4 ms·

I haven't said anything about the motivations behind it. It's probably just a feeling that you're doing something good. But that's basically what I'm talking ab

by ttt0 5y ago

I haven't said anything about the motivations behind it. It's probably just a feeling that you're doing something good. But that's basically what I'm talking about, the biological sex is obscured with words like "orientation" or "identity", despite that the premise of this entire theory at least used to be that sex, gender and orientation are separate things. You can't change your biological sex, it's immutable. If you were born as a man, you won't be able to bear a child. It's supposedly defending individual rights with what is a plain deception. I cannot even imagine any example that would top that in terms of what wacky theories people could believe. I'm sure that criticizing Q-anon is a red flag too for some people.

perl4ever 5y ago
>You can't change your biological sex, it's immutable. I assume you mean nobody can presently create fully functional organs for someone that wasn't born with them. I don't know who disputes this. But when you make such a declaration, it sounds (to some) like you are denying biological reality yourself; claiming that there is no such thing as intersex, that chromosomes are always in alignment with physical characteristics, and so on. There are complex processes necessary for the emergence of typical characteristics, and just because it's strongly bimodal doesn't mean that's 100%. Anyone educated knows it isn't, completely apart from politics. If one agrees that such things are well-known for a long time and not controversial, and that there appear to be gender related differences in the brain, then it's not reasonable to declare that "an X brain in a Y body" is impossible or delusional. You can't know, and it's particularly antisocial to go around telling people stuff about themselves when you can't possibly have rational grounds for it.
- ttt0 5y ago
  Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman. From my understanding, it's still falls under either this or the other, not a literal third sex. And even if, that's a tiny fraction of what already is a tiny fraction of intersex people. It does not disprove the general notion and it does not justify changing the entire culture around it and basically terrorizing people who are stating these basic facts. You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand. And yeah, I talked to people who were saying that biological sex doesn't exist and gender is all there is to it.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman. If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense. > It does not disprove the general notion Yes, it does. Counterexamples do that. > You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand. Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      > If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense. Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not. A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result. > Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with. It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time.
      - anoncake 5y ago
        > Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not. My conclusion is derived from the premise. Since it's nonsense so is the premise. > A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result. An infertile woman is broken then? > It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time. Of course you can. 100% of non-broken computers can be used for computing -- the "non-broken" part is usually implied when talking about them. Same for lots of other categories. If the members of a category don't have any shared traits -- i.e. something that is true for all of them -- then what is it even useful for?
        5y ago

by ttt0 5y ago

perl4ever 5y ago

>You can't change your biological sex, it's immutable. I assume you mean nobody can presently create fully functional organs for someone that wasn't born with them. I don't know who disputes this. But when you make such a declaration, it sounds (to some) like you are denying biological reality yourself; claiming that there is no such thing as intersex, that chromosomes are always in alignment with physical characteristics, and so on. There are complex processes necessary for the emergence of typical characteristics, and just because it's strongly bimodal doesn't mean that's 100%. Anyone educated knows it isn't, completely apart from politics. If one agrees that such things are well-known for a long time and not controversial, and that there appear to be gender related differences in the brain, then it's not reasonable to declare that "an X brain in a Y body" is impossible or delusional. You can't know, and it's particularly antisocial to go around telling people stuff about themselves when you can't possibly have rational grounds for it.

ttt0 5y ago
Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman. From my understanding, it's still falls under either this or the other, not a literal third sex. And even if, that's a tiny fraction of what already is a tiny fraction of intersex people. It does not disprove the general notion and it does not justify changing the entire culture around it and basically terrorizing people who are stating these basic facts. You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand. And yeah, I talked to people who were saying that biological sex doesn't exist and gender is all there is to it.
- anoncake 5y ago
  > Find me an intersex person that can both bear a child and impregnate a woman. If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense. > It does not disprove the general notion Yes, it does. Counterexamples do that. > You could be born with six fingers and that doesn't invalidate the fact that human species have 5 fingers at each hand. Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    > If male == can sire children and female == can bear children, then infertile people don't have a sex which is nonsense. Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not. A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result. > Yes, it would. Humans only usually have 5 fingers on each hand. But it isn't important to emphasize that there are 6-fingered humans because no one denies that 6-fingered humans are humans to start with. It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      > Your conclusion is nonsense, the premise is not. My conclusion is derived from the premise. Since it's nonsense so is the premise. > A broken computer is still in essence a computer, even if it can't actually do any computing as a result. An infertile woman is broken then? > It's some kind of genetic disorder, an anomaly. With your standard you can't describe anything, as almost nothing is true 100% of the time. Of course you can. 100% of non-broken computers can be used for computing -- the "non-broken" part is usually implied when talking about them. Same for lots of other categories. If the members of a category don't have any shared traits -- i.e. something that is true for all of them -- then what is it even useful for?
      - 5y ago