I think this is a regressive world view. It is also misogynistic to reduce women to being baby making machines. It is even misandristic to reduce men to sperm spreading machines.
Human specie would not survive if no one procreated. That does not mean procreation is the most important function for every person. It does not mean those who cannot or do not procreate lead inferior life. We are all parr of natural variation as a specie. We all have our place in this universe, whether we are straight or gay, endosex or intersex, cis or trans, or whatever else.
I never said that procreation was something everybody “should” do. I said that procreation is something everyone can *potentially* do. There was no normative words in my post.
I am merely describing what is, whether we like it or not, whether we try to run from it or not, whether we live in a society or culture that chooses to align with it or not.
You tried to create your own definition of sex based on "procreative potential (which gametes they produce—there are only 2 kinds!) of each person".
I am a man with a 46,XY karyotype and a typically male phenotype. However I was born with anorchia (absence of both testes at birth). Yes, there are only two kinds of human gonades (ovaries and testes), but there are also humans who are born with neither ovaries nor testes. Biology is more complex that you think.
You may also want to learn what “secondary sex characteristics” are. Typical secondary sex characteristics such as enlarged breasts in female or Adam’s apple in males do not appear before puberty.
Yes, you are correct in pointing out my typo. A genetic disorder that may cause the secondary sex characteristics to appear abnormal once puberty hits, or the genitals which are seen at birth and can be difficult to discern, or that do not square with prenatal testing (like in the case of Alicia Roth Weigel), nonetheless do not make someone a person who exists “between sexes,” since that person will only ever be able to produce eggs OR sperm. Not both.
The age at which this difficulty to discern arises (whether in infancy or puberty, or both) does not change the fact that one is either one or the other.
No, it can also be neither nor (see my reply above).
You seem to lack the logical ability to distinguish facts or definitions from your personal beliefs. Trans folk exist; you yourself are able to describe them with your uncharitable characterizations. Gender by definition is a spectrum. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in these statements. All this has already happened in the universe.
Transgenderism as well as sports have very little to do with reproduction. If athletics were a race to find the best mate on people were going to public bathrooms to reproduce, things would be different.
You tried to create your own definition of sex based on "procreative potential (which gametes they produce—there are only 2 kinds!) of each person".
I am a man with a 46,XY karyotype and a typically male phenotype. However I was born with anorchia (absence of both testes at birth). Yes, there are only two kinds of human gonades (ovaries and testes), but there are also humans who are born with neither ovaries nor testes. Biology is more complex that you think.
Yes, as I’ve stated in previous posts in this thread (they were a while back, so you may not have seen them), the conditions which are grouped under the term “intersex” are conditions that which makes a person’s sex difficult to discern, can impair their normal sexual development, or can keep their procreative potential from being actualized. Although it obviously is not grouped under these conditions, women who don’t ovulate for whatever reason is similar. The absence of actualization (for whatever medical reason) doesn’t put that person in a third category, including a “neither/nor.” It doesn’t alter the intrinsic nature of a person as male or female, it’s just a medical condition, the severity and type of which varies greatly. It doesn’t follow that our given natures as male or female vary greatly.
Yes, I realize I’ve been using the terms sex and gender loosely, perhaps leading to confusion. I am certainly aware of the contemporary academic division between “gender” and “gender identity” (the latter term coined by a psychiatrist of dubious ethics in the 50s and popularized by second wave feminists in the 70s) and “sex.” The former connotes the cultural, social and aesthetic tokens and expectations that accrue and the latter connotes bare biology. This is why the 70s feminists loved the distinction so much, because it divided the societal expectations supposedly put on women as social constructs on top of bare biology which they argued has no normative or cultural status, apart from what “patriarchy” wanted to add to it. It’s also obviously a distinction that’s brought up a lot in these discussions about “trans women” in sports—“biological male” and all that.
Interestingly, the trans movement inverts the second wave feminist distinction. Instead of “sex” being important and “gender” being the accrued superstructure, they view it as the opposite. The cultural and social presentation of man or woman is more important, and “raw biology” is not.
Given that these terms “sex” and “gender” are themselves confusing, and often just used for discursive shorthand (I don’t think much of the sharp divorce between culture and biology myself), I think they are unhelpful terms. But given that that’s the vocabulary we have, we have to make do. (Notice that the TERMINOLOGY is what I question, not the reality to which they point, however inaccurately—that of male and female).
So, in reply to the person I was quoting when I wrote this, I probably should have said “male and female are not on a spectrum” or “man and woman are not on a spectrum,” except that I was of course quoting that person in my response.
The writers Ivan Illich and Abigail Favale have been very helpful to me in understanding this.
Yes, I realize I’ve been using the terms sex and gender loosely, perhaps leading to confusion. I am certainly aware of the contemporary academic division between “gender” and “gender identity” (the latter term coined by a psychiatrist of dubious ethics in the 50s and popularized by second wave feminists in the 70s) and “sex.” The former connotes the cultural, social and aesthetic tokens and expectations that accrue and the latter connotes bare biology. This is why the 70s feminists loved the distinction so much, because it divided the societal expectations supposedly put on women as social constructs on top of bare biology which they argued has no normative or cultural status, apart from what “patriarchy” wanted to add to it. It’s also obviously a distinction that’s brought up a lot in these discussions about “trans women” in sports—“biological male” and all that.
Interestingly, the trans movement inverts the second wave feminist distinction. Instead of “sex” being important and “gender” being the accrued superstructure, they view it as the opposite. The cultural and social presentation of man or woman is more important, and “raw biology” is not.
Given that these terms “sex” and “gender” are themselves confusing, and often just used for discursive shorthand (I don’t think much of the sharp divorce between culture and biology myself), I think they are unhelpful terms. But given that that’s the vocabulary we have, we have to make do. (Notice that the TERMINOLOGY is what I question, not the reality to which they point, however inaccurately—that of male and female).
So, in reply to the person I was quoting when I wrote this, I probably should have said “male and female are not on a spectrum” or “man and woman are not on a spectrum,” except that I was of course quoting that person in my response.
The writers Ivan Illich and Abigail Favale have been very helpful to me in understanding this.
Your posts all sound exceptionally idiotic, internally inconsistent, and handspun from the nebulous loincloth of the humanities and social sciences, much like “GD”. Question is why are you now using an alias?
Your posts all sound exceptionally idiotic, internally inconsistent, and handspun from the nebulous loincloth of the humanities and social sciences, much like “GD”. Question is why are you now using an alias?
Earlier someone who agreed with me on the trans issue was accused of not researching enough on the subject and only responding with kneejerk emotional responses. Now I am accused of researching too much on it? What level of reading on this topic is deemed acceptable?
FYI, much of the intellectual basis on which the transgender movement is built is FROM the social sciences and humanities. So yes, that’s the area I’m also drawing from to answer their claims.
My position is very consistent. Perhaps a little sloppily written in places (responding to multiple people on a personal device and not proofreading will do that), but it is very consistent. Not idiotic either!
You may also want to learn what “secondary sex characteristics” are. Typical secondary sex characteristics such as enlarged breasts in female or Adam’s apple in males do not appear before puberty.
Yes, you are correct in pointing out my typo. A genetic disorder that may cause the secondary sex characteristics to appear abnormal once puberty hits, or the genitals which are seen at birth and can be difficult to discern, or that do not square with prenatal testing (like in the case of Alicia Roth Weigel), nonetheless do not make someone a person who exists “between sexes,” since that person will only ever be able to produce eggs OR sperm. Not both.
The age at which this difficulty to discern arises (whether in infancy or puberty, or both) does not change the fact that one is either one or the other.
It is a bad mistake to hang your entire argument on the assumption that every human produces either sperm or eggs, since a HUGE number of people produce neither--in fact, everyone starts out producing neither.
Making such an elementary mistake appear as the keystone of your entire argument tends to make it entirely dismissible.
I suggest you start over at the beginning, reexaming your basic assumptions, and try to build on common sense.
I think you should be able to build on a common understanding that traditionally we divided humans into two sexes, and two genders, the same way, from birth through death, both before and after the production of sperm or eggs. Most reasonable people will be able to accept that, if you avoid grabbing hold of ridiculous and easily disproved definitions.
This post was edited 31 seconds after it was posted.
It is a bad mistake to hang your entire argument on the assumption that every human produces either sperm or eggs, since a HUGE number of people produce neither--in fact, everyone starts out producing neither.
Making such an elementary mistake appear as the keystone of your entire argument tends to make it entirely dismissible.
I suggest you start over at the beginning, reexaming your basic assumptions, and try to build on common sense.
I think you should be able to build on a common understanding that traditionally we divided humans into two sexes, and two genders, the same way, from birth through death, both before and after the production of sperm or eggs. Most reasonable people will be able to accept that, if you avoid grabbing hold of ridiculous and easily disproved definitions.
Yeah, except I don’t hang my argument on that at all. Read my past posts. I wrote “has the potential to” produce either eggs or sperm or “has the potential to” either become pregnant or to get someone pregnant.
Factors which would keep this potential from actualizing include disease/medical issues (“intersex” conditions fall under this category) and age (too young or too old). Of course we don’t start out our lives producing the gametes that we eventually will (unless there is some medical issue), but we have the potential to. Nor do we always exist in this state of actualization (I.e. a woman who is not at the time of month that she’s ovulating does not cease to be female thereby). Nor is a prepubescent girl not female because she isn’t actually producing eggs yet. I’ve never said you have to actually be ovulating 100% of the time you’re alive to qualify as a woman. That would be utterly ridiculous.
An ovulating woman also will not realize her potential to become pregnant if she does not have sex with a virile man during that time. It remains a potential, not an actual.
Potential does not mean actual. I’ve stated this many times in the thread. Either you haven’t read them, or you’ve misrepresented what I’m arguing.
It’s frustrating to see fairness in women’s sports being challenged like this. Athletes put in years of hard work, and competition should be on a level playing field
Auslandei is a dream born from a passion for handmade beauty. Inspired by nature and crafted with love, our hair accessories are designed to empower women to express their unique style with effortless grace.
