right, "born with".

not sure I understand what you're saying in the second half, could you elaborate?

edit: i think i see what you meant. most women are XX, maybe that was a typo. chromosomes are strongly correlated with sex but are not what determines it. that's why i didn't mention chromosomes. you're right, not all women are born with a uterus, or with ovaries that actually produce eggs. but from a biological standpoint, we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.

you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well: do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don't know enough to confirm or deny it?

this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example. it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.

there isn't really a debate there, no one claims that "dogs with long hair are female" or anything stupid like that...

in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing

If you keep consensus-based decision-making at the center of your society

Society is a societal institution, so any anarcho-nihilist would be against society right

can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we're on the same page, and discussing the same specifics. women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don't function for whatever reason.

of what

good for them for having such a large sample size. i admit i'm confused though, the results are an increase "by 7–72%."? i wonder what is up with this huge range. how can we have confidence in this?

i wish the abstract explained what types of anti-trans laws were passed, cause of course different laws end up having different effects. that could explain the uncertainty in the results range. in this case we're concerned with how a lack of gender affirming care would directly influence systematic suicide rates, so I'm still looking out for more evidence on that topic.

I agree that both could be useful in different contexts. I'm only speaking of biological sex in my definition, which is different from gender. in ~99.9% of cases, doctors can tell from observation at birth what someone's sex is, and it is noted on the birth certificate. (to clarify, do you consider the birth certificate to be a medical record?). I do support the amending of birth certificates if the doctors observed incorrectly. I don't think think any other medical records would have to be shared with the government, but (beside the point: ) you should assume they always are anyway. but doctors could never "check medical records to determine gender" anyway, as gender and sex are not the same.