I don't think we have the ability to draw a line. We haven't mapped out the genetics of complex traits (and pretty much any twink-ish trait is a complex trait) so we have no ability to actually determine how much of your phenotype is just the way your body is genetically programmed.
right, there is no principled distinction between "your genetic destiny, but for other conditions that might change your development" and those same "other conditions." Why is androgen insensitivity considered the latter? Mainly because it's detectable pathway that we figured out (kinda).
"At the level of receptor functionality" is my guess? The question I have is, do they yet measure it on a spectrum or do they just tokenize receptors as "androgen" and assume they're all 100% functional except for super obvious edge cases?
Sooo much of sexuality/gender has a bio influence.
and that leads to reductive conclusions--which fits in nicely with medicalization and pathologization that demand simplicity
we can measure a particular marker to an absurd degree by refining process...only to discover the marker has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon at hand
yeah it’s not really a thing you can draw a perfect line to categorize because the male phenotype is influenced by a variety of genes (which like, regulated by hormones). cancer is similar in the sense that you can have a wide bundle of genetic contributors but there’s ultimately a threshold
cancer is very “you have it or you don’t” but sexing doesn’t share that same clear threshold. unless you want to draw that line on gamete production, but you’re stupid if you look at someone who is clearly socially male and say “actually ur not bc infertility”
it’s the way boundaries are delineated and way we’re supposed to pretend that exceptions don’t exist / are insignificant / don’t undermine the validity of categorization that drives me insane
just thinking about how we not only refine cancer biomarker detection over time, but also find new and (hopefully!) more accurate biomarkers as our understanding of the whole...cancer...thing changes
“gametes you’re supposed to make” is a valid point! but if you rely on only genetics for your definition you would probably find it confusing why XY men have all of the genes necessary to make functioning ovaries. genetic code is not following a recipe, it’s not a literal translation it’s expression
That's funny cause it's vague enough to raise suspicions about how they asked me to come back in for a second sperm sample before I was allowed to start HRT
I'm not a doctor, but from what I can tell, it's so hard to tell the difference between people with and without MAIS that a diagnosis doesn't get made without a confirmed androgen receptor gene mutation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17970778/
Interesting, and good that the final test is done by means that are unaffected by transition, i suspect researching the rate of it in trans people could be interesting for someone at some point
It's one of those fun ones where it can cause testosterone levels to be elevated to compensate for the inaction so you can show a picture of a twink and be like "this is what 1,000ng/dl of T looks like"
I've had a lot of interaction with the states of medicine from the mental health side, particularly around neurodiversity, trauma, and sexuality & gender
and it's all still just...vibes
some alchemy, some hand waving, a whole lot of inherent bigotry, but mostly just vibes
It only becomes a condition/diagnosis when it starts being a problem for you or for society. If you're happy as you are and it's not causing any issues, then no need to stick it in a treatment box.
See the second reply then, if you don't have a confirmed alteration of the androgen signalling pathway (usually an error in the androgen receptor gene) then it's not yet AIS.
The more useful answer though to what you're asking is "after you've done tests to confirm the presence of the misformed signalling pathway". Symptoms don't make the condition, they just point towards whether further tests or not would be useful.
Comments
Sooo much of sexuality/gender has a bio influence.
we're broadly still not sure we're measuring what we think we are, or that our methods are accurate, or that were even looking in the right place...
so much of the time our methodological framework with biology is fundamentally reductive (thing does thing therefore thing)
1/
we can measure a particular marker to an absurd degree by refining process...only to discover the marker has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon at hand
2/
/
just thinking about how we not only refine cancer biomarker detection over time, but also find new and (hopefully!) more accurate biomarkers as our understanding of the whole...cancer...thing changes
and it's all still just...vibes
some alchemy, some hand waving, a whole lot of inherent bigotry, but mostly just vibes
which leads to presenting the vibes (and spurious conclusions drawn from those vibes) as facts
I think the medical and psychological professions recognize the objective existence of "just kind of twinky" and retcon the science around it