If this is so, if sex is an imaginary construct, a decision, then how is it a person decides? I mean, what has the individual to go on? He can’t look out over mankind and notice that some are biologically female and some male and say, “I choose female” because there is basis; there are no females in the first place. There just is no such thing as a biological female, just people who act in a certain way. All a “transgender” wannabe can say is “I choose to behave in ways similar to this set of people.”
But then there is no reason to limit ourselves to a dichotomy, since the dichotomy is just a construct. There aren’t two biological sexes after all, just two historical choices. Since we’re abandoning the fetters of history, we need not restrain ourselves to these two choices. We can have an infinite number. Gender must become, if the academic theory is true, whatever we want it to be.
Unfortunately, whatever choice a person makes—and sticks to—is to exclude other choices. Which is to say that once a person makes a choice this person necessarily (that’s a logical “necessarily”, meaning what follows is true no matter what) discriminates against the other choices. Thus when person D says to person E, “I know you chose orientation Y, but I choose orientation X. You should too.” person E discriminates against person D if person E refused to reorient. E denies D’s “lifestyle”.
Yes, E can change E’s mind, and many times. But if E wants to stick being “oriented” towards (say) kitchen carpets, then E is going to have to suffer the charges of genderism (or maybe they’ll call it orientationism).
On the other hand, if we’re stuck with the old-fashioned scientific notion of gender, then if a boy wants to pretend he’s a girl we are right to say, “Dude. You’re not a girl.” Yet if the academic theory is correct, we must never utter such a phrase.
All this and more was on my mind as I read of California’s latest attempt to convert itself fully to the Self. The state’s Assembly and its Senate have passed Assembly Bill 1266, which “would require public schools in his state to allow students to choose which bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams match their gender identity.” Rumor is Governor Brown will sign it.
There’s the academic theory in its full glory. Gender is a choice, and who are we to say a choice is wrong? A (in the old scientific theory) biological boy wants to join the “girl’s” basketball team and hang out in the showers swapping hair tips must be allowed to do so. And why not?
Ah, wouldn’t work. All the other “boys” would get wind of it and rush to join, too. Day Two would see “girl’s” shower room crowded with nothing but disappointed “boys.” Plus that once-great state said it would pay for separate facilities (using money borrowed from its citizens) to allow “girls” who didn’t want “boys” ogling them in the showers.
Which is state-sponsored discrimination, no question about it. Which means it’s only a matter of time before somebody sues and the “girls” have to let the “boys” in. Anything else would be against equality, that noblest of goals.
Anyway, I’m for it. End all discrimination based on “gender” or “sex.” No more “boys” football and “girls” football: just football, with the same rigorous standards set for all team members. No quotas of this or that orientation: just ability. And no fair allowing a person who identifies as “girl” easier exercises. That is gross discrimination.
And do the same thing in the military. Now “women” are allowed to do “push-ups” on their knees, and they still don’t have to do as many as the “men,” nor do they have to run as far or lift as much and so forth. This discrimination must end, at least in California. Set the same requirements for all orientations!
Oh, forgot to mention. The bill is called “Pupil rights: sex-segregated school programs and activities.” Rights, you see. And rights can’t be wrongs.
A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.
Since that can’t be topped, I leave off here.
Update
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! (I laugh for relief.)
The Wus and their supporters believe that government authorities are using a crude form of biological determinism to confer gender…
Under the logic of biological determinism, a man who does not function biologically as society’s vision of a man would not be considered eligible for marriage to a woman, and vice versa.
Such a policy ruling is unthinkable when it comes to people who identify clearly as a man or a woman, but it’s a reality for the Wus.
There is currently no law that guarantees the marriage rights of a genderqueer person, whose union often falls into the category of same-sex marriage.
Update Bound to have happened.
But since boy pretending to be girl woos a girl pretending to be a boy, then all is well.
Do Schools have “Girls Football”? Every school I know just has “football.”
When I was in High School (20 years ago) there was one girl trying out for the football team. And I had heard that is some locations girls were actively recruited for Freshman Football (because 13 year old girls are bigger than 13 year old boys.)
As a culture, we have decided that you either have to be male or female, but biology doesn’t always fit into our neat little boxes. Or toilet stalls, as the case may be. In the interest of understanding your broader thinking on the issue, I’m curious; How do you propose we should deal with people of ambiguous gender?
I support the law,
It is in one step in my secret plan to be legally recognized as a black lesbian woman trapped in a Hispanic white man’s body.
My Affirmative action rights will never allow me to go unemployed again… wuha, wuhaha, wuhahaha
Fran–yes, that was always a goal of many people. To be the most discriminated against minority without actually having to keep the designation if things got tough. Go for it.
Biology fits into neat little boxes in most cases, though as we become more and more medicalized and categorized, sex identity, just like autism, expands exponentially. Originally, before DNA and chromosomes were discovered, there really was little “confusion”. (Yes, women lived as men and vise-versa in some cases, but no one was controlling enough to demand George Washington make sure the new country covered “men living as women” in the constitution.)
The problem, again, is the demands for special treatment and stepping on others rights. If a boy feels he is a girl, he can feel all he wants. He is NOT a girl. IF we are going to go with “rights”, the child should prove he is not a boy but a girl. What next? The kid “feels” like a cocker spaniel and we allow him to urinate on flagpoles, walk on all fours, and eat dog food? Watch for it–it’s coming. If we don’t agree, “speciesism” will be claimed.
I am reminded of the statement by a botanical taxonomist, “Nature mocks at human categories.” Call it whatever you want; nature will laugh and do what it will. Then there’s the football coach whose final statement on a topic always goes, “It is what it is.” Tautological, but so true.
Pingback: Humanae Vitae and Scripture: A Missed Opportunity - BigPulpit.com
When right and wrong are reduced to abstract concepts, and sex is referred to as gender (a term which relates only to grammar), then is it so hard to understand this kind of silliness? How many women would refuse a sonogram for their unborn child? Yet many deny the child is more than a “blob of tissue”. We live in a time when words are used as though they had no meaning, and worse, when scientific fact is subject to personal whim. Oh, and when I say “fact” I mean it as defined: something which is true. Not as it is commonly used, to refer to assertions of all sorts.
There has been, in recent years, much discussion of a state’s right to secede. But I wonder, can we divorce CA from the country?
William,
“There has been, in recent years, much discussion of a state’s right to secede. But I wonder, can we divorce CA from the country?”
I suppose we could start a war with Mexico, just so we can surrender and give them California back in the peace treaty.
MattS–Do you think that would work? 🙂
Question: If we can choose what sex we feel like we are, can we not also allow ourselves to choose what race we feel like we are? After all, race is most certainly a construct with little connection to reality (great in politics for redistribution of wealth, of course). So much more so should we be allowed to call ourselves whatever race we want. I always wanted to be Native American. Can I start checking that box on any questionnaires? And if later on, I feel African American, can I declare myself a member of that race? Actually, the correct answer to the question “What is your race” is “human”, but if we must use the term, shouldn’t we get to chose the race we feel like?
Ben,
“As a culture, we have decided that you either have to be male or female, but biology doesn’t always fit into our neat little boxes. Or toilet stalls, as the case may be. In the interest of understanding your broader thinking on the issue, I’m curious; How do you propose we should deal with people of ambiguous gender?”
I propose a mystical system called “biological sex”, where, if you have an X and a Y chromosome, you are called a “man”, and if you have two X chromosomes, you are called a “woman”. An advantage of the mysterious powers of this system lets us deny people who don’t feel like being either of those terms the ability to create new ones.
The whole transgender concept seems like one giant contradiction to me. When people are possessed with the thought that they can fly like birds, we consider them as they are: wrong, and likely lying or mentally deficient. When people are possessed with the thought that their feelings should decide their gender, and they “feel” like not being a man or a woman, we just accept it. And then sue people who make them feel bad.
” If a boy feels he is a girl, he can feel all he wants. He is NOT a girl.”
Quite so. But what is a boy, and what is a girl?
Suppose boys have properties B1, B2, B3, B4, B5. Girls have properties G1, G2, G3, G4, G5. An individual turns up with properties B1, B2, G3, G4, G5. Is this individual a boy or a girl?
Well, one way is to say “Boys have property B1, girls have property G1, therefore this person is a boy.” You hang everything on a boy’s most salient feature, as if that was all there was to boydom, the only significant part of their anatomy. All the intricate complexities of the roles and relationships between the sexes are reduced to what shape your body is. No wonder kids get hang ups about the way they look.
Or you could say “For this issue the B3/G3 distinction is relevant, but for that issue what matters is B5/G5.” You decide whether to impose the harder exercises and sports based on their actual size and strength, not on what is in their shorts, which is hardly relevant. Bigger stronger girls get pushed harder, small weak boys get let off. But for changing rooms what matters is whether anyone would be inappropriately interested in what they might see, which is a different criterion.
The idea of gender as a social construct doesn’t mean it’s a matter of individual choice, though. This is usually referring to cultural roles like the way people dress, how they talk, whether they are allowed to work, to go to school, to drive cars, whether they move out when they marry, whether a dowry is paid, and so on. Today, everybody regards pink as a girl colour and blue as for boys, but a hundred years ago it was the other way round. These are not biologically determined. (That doesn’t mean you can choose differently, though. Society decides collectively.) And when cultural traditions are stupid and inconvenient and get in the way, but are resistant to change, people bend themselves to fit instead. Take the practice of ‘bacha posh’ in Afghanistan, for instance. It’s a way for girls to go to school safely, which as every right-thinking person knows is not a ‘girl’ thing. I’m sure that when the Taliban shot that 14 year-old girl in the head for going to school with the boys, they were similarly outraged over the alteration of traditional gender roles.
It’s a difficult situation. Some people have strong feelings about the way the two sexes ought to behave, and want people to stay put in their traditional boxes. Other people think we should change the boxes to fit the way people are, or get rid of the boxes entirely. Is either approach entirely appropriate? The boxes exist for a reason. But traditional roles should be for the benefit of people, not the other way round, and when they do people serious harm we ought to consider carefully whether they could be improved.
“I propose a mystical system called “biological sexâ€, where, if you have an X and a Y chromosome, you are called a “manâ€, and if you have two X chromosomes, you are called a “womanâ€.”
And what do you call people with XXY?
(It’s called Klinefelter’s syndrome.)
Nullius in Verba,
“And what do you call people with XXY?
(It’s called Klinefelter’s syndrome.)”
I call that person an exception, and as you demonstrated, that exception is a disorder; a sad distortion of nature that deserves our pity, not a third sex. You don’t define social orders, governments, laws, customs, or tradition by exceptions, especially exceptions that are disorders.
Nullius in Verba,
After a little more digging, I’ve found that biologically such folks are still considered male. So I suppose that is the technical answer.
Nullis in Verba, perhaps the case you are looking for is Testicular Feminization.
a.k.a.Androgen Insensitivity syndrome. In this condition if complete, there is lack of an effective testosterone receptor. The individual develops full female anatomy at birth except a lack of ovaries, despite having an XY karyotype at puberty they develop a full female habitus albeit absence of pubic hair. They are genetic boys, but in all mental and social development matters are females. The are amenorrheamic (absent uterus), of course are sterile. Unless surgery is done to remove the often deformed testes they have a higher risk of developing testicular cancer.
Incomplete cases run a whole spectrum from mixed external genitalia, to hypospadias, or just an undescended testicle.
But “don’t take my word for it” 🙂 look it up your self.
“I call that person an exception”
Indeed. But such exceptions are what this law is about. These people have two X’s, but are considered male. So the simple rule doesn’t work.
There are a range of disorders that can affect sexual characteristics. The Y chromosome contains many genetic switches that turn on or off the relevant sections on other chromosomes – it’s a complicated process. But sometimes some of the signals are not sent, and sometimes some are not received, and an individual is left mix a mix of characteristics from both male and female. Like own-sex attraction, or a male brain in a female body, or vice versa. They can even switch part-way. Kids born with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency are often born with female primary characteristics and are raised as girls, but develop male genitalia at puberty. Nature is a lot less neat and tidy than people think.
The law is clearly designed to make allowance for such exceptions. People who fit into categories have to stay in those categories, but society is allowed to be flexible about those few who don’t. You say we shouldn’t define traditions by exceptions, but why not? Where is our compassion? “And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”
Null,
From the Mayo Clinic.
Thus, male.
If gender is a whim or even if it’s a social construct what’s “gender reassignment surgery” for? You can only cut real bits, not social constructs.
Nullius: No, as presented in the media, the law says if the student “FEELS” or “identifies with”, not has some anatomical or genetic difference. Also, even the most generous definitions of “sexual identity” say only 1 in 1500 persons has any kind of anatomical difference. So instead of passing a law for the the 1 that disrupts the lives of the other 1499, why not accommodate the 1 in as inconspicuous fashion as possible. If I am diabetic and cannot eat sugar, do I have the right to demand all foods with honey, sugar or any other concentrated sugar be removed from the cafeteria? How about that peanut allergy (yes, we are already accommodating that one…..)? Or all eggs? Or we can’t go outside because of bee allergies? Maybe we change the rules and no one sits at desks because children in wheelchairs cannot? It becomes utter insanity trying to accommodate ever difference in society in a futile effort to pretend we are all alike. The accommodation becomes the mental disorder–and a psychotic one at that.
Bert,
Yes, that’s another one. There are lots.
Briggs,
So it contradicts the ‘two X’s = woman’ definition offered, yes?
Sheri,
I wouldn’t put much trust in “as presented in the media”, but I admit I haven’t bothered to check the actual legislation. I would assume someone would have to be certified by a doctor as transexual before something like this could happen.
The most generous definitions of “sexual identity” include brain anatomy (even micro-anotomy) as an anatomical difference.
Why does it have to disrupt the lives of the 1499? All it requires is that you treat someone who is mentally a girl as a girl, the same as all the other girls. If she had any other deformity, like two heads or six fingers on each hand, you’d still treat her as a girl. (And vice versa, for the boys.)
Bear in mind that if a boy with a girl body goes in to the girl’s shower room, he *will* be ogling, even though he looks like a girl. Are you entirely comfortable with that?
It’s one thing to say that people can buy, sell, and eat peanuts if they like, it’s quite another thing to say that everybody must eat peanuts. If schools provided the meals, they would want to be able to give everybody the same thing, treat everybody the same way. So should the school feed them peanuts and make everybody eat them? Or let a subset of the kids go hungry?
We all have differences. Some have different religions, or different politics. Some enjoy different past-times, have different skills, or are a different sex. We tolerate others in the hopes that they will tolerate us. We try to allow everybody the maximum freedom consistent with giving everyone the same freedoms. And yes, you can’t accommodate everything – some requirements are simply incompatible. But that doesn’t give us an excuse to refuse when they’re not incompatible, merely something we don’t want.
The ideal would be to let people choose their own food, and take care of avoiding anything that would harm them for themselves. The ideal would be to enable people to maintain as much privacy in the shower room as they like, and take care of their own arrangements to stop anyone peeking they don’t want to peek. Then you don’t have to ban anything or stop anyone doing what they want, nor make anyone uncomfortable. It would also benefit all those who don’t like peanuts or are shy in the shower room, but don’t have a medical excuse by which to avoid the ordeal. Then everyone would be happy.
Bert: The solution for peanuts was NOT just to let some kids not eat them. They have been removed from airlines, cafeterias, etc because people with severe peanut allergies cannot be in the same room with peanuts (that is the claim). There can be no peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, no peanut candy bars, etc.
Sorry, being mentally a girl is not the same as being a girl. Again, if I am mentally African American, do you have to treat me as such? Do I get the same benefits as people who have the dark skin? What if I think I’m a cocker spaniel? You can’t call me mentally ill—tha’s rude and uncaring. So you accommodate my being a cocker spaniel? That’s what you are saying.
Okay, let’s accommodate. I have allergies to perfume, cannot eat high sugar foods, cannot be in buildings with new carpet, get hives from dogs and cats. So, no perfume, no sugar (or honey), no new carpet, no dogs or cats. No therapy animals either–I don’t need hives if I’m in the hospital already. How far will you go? I know a family that claims “chemical sensitivity”. They wear charcoal masks out in public. Should everyone wear masks so these people don’t feel different?
When you’re a 10 year old girl, male genitalia sharing the restroom is more than uncomfortable. Some girls may fear rape and stop using the bathrooms, holding it all day and damaging their kidneys/bladder (yes, this really can happen–I’m not making it up). Now we have to accommodate these children. So we only let children go to the bathroom one at a time? Install 1000 single bathrooms? Where does it end?
The statute, so far as I can tell, does not require any medical verification. News sources said it is what the child decides. In Arizona, they are trying to pass a law going by the birth certificate.
In all honesty, if the child is dressed like a girl or a boy, has always been dressed that way and only uses the stalls, unless a teacher checks a birth certificate, how did this become an issue anyway? (Again, this appears to be designed to control and/or punish, not be fair.) Locker rooms could be trickier to deal with, yes. Maybe just get rid of sports–the whole thing is humiliating to clumsy children like I was, so let’s just dispense with that activity. So much more fair.
Sheri,
Who are you arguing with?
“They have been removed from airlines, cafeterias, etc because people with severe peanut allergies cannot be in the same room with peanuts (that is the claim).”
It’s quite true. A friend of a friend has such an allergy, and has nearly died numerous times. He has to carry adrenaline around with him. If his girlfriend eats nuts, they can’t make intimate contact for 24 hours afterwards.
“Sorry, being mentally a girl is not the same as being a girl.”
Sorry, but as far as the person in question is concerned, it is.
“So, no perfume, no sugar (or honey), no new carpet, no dogs or cats. […] How far will you go?”
Sorry, but that’s the exact opposite of the argument I just made.
“When you’re a 10 year old girl, male genitalia sharing the restroom is more than uncomfortable.”
OK, try another thought experiment. A robot shaped like a girl is linked by remote control to a full-body virtual reality rig, so that a boy can control it, see what it sees, hear what it hears, walk it around, etc. He uses it to walk into the girl’s changing rooms. Is it a boy, or a girl, or a robot looking? Is there anything wrong with doing this, given that the body in the changing room does have the right shape genitalia?
If a person has cosmetic surgery, so their body looks different, are they thereby a different person?
“News sources said…”
Yeah. Right.
“In all honesty, if the child is dressed like a girl or a boy, has always been dressed that way and only uses the stalls, unless a teacher checks a birth certificate, how did this become an issue anyway?”
Because you’re not allowed to not tell the school, and the school is not allowed to ignore it once they’ve been told. It’s the sort of thing that can get you into even more trouble if people do find out.
Although not every culture does it that way, as with the bacha posh practice I mentioned previously.
“Maybe just get rid of sports–the whole thing is humiliating to clumsy children like I was, so let’s just dispense with that activity. So much more fair.”
I already suggested an alternative solution. Arrange for individual privacy, then it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to get rid of sports. Although I’d be inclined to make it non-compulsory. It’s fine for people who enjoy sports, but as you note not everyone does.
Again, if I think I am a cocker spaniel, should you treat me as such?
I don’t understand. You seem to be okay with banning nuts, but not perfume, sugar, new carpet, etc. What is the difference?
Answer to your questions:
It’s a boy using a robot to look. Yes, there is something wrong with this. It is deception.
No, cosmetic surgery does not make someone a different person.
Again, if you send Johnny to school as Joan and Joan only uses the stalls in the girls restroom, how does anyone find out Joan is actually Johnny? Someone has to be looking into stalls or under doors.
How do you arrange for individual privacy? In public restrooms, there’s a “family” one often. That’s a single stall for families (or whoever) to use. How do you do that in school without anyone figuring out why the child is using the “special” restroom?
Sheri,
I agree with you on most things you say.
I, perhaps was somewhat unspecific regarding the discription of thoe with testicular feminization (TF) but only for the sake of brevity. I will expand my comment below for the sake of those who won’t Google TF.
The phrase “developing “mentally as a female” means not having the effect os testosterone on the developing fetal brain.
A developing fetus will develop as a male only if testosterone and testosterone receptor (on the nuclear membranes) are present. Otherwise a “female” fetus will form. There are differences in the developing brains of fetuses, as well as genitalia, depending on the effect of testosterone. There must be at least two “X” chromosomes (two copies is normal in females), and no “Y” chromosome in order to develop ovaries-producing estrogen, a uterus, and fallopian tubes, as opposed to testes. That is why all genetic males, including those with TF have only a “vestigial” uterus (utriculus masculinis) enclosed by the prostate gland, and is why those with TF do not menstrate.
But those individuals with complete TF are “girls” in essentially every way, except they are sterile (no ovaries) , and do not menstrate (no uterus). They are usually diagnosed at puberty, when they are evaluated for ammenorrhea, even though they have normal female bodies including normal breast development. They receive estrogen supplements till mid adulthood (to grow female body hair, skin changes, ect., but typically marry, adopt children, and lead otherwise full lives as females.
The ratio of TF to normal births is listed as 1 in 20,000.
Bert-I have no problem with a medically verified child with TF or any other variant being afforded appropriate accommodation. Aren’t most persons with complete TF actually are called female and don’t discover any difference until failure to menstruate? This would cause problems how? Maybe the incomplete for would?
Anyway, children with medical conditions should be accommodated as far as practicable. I don’t believe in totally redoing policy for what children “feel”. And there are handicaps that schools simply will not be able to deal with.
“Again, if I think I am a cocker spaniel, should you treat me as such?”
That depends on what you mean “think”. If someone *says* “I think I’m a cocker spaniel” then they’re obviously not because dogs can’t talk. That’s a delusion. But – hypothetically – if they have a mind that is functionally indistinguishable from a dog brain – same behaviour, same instincts, no verbal capability, very limited reasoning – then it would make sense to do so. (Although a lot of people treat cocker spaniels like people, so arguably it wouldn’t make much difference.)
“I don’t understand. You seem to be okay with banning nuts, but not perfume, sugar, new carpet, etc.”
I didn’t say I was OK with banning nuts. I said: “The ideal would be to let people choose their own food, and take care of avoiding anything that would harm them for themselves.” So you allow people to buy, sell, and eat peanuts – i.e. you don’t ban them – but you also give people the individual freedom to avoid them if they need to.
“How do you arrange for individual privacy?”
The easiest way is individual cubicles. Opaque sheets mounted on a wooden frame would be light and cheap. It’s not a hard thing to do.
Okay–what at one time was considered delusional behaviour is now just an alternative lifestyle. We don’t need to “treat” differences, just accommodate. This would indicate we need to pitch out the DSM 5 because there is no such thing as mental illness, just differences. How is it kind or caring to let someone live like a dog when he/she/it is a person? On the other hand, we could save millions on treating anorexia, autism, etc by just calling them different life choices. (Please don’t tell me these are “real”. There is no “real” with psychiatric disorders. They are just symptoms and behaviours and can be voted out of existence. )
I am telling you they BAN peanuts, entirely. No PBJ, no airline peanut packages, etc. This is not something you support, right? Okay, if we stop with banning peanuts, I’ll deal with the perfume, etc.
Your cubicle idea is fine with me. As long as the privacy of the cubicle is respected and there is an accommodation made for students who are just not comfortable with the idea someone of the other gender is in the cubicle next to them. We have to accommodate all view on this. So,
“girls”, “boys”, “no one cares”.
An interesting point came up when discussing this with my spouse. The major “winner” in this is the boy who dresses like a girl. The major “loser” is the girl forced to share her restroom. Girls dressed as boys rarely get beat up or bullied. It’s like girls just don’t care. On the other hand, a boy in a lipstick and a dress is likely to be a target. So in reality, we are protecting boys by demanding girls accommodate their female preferences.
You only need to ‘treat’ differences if they cause distress.
I’m well aware that there are limited bans in some areas on peanuts, I’m just saying I don’t advocate for it.
Some people are bothered by gays in the cubicle next to them. Some people are bothered by all sorts of things. It depends on what they ‘feel’ or identify with.
Girls dressed as boys used to get beat up and bullied, too, but eventually people got used to the idea of women wearing trousers and cutting their hair short, and think it’s perfectly normal now. That was accomplished by demanding that men accommodate women’s lib. And now women can live the lives they want to – they have that extra freedom – and I think that’s great. It will be interesting to see if the men can catch up.
I consider women’s lib to be one of the most damaging social changes ever inflicted upon humans. Women became the uncaring, over-sexed, narcissistic beings they accused men of. I sincerely hope men are not such idiots as to follow suit.
Pingback: Royal Baby’s Incorrect “Gender” | William M. Briggs
Josh,
How does your system handle someone who has XXY chromosomes?
Incidence is 1-2 per 2000 births
Also, What do you do with a hermaphrodite, regardless of their chromosomes?
My whole point is that there are a lot of intermediate phases, and the person’s phenotype is not necessarily this binary thing, based on whether you have an X or Y chromosome. There are a large number of other conditions that are considered to be “intersex”, which you should research a bit before you dismiss it as irrelevant.