>

Where do I fit? 
I'm biologically female, but my perception of myself is male. Biology cannot be changed, there is nothing to argue there, it can be masked but your chromosomes and other physical traits cannot change. It's not even that important from my point of view. 
As for gender, I don't think it's fluid at all, but that society established that some characteristics of an individual's personally are more frequently found in males while others are more frequently found in females. 
It's a generalisation to make reality easier to read, but like all the generalisations is flawed, because individuals of the female sex can have characteristics of the personality generally associated with the male sex, and they'll be forced by society to "fit into the box", so they'll be forced to hide those unwanted characteristics. 
I happen to have a lot of the characteristic generally associated with the male sex, and very few of those associated with the female sex, so to fit the box I'd have to fake a lot, and not be myself anymore.
/u/_Saxpy (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Why is the chromosomal definition not binary? Presence of Y chromosome => male, everything else => female. To me that is binary. >

I guess it depends on who you're talking to about it. Please note, I'm not an expert in these fields, just someone who has some interest.
If you are interested in "binary sex" from a scientific perspective, Y chromosome certainly is a very important thing to understand, but ultimately it doesn't correspond 100% to binary sex, so you should understand the definition around gamete size (eg it's possible to have an XX with small gametes). There is very useful science to be studied around chromosomes. However, modern science relies on the gamete size definition. Honestly, as a lay-person, this makes sense since "sex" is meant to describe an aspect of sexual reproduction, and gametes are the key to sexual reproduction.
From a medical perspective, binary sex is only useful to a degree. Biological definitions around gamete size (or presence of Y chromosome) don't correspond well enough to the various phenotypic traits you describe, and if we try to apply a binary sex model to individuals in a medical setting, a decent percentage of people will have worse medical outcomes. Eg. it's possible for an XX to have more "male" phenotypical traits. So a nonbinary model is very important here.
If you're talking about it socially, the social idea of "sex" is very much nonbinary. Y chromosome (and also gamete size) doesn't correlate very well with the sexual characteristics that people often think of when discussing sex, with or without medical intervention.  So a nonbinary model is useful here too.
Conflating social, medical, and scientific definitions often leads to arguments that are unproductive as people talk past one another. So attempting to raise binary sex into social or medical conversations may end up being frustrating or counterproductive in some cases. >

!delta yeah I love this the social definition, and the most common one definitely isn’t binary. >

You gotta put the exclamation mark before the delta for it to register:  

!delta  

If you edit your comment, the bot will pick it up. >

Might i just say that biology is never binary. everybody, literaly every "body" is unique. the production of hormones that detemine your primary and secondary sexual features, the way you think and how you identify are all regulated by physical processes. for example the amount and ratio of hormones you produce, the development of specific areas of the brain, and mutations on the genes that turn off, limit, promote or turn on certain aspects of the complex chains of steps that your body takes to develop into what ever it developes into. there are so many factors that determen your biological sex, and variations there of, that it becomes difficult in some cases to round someone up or down to the nearest sex i.a male or female. sometimes a body can truely be between or beyond these two options. and how the sense of self is altered by your enviourment, genes, and culture is so personal that gender can sometimes not align with someones biological sex. 
in a black and white world there are only 2 sexes for humans. in biology there are no real sexes, there is just life and we classify it and put it in boxes. 2 boxes is the easiest to work with. but there are spiecies that have 1 sex, 2 sexes, 3 sexes, 5 sexes. there is no limit to the variation. and what definition we use to determine a sex is also made up. nature didn't write it in stone or in the skys.
as long as you're happy with how you are and can accept someone esle for how they see themselfs there is no reason for being argy about people not fitting in our self made boxes, or wanting to be places in the other box. >


Male => has Y chromosome, female => does not have Y chromosome. This definition is inclusive toward those with chromosomal differences such as those with Kleinfelters, Turners, etc.

This isn't strictly speaking entirely correct because XY gonadal dysgenesis (with Y chromosome, but dysfunctional SRY group) exists, which presents externally as female. 46,XX/46,XY chimerism also exists, which can result in either indeterminate sex characteristics or just entirely male or female presentation. >

My understanding is that if you move the binary to functional SRY gene, you have a near binary with the possible exception of androgen insensitivity. So is sex binary with the claim: a person is male if they have a functioning SRY and are androgen sensitive, else they are female?
There's probably some genetic abnormality aflicting 0.001% of the population I'm not familiar with, but this seems near enough to binary to me. >

Okay but surely it's just easier to say that it's bimodal then, and then you've accurately represented all the genetic situations that you are and aren't familiar with >

If 1/100 people or even 1/1000 people couldn't be neatly classified as male or female, I'd agree, but if you start to get into  1/1,000,000 cases, bimodal starts to seem disingenuous to me. In the natural world nothing is ever perfect, there are always exceptions or genetic defects. For all I (or it sounds like you) know, the presupposition I just put forth may be accurate, I doubt it, as there are always exceptions, but at what level of rarity do these exceptions become inconsequential to all but a few experts? Suppose 5 people in the world currently do not fit my preposed binary, would you still call that bimodal?
For what it's worth, I think bimodal is an appropriate way to define gender, but it seems like a stretch for sex. >



Sex is binary. Male => has Y chromosome, female => does not have Y chromosome. This definition is inclusive toward those with chromosomal differences such as those with Kleinfelters, Turners, etc.


It might be inclusive. It's also useless in practice and doesn't conform to the common perception.
No one is going to call an XY-female who has an Y-choromsome but either suffers from androgyn insensitivity or a damaged SRY-gene a “male”. This person will most likely only find out about this when 15 years old or never at all in some cases when they experience some manner of female puberty. No one is going to call an XX-male with a translocated SRY-gene to one of the other chromosomes a “female” either and this person will most often never find out about this.
One can make up all sorts of “definitions” for words. One could also simply say that anyone shorter than 175 is female, and anyone taller male, but these definitions simply don't align with how people use these terms, and thus will never catch on.

Sexual traits are strongly bimodal

Actually no. This is a common myth: so common in fact that human height is often used in statistics classes to explain bimodal distribution as an example, because people expect it to be bimodal, but it's actually unimodal. Many people for cultural reasons expect secondary sex characteristics to be bimodal, but they're actually usually unimodal.
Height, mass, physical strength, voice pitch, wast-to-hip-ratio, breast-size, shoulder-widfth; they've all been found to be unimodal in most countries, and certainly across the entire human population of adults.
Primary sex characteristics are distributed heavily unimodally, of course, but secondary sex characteristics rarely are. >

> but these definitions simply don't align with how people use these terms, and thus will never catch on.
Great point
> Primary sex characteristics are distributed heavily unimodally, of course, but secondary sex characteristics rarely are.
Could you clarify? why do I see females with boobs and males with penises then? >


Primary sex characteristics are distributed heavily unimodally, of course, but secondary sex characteristics rarely are. >

I both agree and disagree. Biologically speaking, people are normally born male/female and that's about all there is to it. However, sex is also a social construct, just like everything else that we give names to and is subject to change, but by your definition as according to the chromosomes it is binary. 
In my personal opinion, it really doesn't matter what people call themselves and what you call them. To many people care far to much about what others define them as over actually caring what they define themselves as, just believe whatever you want as long as your not causing harm to others, and stop caring what people say about themselves or you. >

Sex is not social construct. Societies accepted the fact who's male and female not arbitraly deciding about it.

In my personal opinion, it really doesn't matter what people call themselves and what you call them.

It matters very much since se exlusive zones and laws exist. >

Sex is a social construct. Society has defined sex by chromosomes for forever so it does not feel that way, but if tomorrow everyone swapped one sex with the other, it would be so. My point is not arguing it is arbitrary, simply speaking to the ways words are defined.
You are right on the ways they matter, my apologies I was not clear I meant on a personal level, day-to-day kind of mattering. >


. Society has defined sex by chromosomes

nature did that. 

simply speaking to the ways words are defined.

It's not about mere words. It's about fundamental ideas which societies and cultures are built upon. >

So if we could swap the chromosomes, would the sex of a person change?
And my point was the nature of words. Not in the accuracy of how something is defined behind said words. >


So if we could swap the chromosomes, would the sex of a person change?

Sex is not just chromosomes. >

But, you just said nature defined sex by chromosomes? 
What does define sex? Apparently you differ from from the OP's definition, meaning that different parts of society define it deferentially? Meaning, logically speaking, society has defined sex. >


But, you just said nature defined sex by chromosomes?

During conception. If you'd magically change chromosomes later you have plenty of other difrences to "fix".

What does define sex?

Most fundamentaly ability to produce gamets of certain sex.  But in more advanced organisms it inludes many other exclusive features.

Meaning, logically speaking, society has defined sex.

Not exactly. It defined words but idea of sex is older than any society and even animals are aware of it. It's like saying that breathing or eating is social construct. >

This was my point to begin with if you want to go up in the discussion. >

TLDR: Sex is a social construct.
Male and female as labels are also a socially constructed way of grouping people together, the same way that trees and shrubs are socially constructed ways of grouping plants together. 
There’s no scientific consensus on what makes a tree a tree and a shrub a shrub because the idea that they are two distinct categories in nature is just something we made up. We see two things, think “Those are different” and then look for justifications to explain this perceived difference, to draw a clear line through fuzzy concepts. 
That doesn’t mean there are no useful definitions though, and some definitions have more value than others (depending on what you’re trying to communicate) but there isn’t one “perfect” definition, there’s no blueprint handed down by Nature Herself dictating exactly what male and female are. 
Anyway I’m kinda rambling but the way I’ve heard it is that sex defined is through multiple factors like gonadal, chromosomal, hormonal and secondary sexual characteristics (Boobs, hips, facial hair, etc.) But, this definition is useless to 99% of people on this earth, people aren’t out there defining sex for the purpose of study and experimentation, sex is irrelevant to you and me and we can’t even see a lot of those things anyway (What we use instead is gender) and as you pointed out there is natural variation in those traits and also some of them are changeable. 
The only one that can’t be changed is chromosomes, which is the only reason for the narrative of “Sex is defined solely by chromosomes.” It’s just a lame attempt to further “other” trans people and it’s honestly ridiculous. Defining sex solely by chromosomes even when you change all the other aspects is like looking at the blueprint of a house and insisting the blueprint is more accurate than the actual physical building, the blueprints may say it only has two bedrooms and one bathroom, but they won’t show you that a third bedroom and second bathroom were added after construction. The rooms are physically there though, they exist, you can walk inside and everything, saying that they’re not on the blueprints and therefore it’s really just a two bedroom house is silly. >

Δ I love the blueprint example. Thanks this is a really holistic answer. I don't know what my exact opinion is anymore but my original view point is definitely debunked. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ill-Zucchini962 (1∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >



Sex is binary. Male => has Y chromosome, female => does not have Y chromosome. This definition is inclusive toward those with chromosomal differences such as those with Kleinfelters, Turners, etc.


Can males give birth? This is something that according to your definitions some males can do. >

Hmm, so what would you classify those who don't have either reproductive organs or both? >


Hmm

Right. So if the ability to give birth is able to poke holes in your definition. Why not just skip chromosomes and tie our definition of sexes to the ability to give birth directly?

what would you classify those who don't have either reproductive organs or both?

Exactly... how to classify them indeed.
Right now we assign sex at birth based on which organ is the most developed in case of two sets of genitalia. Or by the appearance of the external genitalia in case of lacking reproductive organs. >

I went to school with someone who was intersex. They chose their gender identity, but we're simultaneously both and neither male and/nor female. >

I think for all intents and purposes sex should be thought of like this; you are either male, female, or have an exceptionally rare medical condition. >

Intersex is not as rare as people think. Up to 2% of humans have some for of intersex condition. That may sound like a tiny minority but 2% of 9 Billion people are still 180 Million people. >

When you test for a paternity test, you can test a trans woman. you cannot test a bio woman. >

That's my understanding, yes. But I don't know much of anything about biology.
All I would like to add to the conversation is this. While gender could be considered a social construct, or a spiritual principal if you study the Occult, in both cases it's a spectrum. While gender is not binary, it is polar. Masculinity and Femininity on either side of the spectrum.
Now, please do not misunderstand me. I do not mean to say that a person cannot be both Masculine and Feminine. In fact, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Gender is fluid. I'm saying that there is only Masculinity and Femininity. There is not some other third thing. All of our traits that are associated with gender fall somewhere on this spectrum.
I would go on to add that it's my personal belief that these two principles are represented in literally everything that can be perceived. Both ourselves and our environment. That's silly spiritual stuff though I'm not asserting that it's true. >

Many feminists would argue that gender is an imposition, a set of expectations for women (and men) about how they should behave.
Islamic societies are a good example of very strict gender roles being enforced. But every culture has their own. >

We don't use male to refer to people with Y chromosomes, and we know this because we used the word male long before we understood what chromosomes were. 
Both males and females have testosterone. I understood what you were attempting to say, but you cannot make broad binary generalizations and simultaneously claim that sexual deviations don't make you less male or female. If being short doesn't make you a female, why is 'being short' a female trait? >


We don't use male to refer to people with Y chromosomes, and we know this because we used the word male long before we understood what chromosomes were.

I disagree with this argument. Just because we didn't know the primary source of the difference between male and female does not mean we cannot use it today as the differentiating factor. 
Similarly, we are able to name colors without knowing anything about wave lengths. We named water and metals  before we defined it by its chemical composition. >

oh I do like the color and wavelength example. So here's a follow up, at what point in the wavelength do we stop considering red, red? That is something we socially agree upon. >

Color is not fully agreed upon like the elements.
But a further understanding to differentiate, like with wavelengths, should be acceptable to use in explaining where we think the bounds of these colors exist. Like you are doing with chromosomes.