3 ms·

You don't deserve the downvotes. Men and women have different chromosomes. They have different skeletal structures. They have different amounts of hormones.

You don't deserve the downvotes. Men and women have different chromosomes. They have different skeletal structures. They have different amounts of hormones. They have different averages. Women can have children. Men cannot. The fact that people are trying to argue otherwise is frankly insane.

gcanyon 4y ago
Point by point: Saying men and women have different chromosomes is circular logic. You're saying that XX = woman and XY = man, and then defining "man" and "woman" in terms of the standard you set up for them. As I responded to in a different reply, skeletal structures exist on a distribution. Those distributions generally overlap, meaning there are some women closer to the "male" average, and some men closer to the "female average. That doesn't determine their gender or even their sex. Edit to add: you list hormones as a determining factor -- but hormones can be adjusted. Would you agree that a person who achieves "male" hormones through pills or injections qualifies as male? Or vice versa? Saying they have different averages ignores that distribution, and again would arbitrarily classify some people as the opposite of their chromosomal classification. "Women can have children" -- even among XX women, that's clearly false. Or are you saying that women who can't bear children aren't women? And again, "sex" is not "gender": https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/article...
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  Your use of the word gender is effectively "personality". Yes people have different personalities. Yes XX is a woman and YY is a man. Mammals require one of each to reproduce. Creating a clear, simple definition is what science is supposed to do so that we can better understand existence. When a woman can no longer have kids she has gone through menopause or had a genetic aberration that prevented her from doing so. Yes there are bell curves within nature. This doesn't change chromosomes. No I would not agree that hormones received from an external source make one male or female. If I color my skin green, my skin is still not green. I have simply made it appear that way.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    Small point: men are XY, not YY. Personality is an element of gender, but they are not synonymous. Even in your definition of men vs. women, there are people of all "personalities" in each "gender". Yes, science classes chromosomes, and yes, one of each is (generally, let's not get too caught up in parthenogenesis) required to reproduce. Is that all you see in men v. women? You used reproduction as a determinant, but now you're saying that women who can't reproduce are still women because...they're supposed to be able to reproduce? That's not quite circular logic, but it's darn close. Taking hormones is pretty far from "coloring your skin green" -- by your definition Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't really as muscular as he was, or Lance Armstrong as fast as he was, because they took steroids/PEDs. It's easy to argue that they cheated, but hard to argue that they actually weren't as big/fast as they were. Your argument seems to simplify to chromosomes. Of course you know that there are people born with neither XX nor XY. You can claim those people are "something else," but if they want to present as male or female, is that wrong? And I'll ask you the same question I posted in a separate comment: if we were standing in Times Square and I asked you to point out the women walking by, would you really say, "I can't until I get blood samples"?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

gcanyon 4y ago

Point by point: Saying men and women have different chromosomes is circular logic. You're saying that XX = woman and XY = man, and then defining "man" and "woman" in terms of the standard you set up for them. As I responded to in a different reply, skeletal structures exist on a distribution. Those distributions generally overlap, meaning there are some women closer to the "male" average, and some men closer to the "female average. That doesn't determine their gender or even their sex. Edit to add: you list hormones as a determining factor -- but hormones can be adjusted. Would you agree that a person who achieves "male" hormones through pills or injections qualifies as male? Or vice versa? Saying they have different averages ignores that distribution, and again would arbitrarily classify some people as the opposite of their chromosomal classification. "Women can have children" -- even among XX women, that's clearly false. Or are you saying that women who can't bear children aren't women? And again, "sex" is not "gender": https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/article...

flippinburgers 4y ago
Your use of the word gender is effectively "personality". Yes people have different personalities. Yes XX is a woman and YY is a man. Mammals require one of each to reproduce. Creating a clear, simple definition is what science is supposed to do so that we can better understand existence. When a woman can no longer have kids she has gone through menopause or had a genetic aberration that prevented her from doing so. Yes there are bell curves within nature. This doesn't change chromosomes. No I would not agree that hormones received from an external source make one male or female. If I color my skin green, my skin is still not green. I have simply made it appear that way.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  Small point: men are XY, not YY. Personality is an element of gender, but they are not synonymous. Even in your definition of men vs. women, there are people of all "personalities" in each "gender". Yes, science classes chromosomes, and yes, one of each is (generally, let's not get too caught up in parthenogenesis) required to reproduce. Is that all you see in men v. women? You used reproduction as a determinant, but now you're saying that women who can't reproduce are still women because...they're supposed to be able to reproduce? That's not quite circular logic, but it's darn close. Taking hormones is pretty far from "coloring your skin green" -- by your definition Arnold Schwarzenegger wasn't really as muscular as he was, or Lance Armstrong as fast as he was, because they took steroids/PEDs. It's easy to argue that they cheated, but hard to argue that they actually weren't as big/fast as they were. Your argument seems to simplify to chromosomes. Of course you know that there are people born with neither XX nor XY. You can claim those people are "something else," but if they want to present as male or female, is that wrong? And I'll ask you the same question I posted in a separate comment: if we were standing in Times Square and I asked you to point out the women walking by, would you really say, "I can't until I get blood samples"?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]