif and Tu-ting] are entirely eligible. They are women on their passports. It's not helpful to start stigmatizing like this. We all have a responsibility not to turn it into some kind of witch-hunt."

***
The IOC's "Portrayal Guidelines" instruct members of the media not to use the "problematic" terms "male" and "female" in their coverage of the Olympics.

"A person's sex category is not assigned based on genetics alone," the guidelines read.

---

This stupidity cannot be reconciled with the amount of steroid testing that goes on to ensure that male and female athletes aren't doping.

---

This is a weird one...biologically, Khelif is a woman. She was born with female reproductive organs...she just fits into this weird box where she also has XY chromosomes.

---

How do you know what reproductive organs Khelif has?

Functional Ovaries? A uterus?

Is there ovulation? Eggs? A monthly visitor?

Or is there simply a lack of make genitalia and you've labeled that "female reproductive organs"

What's the situation specifically?

---

So are you advocating for a third physical sex? She's born with a vagina. They look , and they decide...is this male or female?

---

How do I apply for that job?

With the chicks...

Captain Pablo said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Lia Thomas' physical sex is male

---

Why is Khelif's sex considered female?

---

She was born with femal sexual characteristics (ie a vagina)

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

Disagree that the genes are "definitive" of sex. The genes are just information. The expression of sex is in our physical bodies, not in our genes. Its about what was made, not what was intended to be made.

We all start out as female, whether you are XX and XY or whatever. Female is that basic point and it requires that certain processes and hormones at the correct moments kick in to have those structures develop us into physical males. So the question is not what did your instruction booklet say, but rather what did you become after the process was finished and thats how physical sex has been determined for all time.

If you buy a table from Ikea and build a chair out of whats in the box, what was made is still a chair no matter that the instructions said you should have built a table.

If someone doesnt become a man because medical processes didnt kick in even though they should have, it doesnt make them a man. Now maybe they got some things like a man, and thats why its gray, but still born with vagina=female.

---

Every source I can find disagrees with you. Is there a source you can provide that says sex is based on your genitalia, not your chromosomes?

---

How do you know your sex? Did the doctor test your genes when you were born? How did they know what to put on your birth certificate? Get the **** outta here.

Chromosomes, again, are just information. Its just instructions, they arent definitive of our physical forms. If you have the blue eye gene, but your eyes are green, you have green eyes. Dunning-Krueger makes a meal out of this X and Y chromosome thing, when physical sex is very simple.

Now, some people have ambiguous or dual genitalia, thats when physical sex is hard to determine.