4 ms·

I thought it was a good read. It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that there are differences between biologically male and female people. Like the auth

by johnea 1y ago

I thought it was a good read. It's refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that there are differences between biologically male and female people. Like the author expresses, this shouldn't be controversial, and the assertion is in no way anti-anything. How a person feels about their sexuality is a totally different thing, in a totally different category, from their biological gender. I liken it to arguing that there is no such thing as a person having a natural hair color, because they choose to dye their hair a different color. It was also refreshing to hear the author express that females do indeed possess sexuality, and that human sexuality guides a lot of behaviours, including female behaviours, especially behaviours involving interfacing to the "other" gender. Accepting the physical reality that humans are comprised of two sexual genders (with some small percentage of people having phenotypes that are intermediary between these two), and allowing for people to express their sexuality in whatever way they choose or whatever way feels right for them, are in no way mutually exclusive, or even antagonistic. WRT the before-after photo, again I agree with the author in the sense that it depends on what you're looking at. For me, a biological male, while the person's body is certainly more muscular and thin in the after photo, I would have to say his face looks more naturally shaped and "attractive" in the before photo. The after photo face looks almost skeletal and stretched compared to the smiling nicely rounded face of the before photo. All of this is, of course, a matter of opinion. Maybe (MAYBE) women are looking more at the cute face, and men are mostly considering which body they'd prefer to pin to the mat?

1659447091 1y ago
It's an issue of language, unfortunately. She correctly uses "sexes" with is the biological term but seems to have a problem with "female" as it's often in quotes; (I mean, don't get incensed and go on tirade like she did when trying to make a point between biological sexes while using socially defined terms instead of simple science based terms that convey the exact meaning meant - then wonder why it's unclear.) Your choice of "biologically male and female" is clear in definition. But saying things like ["other" gender] becomes muddled unless you meant to include someone's identity label(gender)? And not simply the other sex? I am not sure which you meant. Gender is such a loaded word with a meaning not grounded in a solid/root usage (in this case sex and female/male in science for a topic related to science). Using the words that best describe what we mean could provide less confusion and generate more understanding of what people from various "sides" are trying to say. My interest in the topic is the language part. It's crazy how much misunderstand between people there is based on a stubborn refusal to use, or simply, lazy choosing of words wrt to the topic of distinguishing sexes. Otherwise, for other non-related topics use what ever. But this article seems to be mostly a veiled rant against, "central liberal delusion" of sexes and gender from her pov.

by johnea 1y ago

1659447091 1y ago

It's an issue of language, unfortunately. She correctly uses "sexes" with is the biological term but seems to have a problem with "female" as it's often in quotes; (I mean, don't get incensed and go on tirade like she did when trying to make a point between biological sexes while using socially defined terms instead of simple science based terms that convey the exact meaning meant - then wonder why it's unclear.) Your choice of "biologically male and female" is clear in definition. But saying things like ["other" gender] becomes muddled unless you meant to include someone's identity label(gender)? And not simply the other sex? I am not sure which you meant. Gender is such a loaded word with a meaning not grounded in a solid/root usage (in this case sex and female/male in science for a topic related to science). Using the words that best describe what we mean could provide less confusion and generate more understanding of what people from various "sides" are trying to say. My interest in the topic is the language part. It's crazy how much misunderstand between people there is based on a stubborn refusal to use, or simply, lazy choosing of words wrt to the topic of distinguishing sexes. Otherwise, for other non-related topics use what ever. But this article seems to be mostly a veiled rant against, "central liberal delusion" of sexes and gender from her pov.