GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am so glad you replied!

Lots of people drop out of school like you did and have done so in the past. I totally get why you and others drop out. When I was in my teens and 20s, a common saying or "meme" was "school is ruining my education."

Also, in my own adult life I've been subjected to a lot of disdain and prejudice from academics coz I don't have any advanced degrees. Lots of times in my life starting in the 1970s and extending through the early 2000s I was told I wasn't allowed to apply for certain fellowships, awards or library privileges at institutions such as Harvard Radcliffe, the Sorbonne, Sciences Po, the NY Public Library's research divisions coz I don't have a MS/MA or PhD and lack any formal institutional affiliation.

I also hope you can see the difference between "earning an education" and "earning/getting a degree" and "becoming educated, knowledgable and/or learned."

There are actually lots of older students in most universities in countries like the US and UK (sorry, I dunno where you are). Sure, some teenage students there might "look at you weird" coz you're in your 30s and they are ageist eejits. As a former teenager myself, someone who has taught teens, and a parent who raised her own children during the teenage of phase of their lives, I am not particularly impressed by, or fearful of, the withering looks and disapproving attitudes of teens. My attitude towards their side-eye is "who gives a fuck?" and "you'll get it one day."

Fear and anxiety plague and have plagued many people, including me. I've personally had many occasions in my life when I've wanted to hide myself under the bed rather than do things that have scared the shit out of me - ranging from taking academic exams in subjects I was crap at to going through labor and childbirth to getting surgery to remove a tumor behind my eye that had grown into my brain to appearing on TV interview shows in order to promote books/articles I'd written to writing and delivering eulogies for siblings and friends who'd died to taking the stand in court to give sworn testimony about why I thought my ex-husband and I should have joint custody of our children rather than my ex getting sole custody as he sought ...

What I've learned throughout these experiences is that when we let fear and anxiety control us, we end up hurting ourselves - and sometimes/often the younger or weaker people who depend on us, too. There's an old adage, Feel the fear but do it anyways. Which should not be confused with the wisdom of Gavin de Becker in the essential book, The Gift of Fear.

Also, most of the people you think/fear will be looking at you weird actually are too preoccupied with their own insecurities and neuroses to pay you, me or anyone else much notice.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm wondering if you still believe - and if you ever really believed - that

I don't believe sex is a social construct after your explanations, no 😁

Finally, since your user name makes an issue of your age, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind revealing how old exactly you are and at what age you think people become "too old for school."

I don't mind at all, I think you should be free to ask any questions you want. I'm 35 and I dropped out of uni, because of my "I hate school, and I'm not going back!" attitude. And until now my fear and anxiety of going back to uni outweighed my goals of earning an education. I make excuses like "30+ is too old for school".

I dream of going back to get a degree but I feel embarrassed when I imagine myself being in the middle of teenagers. They will look at me weird :/

Do you think there's a way to overcome my fear and anxiety and do what the 40-80 year olds in your examples did too?

I hope you know that this terminology is redundant coz "somatic" simply means "relating to or of the body, as opposed to the mind." So similar to "physical" or "bodily."

I didn't know that about the definition of somatic, thanks for letting me know!

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

BTW, 2old, I noticed that throughout your OP you kept speaking of "somatic cells." I hope you know that this terminology is redundant coz "somatic" simply means "relating to or of the body, as opposed to the mind." So similar to "physical" or "bodily."

In your OP, you also made a claim I found too ridiculous to address and refute, namely

What I believe given these findings is there is no such a thing as a "man" and a "woman", "sperm" and "egg", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist.

Now that we've had friendly exchanges and you've said

I am really not here to debunk the existence of sex, but really just trying to understand about it, and overcome confusion because I tend to get confused easily, and reach a conclusion.

I'm wondering if you still believe - and if you ever really believed - that

there is no such a thing as a "man" and a "woman", "sperm" and "egg", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist.

Finally, since your user name makes an issue of your age, I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind revealing how old exactly you are and at what age you think people become "too old for school."

In the spirit of fair play, I'll go first: I am 66, and I believe there is no age at which anyone becomes "too old for school." I know lots of people in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s who've gone to school - whether it be adult ed courses, grad school or to get their HS or BA/BS degrees. I once did a newspaper story on a woman who was forced out of school in 8th grade when she got pregnant in the 1940s, and who attended HS in the US and got her HS diploma in her late 40s/early 50s. Gladys Mae West, the mathematician whose calculations formed the basis for GPS, earned a PhD in 2018 at age 88.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladys_West

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]grixitperson 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If a human can use technology (ie binoculars) to see a mouse half a mile away, does that mean there is no difference between humans and eagles?

No.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even if such technologies were developed, this would not change neither our biology nor our history.

Nowadays, we have vehicles like planes or helicopters which make flying possible for human beings. However, this doesn't mean humans are flying animals and I wouldn't advice any person to try to fly on their own without the assistance of adecuate technology. Also, the fact that we can fly now, doesn't erase the fact that we spent most of our history without this being a possibility. This isn't a minor a detail because our capability (or lack there of) of flying has affected our history. Pandemic notwithstanding, you can now travel from Los Angeles to Tokio in matter of a few hours. That certainly was not possible during the Middle Ages, for instance.

Likewise, even if such reproductive technology were developed, there will be still women and men around and their anatomy will still be arranged for the production of either eggs or sperm respectively. As the existence of males and females predates this hypothetical technology, it would be incorrect to state this technology would prove that sex is a social construct. Such technology would not erase the biological differences between the sexes, either. Likely your doctors would still need to know your sex in order to treat you effectively; and men would still have advantage over women on sports. Whatever social change this hypothetical technology would cause, it would not erase the social importance that sex had through our history up to its invention and, I think, sex would still be very socially meaningful after it.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cloning is a separate process from sexual reproduction. Replacing an egg nucleus with a somatic cell nucleus is not the same thing as "fertilizing" it.

Like please for the love of pete get some education in biology.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No worries 😁 I don't think you're snappy in your comments. And even if you were being snappy without me noticing, I think it's justified for GC to be snappy. GCs had it hard, you lost your sub on reddit, everywhere you get deplatformed and called horrific names. You had enough of it and I understand.

I hope you bear with me though. I am really not here to debunk the existence of sex, but really just trying to understand about it, and overcome confusion because I tend to get confused easily, and reach a conclusion. But because I am open to discussion, I post about my own conclusion and belief here and ask GC about them to see what they think.

Thank you for the sources, I will look into Jennifer Bilek. I enjoyed your responses, and look forward to the future conversations with you. Best wishes :))

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is the most detailed and understandable thing I have ever read, in the entirety of the time I have existed.

What a nice thing to say! But it's sorta sad too. You clearly need to find better caliber reading material.

I'm not much into sci fi mad-scientist scenarios, though I was a huge fan of "Bizarro World" from Superman comic books in my youth. Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" written 200+ years ago ended my interest in what today would be called "transhumanism." And I find transG and transH enthusiasts and pushers like Martine Rothblatt odious.

Jennifer Bilek is taking on transhumanism in stuff she's written as well as in video interviews. Just google "jennifer bilek transhumanism" and a lot of resources will come up.

I've tried to find philosophers or at least anyone knowledgeable in the field...

If you are looking for intelligent discussions of complex matters written in clear, understandable language and from a practical, reality-based perspective, I'd suggest staying away from most contemporary philosophers (except Kathleen Stock and Jane Clare Jones) as well as most everyone else in the humanities and social sciences in academia. PhD in many fields nowadays seems to means "phony dimwit."

IMHO, a good deal of what's been coming out academia, particularly in fields like philosophy and sociology and criticism, for many decades is incoherent gibberish intentionally written to be hard/impossible to understand and is without any intellectual depth, heft or import.

BTW, sorry if I've come off as snappish in my response to your posts. I've had a hard time figuring out where you're coming from, so to speak. On the one hand, you struck me as someone pushing a lot of QT ideas coz you're insistent on debunking the existence and"validity" of biological sex, but when I've contradicted your posts you've responded really politely and kindly and with what seems to be an open mind. I'm getting the impression that you are genuinely interested in discussion and in learning more...

Also, I've now looked through some of your old posts and threads you started, and saw that you've described yourself as stupid. Please don't put yourself down like that. You come off as plenty intelligent to me. It's just that you seem to have come under the sway of an ideology that is full of nonsensical bullshit and based on lies, and like so many other (young) people you've been bamboozled and bulldozed by it all. The fault is with the people promoting this mountain of BS and telling everyone with a different view to "STFU!" - not with you.

Best wishes! I've enjoyed our exchanges.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we all are a bunch of cells as embryos, during embryonic development, the stem cells become egg or sperm. That's what they do in the lab, they take the stem cell of someone, and turn it into sperm or egg, which is exactly what happens in embryonic development. They are redoing what happened to everyone of us when were were embryos in the lab now, recreating the same situation.

You seem to be suggesting that during the embryo stage of development, all human cells only become - and only have the possibility of becoming - either egg or sperm. This is not true. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into hundreds of different types of cells:

Human embryonic stem (ES) cells capture the imagination because they are immortal and have an almost unlimited developmental potential (Fi

After many months of growth in culture dishes, these remarkable cells maintain the ability to form cells ranging from muscle to nerve to blood—potentially any cell type that makes up the body. The proliferative and developmental potential of human ES cells promises an essentially unlimited supply of specific cell types for basic research and for transplantation therapies for diseases ranging from heart disease to Parkinson's disease to leukemia. Here we discuss the origin and properties of human ES cells, their implications for basic research and human medicine, and recent research progress...

https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm

Your posts also indicate you don't think any part of the human body begins developing in the first 8 weeks of life other than the gonads (or the potential gametes that will reside in/issue from or be produced by the gonads? or sumpin' like that). This too is not true.

Here's what happens in the first 4 weeks of human development:

  • All major systems and organs begin to form

  • The embryo looks like a tadpole

  • The neural tube (which becomes the brain and spinal cord), the digestive system, and the heart and circulatory system begin to form

  • The beginnings of the eyes and ears are developing

  • Tiny limb buds appear (which will develop into arms and legs)

  • The heart is beating

By the end of the 8th week of human embryo development:

  • All major body systems continue to develop and function, including the circulatory, nervous, digestive, and urinary systems

  • The embryo is taking on a human shape, although the head is larger in proportion to the rest of the body

  • The mouth is developing tooth buds (which will become baby teeth)

  • The eyes, nose, mouth, and ears are becoming more distinct

  • The arms and legs can be easily seen

  • The fingers and toes are still webbed, but can be clearly distinguished

  • The main organs continue to develop and you can hear the baby's heartbeat using an instrument called a Doppler

  • The bones begin to develop and the nose and jaws are rapidly developing

  • The embryo is in constant motion but cannot be felt by the mother ***

*** I don't believe this statement has ever been proven (and isn't hard to prove a negative anyway?) Indeed, many mothers would say our "lived experience" suggests it's a myth/belief/assertion made up by men that's not necessarily true. At all. Lots of women have reported having sensations in early pregnancy that we believe was movement of the embryo. Some women who've miscarried during the first eight weeks have said they could feel it happening. Lots of women can feel the moment we ovulate; if it's the case that we can feel when one of our ovaries releases an egg, why assume it's impossible for any of us to feel an embryo developing and moving in our uterus?

https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=first-trimester-85-P01218

BTW, before going any further down the rabbit hole of Dr Frankenstein scenarios that seem to have so captured your fancy, I think you would benefit by looking at some basic biology books online, as well as ones that explain/show how human embryos and fetuses develop. There's lots of illustrated material out their geared for expectant parents explaining what happens each step of the way.

I suspect if you looked into these matters further you'd find it's really not the case that today scientists only need "a lab and technology" to create a brave new world where, as you put it,

Everyone can produce sperm or egg, in the lab, if they take one of their somatic cells, or stem cells.

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1008676

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My confusion comes from the fact we all are a bunch of cells as embryos, during embryonic development, the stem cells become egg or sperm. That's what they do in the lab, they take the stem cell of someone, and turn it into sperm or egg, which is exactly what happens in embryonic development. They are redoing what happened to everyone of us when were were embryos in the lab now, recreating the same situation.

During embryonic development, stem cells become egg or sperm? I think you've got it backwards. Egg + sperm is what leads to embryonic development in the first place. According to Oxford dictionary and all other sources, an embryo is

an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular aa human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).

Also, during embryonic development and every other phase of life, all cells have sex chromosomes, and these sex chromosomes have wide-ranging effects.

https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/I.htm

Research on rodent and primate pre-implantation embryonic stem cells shows that

differential expression patterns are established in early embryogenesis, before hormonal influence is unleashed. At the level of pathway analysis, these expression differences integrate distinct networks and are dependent directly or indirectly on the sex chromosome complement. Thus, substantial contributions to sex-related differences occur prior to and possibly upstream of [prior to] gonadal sex determination.

Our datasets from XO ES cell lines are an important platform for understanding the impact of sex chromosome aneuploidies on pre-implantation embryogenesis and lineage determination. They will also contribute to refining the direct and indirect mechanisms by which the sex chromosomes interact with the autosomal component of the genome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5561606/

This paper - called Sex-Specific Gene Expression Differences Are Evident in Human Embryonic Stem Cells and During In Vitro Differentiation of Human Placental Progenitor Cells - said significant, extensive and surprising amounts of sexual differentiation are evident in human embryonic cells and in the precursors of placental cells at 6-7 days after fertilization, prior to or at the start of embryonic development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6916123/

[Edited to add: whilst the placenta is often described as an extra organ that a woman develops in order to gestate a pregnancy, all the cells in the placenta actually come from the offspring, not from the mother. Which is why genetic testing, including determining sex, of human offspring can be done early in utero via CVS, which involves snipping off a tiny bit of the part of the placenta known as chorionic villi. Today, the recommended time to do CVS is 11-15 weeks, but I had CVS in 1991 at 8 weeks.]

our results support the role of the sex chromosomes in establishing sex-specific networks early in embryonic development

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28818098/

BTW, apparently amongst scientists who use embryonic stem cells (ESCs), there's a history of widespread bias against researching XX cells as extensively as XY cells, which means that in stem cell research female stem cells are getting the same second-class treatment that female people and our health problems get in all other areas of medicine, science, politics and society:

Female pluripotent stem cells differ from males genetically, epigenetically and functionally (Choi et al., 2017a; Choi et al., 2017b; Ooi et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2014; Yagi et al., 2017; Zvetkova et al., 2005). Despite this, the vast majority of ESC research has been performed on male lines, leading to a substantial imbalance in our understanding of sex-specific pluripotency.

Gee, you think this might have something to do with the fact that most of these scientists so interested in manipulating and "mastering" stem cells and outwitting "mother nature" are men?

The first confirmed ESC line to be derived was male (Bradley et al., 1984). Subsequently, the ESC lines employed as workhorses cells for the field, E14, R1, J1 and Bruce4, were all male (Hooper et al., 1987; Kontgen et al., 1993; Li et al., 1992; Nagy et al., 1993). Strikingly, all of the 13 karyotyped ESC lines commercially available via the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) are male. This major imbalance has substantially hindered an understanding of how female and male pluripotency may differ and impeded study of female-specific processes in their native context, including X chromosome inactivation.

Despite, or perhaps because of the uniqueness of female ESCs, they are underrepresented in the literature compared to studies performed on male cells. Given the therapeutic potential of ESCs and iPSCs, it is of paramount importance to remedy this and therefore we created the Xmas ESC system. Through the use of the dual fluorescent X-linked reporter alleles in Xmas ESCs we are able to infer both the karyotype and transcriptional status of the female X chromosomes, being the feature that genetically, molecularly and functionally distinguishes female ESCs from males

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/768507v1.full

Also, I should point out that the trend of working with human embryonic cells is becoming passé. Coz in 2006, scientists figured out how to make cells that function as embryonic cells from adult stem cells and which have all the "pluripotent" capacities of embryonic cells. These are known as "induced pluripotent stem cells," or iPS cells. These kinds of stem cells used are preferred by many doing research and experimentation today because they don't raise the ethical issues that working directly with human embryonic cells inevitably lead to. Working with human embryonic cells means manipulating and usually destroying human embryos.

Significantly, iPS cells have been shown to function very differently depending on their sex chromosomes too:

The researchers discovered that female and male cells behave differently... and that this is due to their different number of X chromosomes – two in female cells and one in male cells.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/cell-science/news/lets-talk-about-sex-chromosomes-and-stem-cells-299890

https://www.cell.com/stem-cell-reports/fulltext/S2213-6711(18)30146-2

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the most detailed and understandable thing I have ever read, in the entirety of the time I have existed. The part you mentioned God complex made me question transhumanism, because this "conquer nature" plan to have humans reproduce non-sexually is a transhumanist idea, which doesn't stop there, transhumanists hope to one day even upload consciousness to computers and create a "matrix". Transhumanists want to get rid of nature, so perhaps to reach their goal there will be no mouse, plant, etc outside their labs to reproduce sexually. That's where they want to go. They want to reach a place there is no nature and everything is under human's, well transhuman's, control

I've tried to find philosophers or at least anyone knowledgeable in the field of science to a degree (they don't have to be a scientist, but know science to a degree that can be helpful) to debunk transhumanism and their ideas that it's possible for humans to so called "get around nature" like that, ultimately arguing transhumanism is impossible, do you know anyone that has written against transhumanism, and called their goals "impossible dreams"?

And what are your own thoughts on transhumanism, do you believe transhumanism is based upon misogyny?

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[Note: I made extensive additions to this post on Jan 16 to expand on the points made originally.]

To add to my earlier comments, I want to make it clear that there's a lot more to determining the sex of a plant or animal than just developing the anatomy early in life that will give an individual organism the potential capacity to generate/mature/release either sperm or ova at some later point in life. The gamete definition is the one biologists use coz it's the simplest and it applies universally to all sexually-reproducing species, plants and animals alike. But it's really only the starting point.

In utero, human embryos/fetuses whose development is typical will develop a lot of additional reproductive anatomy beyond the gonads from whence gametes eventually will issue.

In addition to beginning to develop testes in the 7th week, a human embryo on the male pathway that becomes a fetus typically will develop ancillary sex organs that include a penis and a prostate. The reproductive purpose of these ancillary sex organs is to facilitate the ejection of sperm from a male body and delivery of it into a female body so that the sperm will have a chance of meeting up with and possibly fertilizing an egg. For example, sperm can only pass through the male urethra and out the tip of the penis with the aid of fluids made by the prostate and other male glands.

In addition to developing ovaries in the 7th week, a human embryo on the female pathway that becomes a fetus typically will develop additional sex organs such as Fallopian tubes, a uterus (which includes the cervix), a vagina and a vulva (which itself has different parts, such as labia and clitoris). The reproductive purpose of these other sex organs is, first, to facilitate the entry of sperm into the female reproductive tract for the purpose of sperm reaching the Fallopian tubes and fertilizing an egg there. If fertilization occurs, the egg will travel to the uterus and become implanted in the uterine wall, then if the uterus grows a placenta, the fertilized egg will have a chance to develop into an embryo, then a fetus, and finally to become a baby. Once a human fetus in utero becomes old enough to survive outside the mother's body, labor will begin as the uterus contracts and the cervix - the neck of the uterus leading into the vagina - dilates many times larger than its normal size until it's about 10 cm wide, equivalent to the size of a standard coffee can lid or a bagel. Customarily, a mother will give birth via her vagina functioning as the "birth canal."

If if in any ovulatory cycle, the egg matured and released by the ovaries is not fertilized and not successfully implanted in the uterus, or no egg is released at all, the lining of a female human's uterus will slough off and pass out of the body in a process called menstruation. Allowing menses to exit the body is another of the reproductive functions of the very versatile human vagina.

But sex of course is not just about our gonads and other reproductive anatomy. The general rule is that human beings are determined to be male or female based on a list of five factors that are checked at or shortly after birth, and/or during utero, and often later in life as well, via a number of different means.

The five factors on he checklist are:

  • sex chromosomes, usually meaning XX or XY, but more specifically the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, more specifically the SRY gene normally on the Y;

  • the type of gonads (testes or ovaries);

  • the anatomy of the external genitals including arrangement of urinary anatomy (vulva and female urethra vs testicles, penis and male urethra );

  • the internal reproductive organs a person has (such as vagina, uterus, Fallopian tubes in females and prostate in males);

  • the individual's sex hormones and sex hormone receptors.

The means for checking for these factors have always included physical examinations of newborns that involve looking carefully at their genitalia, and examinations and other investigations later on as well if during adolescence or adulthood a person's secondary sex characteristics and bodily processes depart from the norm. But nowadays, it's also very common for additional means to be used to ascertain human sex as well. The additional means now in wide use include genetic testing of fetuses in utero and of infants following birth; scanning of fetuses whilst still inside their mothers' bodies (pregnant women today commonly get fetal sonograms by 20 weeks, often earlier); scanning of individuals' bodies later in life when outside their mothers' wombs to ascertain exactly which internal organs they have; endocrinological testing to test for the presence and levels of an array of sex hormones.

It used to be thought that human sex differentiation began in utero began when the gonads first start developing at around 7 weeks, and that all the other sex differences were primarily the result of the sex hormones that issued from the gonads. But it's now been found that sex differences can be observed in the primitive progenitor cells of embryos much earlier than 7 weeks - they've been found at 6-7 days so far, and with more research it might well turn out that they exist even earlier. Therefore, since sex differences once thought to follow from and be the result of gonadal differentiation and gonadal sex hormones have been shown to actually predate both, the theory is that many/most physical sex differences are directly caused by the sex chromosomes themselves.

Not only do sex chromosomes exist in every single cell in our bodies, it's become abundantly clear in recent years that they affect not just how our sex organs develop and work, but how ALL our organs and body systems develop and function. The diseases and medical conditions we are susceptible to, the trajectory of those conditions and diseases, the treatments and the likely outcomes, are all strongly influenced by our sex chromosomes.

For example, whilst COVID-19 affects both sexes, and in many countries more women than men have gotten it, the likelihood of needing ICU care and dying from COVID is much higher in persons with XY chromosomes than persons with XX chromosomes even when all other factors (age, obesity, underlying health conditions, race, etc) are the same. I haven't checked recently, but when I looked at the issue in the late summer and early fall, males were twice as likely to die of COVID than females, and three times as likely to end up in an ICU due to it.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I remember a GC told me that definition is only true for males, because females come with all the gametes, and just release them, they don't produce gametes.

It was I who said that. Also, to be precise, I said that female humans are born with all our eggs intact - I didn't say it about any other animals or plants. I am not versed in what happens in all sexually reproducing species, just somewhat familiar with what happens in humans.

https://www.naturalcycles.com/cyclematters/5-facts-about-the-female-egg-cell

Further, I didn't say that female humans "just release" our eggs, I said we mature and release them. The maturation process is of prime importance, and it's pretty complex.

https://www.yourhormones.info/glands/ovaries/

BTW, I have contacted a number of biologists and persons who write/talk about biology about the bias I think is inherent in the choice to use the "produce gametes" lingo. IMO, it represents a mindset that sees the male of the human species as the default and the norm. But no one has ever replied to my concerns so far. Perhaps in the future...

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And also, since the definition of a man is an organism that has sperm, and the definition of a woman is an organism that has eggs: I believe if only two "men", only two "women", or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between man and woman, egg and sperm. The only difference between egg and sperm was we thought only sperm fertilized egg, nothing else.

You've started out with a false premise based on erroneous definitions.

No, the definition of a man is NOT "an organism that has sperm," and the definition of a woman is NOT "an organism that has eggs."

A man is an adult human male; a woman is an adult human female.

Biologists base their definition of male and female on whether an organism during early development formed the reproductive anatomy that provides the potential capacity to produce/generate/release either sperm or ova - the male and female gametes, respectively - at some point later in life. Biologists use this gamete-focused definition to divide organisms that reproduce sexually into two distinct, mutually exclusive categories - male and female - because it's applicable to all sexually-reproducing species across the board - plants and animals alike.

During the earliest phases of life, all individual plants and animals belonging to sexually-reproducing species will develop along one of two different pathways - male or female - based on their DNA.

In humans, an individual on the male pathway will develop whilst still in utero reproductive anatomy organized around the potential capacity to produce sperm, aka male gametes, at a later point in life. Sperm are made in the testes, the male gonads.

A human individual on the female pathway will develop whilst still in utero reproductive anatomy organized around the potential capacity to mature and release eggs, aka female gametes, on a cyclical basis at a later point in life. Eggs reside in and later will be released from the ovaries, the female gonads.

Sex differentiation in humans begins very early on - the two different types of gonads start developing at 7 weeks, but myriad sex differences in embryonic stem cells have been found at 6-7 days and most likely exist from the start. By current methods of genetic testing, CVS and the NIPT, sex chromosomes and genetic anomalies, including those affecting sex development (DSDs) can be ascertained at 8 weeks. Visible sex characteristics can be easily observed by standard fetal sonograms that are customarily done at 18-20 weeks - and now are often done earlier for "sex reveal" reasons. (BTW, the normal gestation period for a human is 40 weeks.)

Male humans whose development proceeds typically in utero and afterwards will normally start to be able to produce sperm during puberty, which usually begins age 10-12. Male humans able to produce sperm usually will continue to do so the rest of their lives. When males make sperm, they do so in very large quantity - about 100 million sperm each time.

Female humans whose development proceeds typically in utero are born with all their eggs already in our ovaries. In the early stages of development, female humans will have about 6-7 million eggs that are extremely fragile and soon begin to die off. By the time she is born, a female human will have only 1 million eggs. By the time she reaches puberty, she will have circa 300,000 eggs left.

During puberty, female humans typically become able to mature and release our eggs, in a cyclical process that occurs monthly called ovulation.

But unlike male humans, who produce millions of sperm each time they ejaculate, female humans usually mature and release only one egg each time we ovulate - or in rare circumstances two or a few eggs. (Medical intervention with drugs to hyper-stimulate the ovaries is almost always required to get a woman to release more eggs.)

Whereas human males with normal sex development will have the capacity to produce sperm from puberty to death, human females with normal sex development will have the capacity to mature and release eggs only for a portion of life - from puberty until menopause. Since the average age of female human puberty is 11 and the average age of menopause is 51, this portion of a female human's life usually lasts about 40 years. Given that the average human female lifespan in many countries nowadays is 84+ - and some places it's nearly 90 - this means a majority of female humans who live a full lifespan will naturally have the capacity to mature and release eggs for less than half our lives.

Some humans will never have the capacity to produce, or to mature and release, gametes because they have very rare medical conditions that cause sex development in utero to be atypical. Some humans will develop the capacity to produce and release gametes as expected, but for various reasons their gametes won't function normally, so reproduction by natural means will be difficult or impossible.

Many other humans will lose their ability to produce, or to mature and release, gametes over the course of their lives due to accidents, disease or medical treatment such as chemotherapy - and because for female humans, losing this ability is the natural result of menopause.

In humans, being male or female is not based whether any of us "has" sperm or eggs right now this very second the way OP says. Nor is it based on whether we were able to produce or to mature and release gametes at every moment of every day in the past, or will have the capacity to do so every moment of every day in the future. The human capacity to generate/release ova or sperm naturally varies over each of our lifespans.

Human males can't make sperm before puberty. Human females are born with all our eggs, but we only obtain the ability to mature and release them at puberty - and we naturally lose this ability at/after menopause. Moreover, even during the years of our lives when female humans are capable of maturing and releasing eggs, we don't do so in vast numbers or spontaneously upon orgasm the way male humans do with sperm. We release our eggs one by one in a cyclical process that is not prompted by sexual arousal, orgasm or sexual behavior, and which we can't make happen by having sexy thoughts, watching porn, masturbating or by closing our eyes, making a wish and commanding our bodies to "ovulate now!"

Generally speaking, a human female will release one egg a month, or 12 a year. However, between menarche and menopause, most girls' and women's ovulation cycles will vary in length - so some years, an individual will release 8 or 9 eggs, other years twice as many.

TL, DR: The key element in how biologists define female and male in all sexually-reproducing species is which kind of gamete - egg or sperm - that early in development an organism developed the potential capacity to produce at some point later in life. Not whether one "has" or can generate sperm or eggs right now this very second.

As for all the rest of your post, none of it makes logical sense to me. Humans have figured out all sorts of ways to outsmart, "conquer" and attempt to override nature, but none of those efforts mean nature no longer exists.

Even if scientists are successful at bringing animal and human offspring into being without sexual reproduction, chances are that as sexually-reproducing plants and animal species will still continue reproducing the old-fashioned way that's been going on for the last 1-2 billion years.

The development of agriculture didn't stop animals and plants from growing in the wild. Plant hybridization and animal breeding haven't stopped evolution amongst plants and animals from going on naturally. Cloning sheep and making mouse embryos through artificial means in laboratories won't stop sheep and mice who live outside those labs from reproducing through sex. The invention and use of IVF, IUI and other methods of medically-assisted reproduction doesn't mean most of the human race has stopped conceiving babies by fucking - or that most people would prefer to do so, either.

Also, whether the offspring of sexually-reproducing species comes from the merging of ova and sperm or through some newfangled method that mad (and almost always male) scientists with god complexes come up with, the offspring themselves will all still have a sex - won't they?

NONE of the stories of the lab feats you seem so excited about say the cells that these scientists are working with - and all the embryos they are creating, or trying to bring into being - lack sex chromosomes. [Edit to add: links I've posted in other replies reveal that the cells these scientists are working with are typically male cells. Coz sex discrimination against female cells is the norm in lab research.)

Also, you might want to look into Lysenkoism.

Finally, enthusiasm for news reports that say such things as

Scientists say early experiments suggest it may one day be possible to make babies without using eggs.

“We’re talking about different ways of making embryos. Imagine that you could take skin cells and make embryos from them. This would have all kinds of utility.”

Artificial wombs and embryos made from skin cells – remarkable new techniques could revolutionise reproductive biology

And

A new paper published in Nature journal by a team led by professor Nicolas Rivron, from the MERLN Institute of Maastricht University, is making headlines around the world. The research sees scientists grow a very early stage embryo in a laboratory without eggs or sperm.

Seems highly correlated with misogyny. This can be the misogyny of boys and men with deep, abiding womb envy and rage and covetousness towards females - or it can be the internalized misogyny of girls and women who loathe their own bodies; look down on their own sex for having the capacity to conceive, gestate, give birth to and breastfeed babies; and often have serious issues with their mothers and others they perceive as mother figures.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some thoughts in light of your post and this comment:

Obviously reproductive capacity and production of gametes is a major aspect of sex, but sex goes beyond reproduction as well. As many other GC, scientists, and doctors have said before, sex influences all levels of your biology, effecting every cell, effecting your physical and mental functioning. The way disease manifests differs from males to females. Different symptomologies, needs, treatment efficacities, etc. Even the ability of your cells to differentiate between male and female occurs in utero and is not a simple 'male/female' switch, but a complex biological cascade. And then, this development effects far more than just the gametes you produce.

So, even if gametes could be completely artificially lab-made and 'pregnancy' be conducted in tubes in institutions a la Brave New World, material sex based reality still has obvious and measurable impact on our lives.

I also think that artificially changing these cells is not a good argument for a male body producing female gametes because it's not the male body doing that, it's a transhumanist sci-fi idea that fails to take the intricacies of pregnancy and child-mother bonding into account among other factors. And, the male body could not magically support pregnancy either. Gametes are one aspect of sex, but a condition that destroys your ability to carry gametes doesn't change your sex. Not every female reproduces, this doesn't mean she isn't female.

It's strange that QT seeks to abolish such a basic principle of life, particularly with these hypothetical "thought experiment" questions, all the while advocating to enforce stereotypical social constructs of gender. Especially when there are so many concrete questions that could and should be addressed concerning these concepts. It's a bit baffling.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The definition for male and female is defined by the organism that produces those gametes, not who has them.

I remember a GC told me that definition is only true for males, because females come with all the gametes, and just release them, they don't produce gametes.

My confusion comes from the fact we all are a bunch of cells as embryos, during embryonic development, the stem cells become egg or sperm. That's what they do in the lab, they take the stem cell of someone, and turn it into sperm or egg, which is exactly what happens in embryonic development. They are redoing what happened to everyone of us when were were embryos in the lab now, recreating the same situation.

You have cells that can become sperm or egg, I have cells that can become sperm or egg, etc. Everyone can produce sperm or egg, in the lab, if they take one of their somatic cells, or stem cells.

That in my view is still the production of gametes, meeting your first definition of sex. You'd just be artificially producing the gametes instead of them naturally coming from you on their own.

What is a 'male' or a 'female' when both are capable of artificially producing both gametes, and all they need for the production of both gametes is a lab and technology?

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]emptiedriver 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If nonsexual reproduction becomes the norm, then which sex you are will become far less important. I don't think it means that which sex you are is no longer true, it will just be a much less notable fact if society becomes so dependent on technology that we create all our young through nonsexual means and do not use our reproductive systems.

If those reproductive systems still exist in our bodies, then we will still be that sex, though, and it will still have some effect on the way that our bodies work - female bodies have a whole extra internal organ system that male bodies do not have, to prepare for and eventually bear a child. Female bodies menstruate regularly in order to be able to do that. Maybe in your high tech asexual reproductive version of the future female bodies are routinely altered since these systems aren't needed anymore? They would still need to go through additional surgeries that male bodies wouldn't need. And males would still have the penis, testicles and prostrate that a female doesn't, and additional doses of testosterone throughout childhood. It just comes down to the distinctions of the bodies that we have in preparation to be able to create the offspring. We can come up with alternate ways to procreate, but naturally we reproduce sexually and that means there are two types of bodies. We can alter them, but we can't turn them into each other. We can find other ways to make young, but that still doesn't take away the bodies we have.

The future may be very different in many ways and sex may become less important as a category going forward, but it is still relevant today and should not be erased in confusion. Even when it theoretically becomes less important, it will still be a fact.

GC: If only two "men", only two "women" or someone on their own can create an embryo/baby, then there is no difference between "man" and "woman", "egg" and "sperm", and they are man-made socially constructed categories that don't actually exist. If you disagree, please explain your reasons by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]verypeaktransNot GC but overlaps with GC 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The definition for male and female is defined by the organism that produces those gametes, not who has them. Male seahorses incubate eggs in their pouch. They have eggs - they didn't make them, and they are still male. I can hold a handful of sperm, I'm not a male. You can turn my skin into sperm, I didn't produce it, still not male. Also, a baby still has to be carried in a uterus, which is a female organ in a female.

Even if everything you said was possible for humans to do today, that will not make male and female social constructs. Gender identity is a social construct. There is no scientific basis it. Meanwhile Male and female are written into our DNA. That will not change.

Consider this: a dog can interbreed with a wolf. Any dog can. They are technically the same species. Does that mean dogs and wolves are meaningless distinctions that we made up? If you think so, I don't think you know much at all about dogs, wolves, or domestication.

The language distortions of QT are astounding. I think it would be miserable to live in a world that required so much thinking about if black and white are real or imagined or if you could make black into white if you rationalized it enough. Sounds exhausting.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But segregated spaces is not the answer.

Why? It greatly decreased rape cases, it greatly decreased stress among teen girls, it greatly increased visits of toilets and bathrooms by females (as with unisex ones, a lot of teen girls and often adult human females were just going toilet or changing clothings only at home, and then bearing it up on lessons or work, and going toilet again only at home after work). So it works and gives big advantage. What does removing segregation will achieve? All the progress will be just reversed, rape cases would raise up, visiting of those spaces by females will drop down, stress of females in those places will raise up again. I see no reason of removing segregation, and I can't understand how it can help women at all. It may help small percentage of males (and will make everything easier to predators as well), thought, and that's it. Even men would feel more uncomfortable like that - in my school and first job we had unisex bathroom and unisex changing room. Most boys and men were prefering to NOT use them together with girls or women, we were going in two different groups, boys at first, as they need much less time, and then group of girls. But it only work if going in groups, thought. Changing it from unisex to segregated spaces, trippled the effectiveness of them, and make it more comfortable and easy for everyone, plus you could just go solo and be fine. So what the point of removing segregation, if it helps to females A LOT and helps males a bit?

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I've been using both men's and unisex restrooms without a problem.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bathrooms are separated by stalls. I think we should eliminate gaps in the stalls but that's another issue. But it shouldn't matter who is in the next stall, as long as they are minding their own business. But segregated spaces is not the answer.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

it's their behavior that is a problem, not their presence.

If it was so easy to fix men's behaviour, rape and trafficing cases would be almost non existent, and sex segregation with safe spaces would not be needed.

Men, especially young boys, often do not understand what is menstruation. Menstruation talks is still taboo even in the western world, where advertisement can be removed from TV, because "it is gross" or "explanation of putting tampon inside looks too sexual". In other countries menstruation is considered "dirty" and in some religions women during menstruation has less rights and are not allowed to do some activities. In some countries there are menstruation huts because of how it seen.

Girl may have her first menstruation, is confused and ashamed about her body acting this strange - and then boys, who never could even remotely understand how it feels "will be boys" and even lighthearted joke can hurt that girl.

In unisex spaces in Korea there is huge problem with spy-cams and holes in toilets to "look through". It happens in women's toilets too there, thought, but on a lesser scale than in unisex toilets.

And so on.

I am both hands up on fixing such men's behaviour, on rapists dissapearing and rapes not happenign anymore, on destigmatizing menstruation, on providing sanitary products to women in need. And until this all is not fixed - we do need segregated and safe spaces for women. And even after we still will need some women spaces just for comfort, as our needs with men are a bit different, and sometimes women just want to be away from men in a world made for men.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Previously you said

I've been using men's rooms since I was a teenager and never had a problem.

Now you say

This has nothing to do with unisex bathrooms, which I have been using for years without a problem.

So which is it? Is it "men's rooms" or "unisex bathrooms" which you've been using "since I was a teenager/for years"? Also, exactly how long a period are you speaking of? It's not at all clear whether you were a teenager two or 20 years ago.

The larger point is that the issues being discussed on this thread are not about you and what you as a lone individual have a problem with or have personally experienced.

I do recall an incident in high school where I was harassed by fellow cis girls in the locker room. That's OK apparently, because we're all females.

Again, this is not about you - it's about the nearly 8 billion human inhabitants of planet earth.

Also, no one here has said any kind of harassment is OK. Girls and women are perfectly capable of being unkind, cruel and/or abusive to others of the opposite and our own sex.

But just coz girls and women can be guilty of harassment and bullying doesn't mean we should get rid of all safeguards put in place to protect female people from predation, abuse, intimidation, harassment, menacing, stalking and assault by members of the opposite sex.

Finally, for the record, during childhood and adolescence pretty much everyone gets harassed, bullied, picked on, razzed at some point, or frequently. Even the "cis" girls and "cool kids." This can be deeply unpleasant to go through, but it's closer to a universal human experience than one unique to you.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You know, this is refreshing advice, much appreciated. I'll take you up on it. It's easy to get tunnel vision and forget the bigger picture of life and suffering. Also, I'm fairly active in GC circles but I also tend to soften my wording is debate in order not to alienate the other side- but truly why, when their views alienate me and my sex?

It must be horrible to feel so unhappy and disconnected from oneself, and it is horrible to recognize the sexist stereotypes and attitudes in society, but that doesn't mean our bodies are actually wrong or that society's expectations of sex roles and expression must be adhered to. You're right, the sexist tinge that accompanies it is extremely distasteful, and more the demands of many from this group are increasingly selfish and narcissistic.

The delusions of the involved individuals and the cult-behavior of the group are difficult to address and get through as outsiders because of how deeply entrenched they are, especially as the villainous GC, so it's more beneficial to challenge the views of the supporters who have not critically examined the ideology. That being said, I'm still hoping someone who is QT will approach the question of self-id and the 'no-true-scotsman' fallacy.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Girls in africa miss school because they are humiliated for having a period, and there is lack of access to menstrual products like pads or cups or even a lack of bathrooms. One 14 year old girl took her own life after being humiliated by a teacher after having her period and staining her uniform.

Kenyan schoolgirl takes her own life after 'period shaming'

Globally, periods are causing girls to be absent from school

Why Periods Are Keeping Girls Out of School & How You Can Help

This has nothing to do with unisex bathrooms, which I have been using for years without a problem. If someone is harassing someone else, it's their behavior that is a problem, not their presence. Though I do recall an incident in high school where I was harassed by fellow cis girls in the locker room. That's OK apparently, because we're all females.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes I agree, but in practice it is simply not cost efficient to build a separate prison for less than one percent of the population, which is why I also tend to fall back on a separate wing in the prison of their birth sex as a compromise. It's not a compromise that's well received though, because often they wish to completely co-opt women's spaces. Why? Validation? Exploitation? Whatever it is, it doesn't justify the adverse effects of housing natal males in women's prisons and on other institutions/services.

Again, it is a matter of objective, material, measurable reality versus subjective, internal, individual ideology. I don't see why the latter should ever prevail over the former, and I am still waiting for a QT to analyze how some people's individual gender ideologies are more or less valid than others and how they can tell the difference.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes no worries I didn't take it as contrary! You outlined these issues well and I appreciate the ideas I hadn't deeply considered before. Definitely a lot of nuance gets overlooked in these debates.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope you don't mind if I offer a piece of unsolicited advice: as a thought experiment, stop using the terms "dysphoria" and "dysphoric" and "gender dysphoria" for a couple of weeks and instead describe these people and the source of their distress more accurately. People with "gender dysphoria" are simply unhappy sexists who feel distress over/unease with their own natal sex coz they are covetous of the bodies and perceived privileges, advantages and "goodies" they mistakenly believe are the exclusive domain of the opposite sex.

There are tons of people past and present who've had to shoulder all sorts of physical and psychological conditions that are just as, or are far more, painful, distressing, life-limiting and socially disadvantageous than "gender dysphoria." Why is transpain seen as the only kind of suffering that counts?

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, we agree in general and probably as far as lot of the specifics go too. I wasn't trying to be contrary, I was just attempting to point out some of the complex, nuanced issues that get totally ignored or papered over by the simplistic, superficial positions taken by trans campaigners and those trying to "be kind".

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is literally no downside to id-ing as a woman in prison. You get special treatment and the women prisoners can't complain.

Personally I'm in favor of trans only prisons, or parts of prisons. You want to get out of the gen pop in the mens prison? Fine, but you don't get to have access to women.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I also agree that sex is immutable. That gender identity has no actual bearing in reality, and that it actually becomes a performative obsession for many of those who follow this ideology. I personally don't believe in a "true trans" either, as dysphoria is also a mental condition that doesn't actually mean one's sex is wrong. As a GC feminist and someone educated in science and law, I have a firm view of gender identity as a mental issue or naivety exacerbated and encouraged by specific social spheres which is having adverse impact in many areas of life. I can feel compassion for the internal turmoil of dysphorics, but I don't believe that means the problem is with society at large, nor that it means we must redefine words like woman to be circular and stereotypically based rather than rooted in clear and measurable fact. What I don't understand, though, is self-id, and why it's so widely accepted with little to no push back despite the clear implications.

But the QT group often makes these arguments, about dysphoric trans and non-dysphoric trans, and about real trans people and fake trans people, which is why I wanted to hear how they reason the inconsistency.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think in general we agree but you've made some amazing points here that I definitely overlooked. Particularly about vulnerabilities within the same-sex group, and how is a trans identity deserving of different treatment for this reason? I usually fall back on creating third spaces as it seems like the best way to ensure women's rights are upheld all the while catering to trans conceptions of safe spaces, but you've given me some things to look into.

Also, the idea of incarceration based on severity of offense is another good point. Where I live males have been imprisoned with females despite being convicted of sex crimes and then actually sexually assaulted the female inmates, so having them separate from females has been my biggest concern, but of course it does make more sense to imprison based on the concrete measures of sex, crime, and risk without feeding the idea of internal gender identity as holding weight in these circumstances. TRA usually argue that transwomen would be incredibly vulnerable in male prison, but that ties into your first point about in-group vulnerabilities, and of course ignores both female vulnerabilities and the pervasive dangers of self-id.

The issue keeps coming back to the fact that gender identity is not a tangible condition. It cannot be measured, so the conditions to join the group are largely arbitrary. This self-identification and the subsequent demand to receive special treatment and inclusion in groups not designed for them is unfortunately impacting medicine and law where I live, which is why I'm curious how we can allow the self-id of the few to eclipse the needs, rights, and vulnerabilities of the majority.

Thanks for your thoughts and the links!

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]pollyesther 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Than find a company that welcomes your transphobia.

You act like finding another job is that simple. It's not. Many of us depend on an income to survive, for food, shelter, clothing, health, etc. If you threaten to take those away simply because someone expresses a different belief about gender identity, you are essentially compelling speech for people who can't afford to lose their jobs. I should be allowed to say trans women aren't women on my Facebook page without having to worry about losing my income.

When I was at my college orientation, they told us harassment is prohibited and one of the examples of harassment they gave is not using someone's preferred pronouns. This is CUNY, my cities only public university system with 28 colleges. Eventually I had a professor who decided she was going by they/them pronouns. If I refused, I would be kicked out of college and unable to transfer credits for a year, even though the pronoun thing goes entirely against what I believe in. I could go to a private college and earn new credits, only to learn they have the same pronoun policy because the trans ideology is EVERYWHERE. We don't really have a choice. We want to have a choice. We want people to stop compelling us to play along with the gander ideology, that's all.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I acknowledge that it wouldn't be safe to have them grouped with their birth sex either after surgery and such.

But little boys from age 8 on have always had to use men's loos, locker rooms, change rooms etc. Same goes for slight and pretty adolescent males - gay and straight - who haven't filled out yet and might be sexually preyed upon, robbed or otherwise assaulted by other males. Same goes for frail, elderly men. Ditto males of all ages with learning and mental disabilities, visual impairments, cognitive decline, Down's syndrome, ASD...and so on.

Why are males who ID as trans so special? Why should they get favorable treatment over all other males who are just as vulnerable or even more so?

I remember during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and 1990s watching as men in droves literally wasted away and became incredibly frail and vulnerable in the prime of their lives. None of these men said that because they'd become so weak and vulnerable, they should have the right to use women's loos and change rooms so as to lower their risk of being assaulted, insulted, ostracized, picked on and/or given side-eye by other males who were stronger and in robust health and could have easily decked, mugged or killed them. None of these men when they were hospitalized demanded to be placed in women's wards, or to share rooms with female patients.

For example, transwomen should have their own wing in a prison,

In the US, males who claim to be "trans" often do have separate sections in male prisons.

But segregating males in male prison by gender identity is complicated and unworkable coz prison placements are made depending on inmates' offending profiles and the very real security risks they pose - not on their inner gender feelings, their view of themselves, or their fantasy lives. Some male convicts need to be in maximum security prison, some in medium security, and some require super-maximum security prisons. Also, many prisons in the US and UK are for male sex offenders only.

The problem of basing prison placement on men's claimed "gender identities" is illustrated by the case of "Tiffany" Scott, formerly known as Andrew Burns, "one of the most dangerous (male) prisoners" in modern Scottish history:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/1492364/transgender-prisoner-tiffany-scott-andrew-burns-dangerous-sheriff/

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-prisoner-branded-one-scotlands-11837767

And what about Stephen Hayes, one of the killers who committed the grisly "Cheshire Murders" and rapes in the US state of Connecticut? Hayes is considered so brutal and dangerous that he's serving his six life sentences in a super-max prison in Pennsylvania, coz Connecticut doesn't have a prison with such high security.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/us/steven-hayes-cheshire-transgender.html

https://www.womenarehuman.com/man-identifies-as-transgender-after-conviction-for-home-invasion-rapes-triple-murder-of-woman-her-daughters/

Significantly, Hayes only began claiming he's suffered from "gender dysphoria" since his teens and has always "identified as" as woman right after Connecticut passed a law saying all convicts in the state have a right to be housed in prison based on their "gender identities" rather than according to their sex, their crimes, their records and their security risk.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-ap-trans-inmates-connecticut-law-20180526-story.html

As you can see, the CT law also gives inmates the right to have their bodies searched - including searches that involve looking at and touching the genitals and cavities - by persons of the sex matching the inmates' professed "gender identities." This is basically a taxpayer-funded license for these men to sexually harass, humiliate and fuck with the heads of female corrections officers.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do not think the following two questions have good answers and because of that my views are very black and white or zero and one on these matters. What does it mean for someone to be trans? How is that distinguishable from falsely claiming it? The flippant answers to the first question do not stand up to scrutiny and attempt render words meaningless. There simply are no good answers, flippant or not, to the second. Gender is a useless concept at best. You are, we all are, our physical bodies. We know what men and a women are because of their physical characteristics. No exceptions and no confusion over 0.02% of the population will make a man a woman or vice versa. There is no "but what about this population or this group of people here" that will then lead anyone back to a guy with a penis and jizz-stained everything in his room and then conclude "see, that's a woman and specifically a trans woman but since twaw uwu it's a woman".

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]comradeconradical[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree with everything you said here. I have indeed seen this phenomenon for prisons and women's shelters, as well as women's support groups, lesbian dating, bathrooms, etc.

The logical conclusion is, yes, keep these groups separate. I personally think even 'true' trans people should have their own spaces instead of those of their birth or desired sex, because I acknowledge that it wouldn't be safe to have them grouped with their birth sex either after surgery and such. But, that doesn't mean I think women's spaces should be compromised. For example, transwomen should have their own wing in a prison, not be grouped with female inmates. Women and transwomen have different life experiences and needs, but so too do men and transwomen. I don't think it's wrong to provide for female needs to the exclusion of transwomen who can't possibly have the same needs, and I don't think it's wrong to have trans spaces.

But, that being said, most TRA continue to exclaim both 'TWAW/TMAM' as well as claiming self-identification as the legitimate determinant of trans identity. But, if they want to make both these statements, and then denounce the 'bad apples' as being 'not trans', logical consistency is missing. As such, I want them to explain why they think self-identification is a proper method of identifying 'true trans people' and what it means when that fails.

QT: How do we determine who is identifying as trans in bad faith under self-identification? by comradeconradical in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is same as with men.

Majority of men are not rapists or paedo and not dangerous to kids and women. However, overwhelming majority of rapists are men. Overwhelming majority of violent crimes is done by men. Overwhelming majorities crimes against women are done by men and not by women.

There no way to distinguish between "good men" and "bad men". So...we not allowing ANY of them in women safe spaces. That's it.

prisons

Prisons are actually showing that acting in bad faith is very easy. At least two men in UK who were in prison for violent crimes identified as woman in prison and were moved to female prison, and after going out of prison they stopped being transwomen anymore and went being just men. Man who was asked to leave women's toilet by women there in Norway changed self-ID in internet that same day and tried to sue one of them. After court ended, he returned on being man again.

Bad actors and criminals already have no good morales in the first place, so making a bit more easy lies to get access to victims - is nothing to them.

And such behavior by bad actors and letting bad actors freedom to act like this - will not just hurt women a lot, but it also will hurt transgender movement as a whole.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Unixes spaces are creating huge problems and are dangerous for women. In Africa because of unisex toilets, teen girls are not coming to school during menstruation, and getting behind, for example. In western world at least third of rapes by strangers are happening in public multi-cab unisex toilets as well. Public locker rooms and dressing rooms unisex are complete nonsense as well. In majority of cases unisex spaces are unconvinient or harmful for women. And because you are fine with them (I suppose you almost never using those?) - does not mean that majority of women would be fine with this and that it will help women at all.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]emptiedriver 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Definitions do not have exceptions. That’s the point of a definition

Definitions in the real world have exceptions. Only abstract definitions can be absolute. Unfortunately in the actual, material world, nothing's perfect. Every category has mutations, accidents, deformed or experimental versions that don't exactly fit the standard. But, that's life. We still use categories. How far from the standard something can go before we have to make a new category can be an argument, but in this case there are two categories, and if someone fits one and not the other, there's no need to argue over it. Trans women who have male bodies fit the sex category of "man" and not "woman", so the whole intersex issue is a red herring. There may be intersex individuals who are hard to categorize - as happens in the natural world occasionally when categorizing - but that is not the problem with trans women. They are trying to change the meaning of the category from sexual reproductive system to social role.

The meaning of woman is a physical sex, not a social performance or personal feeling. That part is your personality or mental identity, but it's nothing to do with your biological sex, which is just about whether you produce eggs or sperm. It's a physical category, like what blood type you have or what color your hair is. All the connotations, assumptions, tendencies, capacities and secondary characteristics that come with your sex are more complicated - but they don't change the basic criteria of the category.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]ZveroboyAlina 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like you want to separate everyone who thinks differently, anyone whose beliefs don’t line up with yours, you want to push them away and reclassify them as other than (despite it making no sense since biologically, physiologically, you have more in common with gc females than a TW)

Such politics and behaviour has a name, it starts with "fa-" and ends with "-ism". There is "sc" somewhere in the middle of that word as well.

And in general, authoritharism is very right-wing behaviour.

I gotta say, you using being Jewish as a counter argument while you’re arguing to silence and isolate those who don’t practice your beliefs is, well it’s a bit ironic and a lot tone deaf to say the least.

It is very ironic, not just a bit.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]ZveroboyAlina 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

whole argument of mEn cAn Get pRegNanT tOo

Is meaningless, because no man can get pregnant, only transmen can, and it makes them to be very different from all other men and make them closer with women in this regard. To become a transman one must to be born female, people who were born male can't become transman and can't get pregnant.

So only "men" who were born female and "women" who were born female can possibly gave birth and get pregnant. And same with a lot of other biological, physical and even social facts. This means they all are grouped under "AFAB" for many things, and we again got to defining them by their sex, not by their visual representation of themselves.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]ZveroboyAlina 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is nothing to prove trans women are men and trams men are women.

That is the only thing that is provable, that they are men biologically and socially. There no way to prove someone's feelings and what they believe, except by asking them, and people can answer anything. And how do they know that what they think women are feel is what women are feel?

trams

Trams are not humans. Funny typo.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]ZveroboyAlina 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would treat male rapists the same as female rapists. Though to be honest I think our prisons need more oversight and there should be stricter security for violent offenders.

There is one "small" difference, men are stronger and can make women pregnant, while women don't.

women are more likely to be QT than men.

This not makes you wonder why there is such an upraise among women to become "he/they" and "anything but woman"?

I think sports is the only thing that should be sex segregated.

Why only sports? Why everywhere else, where sex segregation always mattered - it stopping to matter, while in sport it still matters?

Why someone like Alex Drummond, who saying "I am woman" but leaving beard and looking like a regular man, should have access to female rape shelters or to examine women after rape? Why mental state of women there does not matter? Why sex segregation here should not matter and "gender identity is a mental state" should metter, while mental state of vulnereable women does not?

Most of us define ourselves by our gender identity.

Most of us does not define ourselves by any identity. No one I know ourside of internet, except one transwoman, have any feeling of gender identity and can't understand how you can feel yourself separated from your own body.

Trans women are women, not men who think they're women.

There nothing to prove that transwomen are adult human females.

Gender identity is a mental state.

Why mental state matters more than biological reality?

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneGCAF[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Eta- I think you do the classic tra/qt thing of not addressing a lot of things and acting as if your personal views are factual. Idk if you’re just very young or an actual narcissist but I’m convinced it is one of those if not both (I excuse a level of “I I I, me me me” in younger people, but as I said idk your age). you don’t seem to be capable of thinking outside of yourself and your beliefs. I read what MarkTwaniac has been saying and I have to agree. You don’t seem to have a great understanding of what you’re discussing. Be it biology, female oppression, or even qt talking points. You seem to be regurgitating what qt/tras have taught you, without much understanding (which- it’s an illogical and desperate ideology that contradicts itself and is ever evolving to suit their most current desire, so I can’t fault you there). You don’t really address points, and seem unable to explain/elaborate on your own. You just tell people who don’t think like you to find new environments. Like you want to separate everyone who thinks differently, anyone whose beliefs don’t line up with yours, you want to push them away and reclassify them as other than (despite it making no sense since biologically, physiologically, you have more in common with gc females than a TW)- I gotta say, you using being Jewish as a counter argument while you’re arguing to silence and isolate those who don’t practice your beliefs is, well it’s a bit ironic and a lot tone deaf to say the least.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneGCAF[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Than find a company that welcomes your transphobia.

Lmao it’s not transphobic to speak the truth or to say something that you don’t agree with. You keep throwing out the word transphobia- but you never explain how it’s actually transphobic. It’s not transphobic to disagree with tras and trans people.

But most of us don't define ourselves by our biology and many external sex characteristics like genitalia or appearance can be modified.

Actually “most of us” don’t define ourselves by our “gender identity”. Most of us just understand what our sex is and have no issues. Like 99% of us. And sure genitalia can be modified but a neovagina made out of a penis is not a female sex organ and a neophallus is not a male sex organ so it doesn’t matter what anyone does to their genitals, it doesn’t change sex.

You're the one that claimed that there are multiple studies that trans people are narcissists.

There are. Me telling you to google it doesn’t make that untrue lol

Gender identity is a mental state. Most of us define ourselves by our gender identity. If I was born male, I would feel uncomfortable and want to transition. The only reason I don't is because I was born in the correct body. That doesn't make me delusional.

  1. Duh gender identity is a mental state. SEX is not. You said they identify as a sex, so what does gender identity have to do with it?

  2. Not most of us, less than 2%. Most people don’t define themselves by gender identity and in fact have the term “cis” or sometimes if we protest too much, “agender” forced on us. It’s just not true that most people define themselves with gender identity. You saying that doesn’t make it fact, I really hope you learn that someday soon

  3. Feeling discomfort in your body doesn’t mean you are the opposite sex or were meant to be. It literally means you’re uncomfortable with your body. That’s all it means. Again, you saying things that you believe but can’t back up doesn’t make it fact. It makes it your belief. You literally sound like you’re in a cult- just repeating stuff that you can’t back up

  4. As I said, maybe delusional isn’t the proper word, but thinking you were born in the wrong body and telling yourself that you are the opposite sex/gender because of your personality, preferences and bodily discomfort is indicative of mental illness(es)

Trans men aren't lesbians. They aren't female either.

  1. Some transmen are lesbians. Some are heterosexual or bisexual.

  2. If they weren’t female they wouldn’t be trans and there wouldn’t be stories of transmen getting pregnant that are promoted as men getting pregnant. That whole argument of mEn cAn Get pRegNanT tOo is hinging on transmen but go ahead and make your false statements that you pretend are facts I guess

I have no issues with GC females classifying themselves as a separate sex.

There are GC men and you’re starting to sound like the wrong side of ww2

Trans women are women, not men who think they're women. Though to answer your question, yes.

So yes you support female oppression

I think sports is the only thing that should be sex segregated.

Interesting to find such blatant hypocrisy in your men’s rights activism lol

Would you give a scholarship intended for females to a male if he identifies as a woman? Yes.

Then you support male privilege and females not having equal opportunity

I would treat male rapists the same as female rapists. Though to be honest I think our prisons need more oversight and there should be stricter security for violent offenders.

Female rapists don’t get sent to male prisons FYI, but regardless of what you think about prisons, you seem to be fine with sending intact males to female prisons despite the news showing you that this has lead to rape of females by quite a few of these males. So just because you sent the violent offenders to male prison or whatever you plan to do with them (again, hypocrisy, a violent TW should still be a woman and this allowed in female prisons according to you, so then you’re discriminating if you don’t support male rapists being sent to female prisons. Bad ally).

Passing trans women are not treated as male and go through the same things cis women go through.

  1. Didn’t ask about passing or not
  2. They may go through some of what real women go through
  3. What does it mean to be treated as a male/female?
  4. If they are out as trans I promise you they won’t get treated the same as women, in some situations possibly. But they do and will continue to be treated differently in many ways

If we are a loud minority, why are you complaining about being fired and silenced for expressing GC views? Most women secretly agree with you. Though anyway, women are more likely to be QT than men.

You are a successful loud minority that was smart enough to associate yourselves with more significant and inoffensive causes. T is part of LGB, you lie about suicide and violence, misrepresent facts, hide the truth, and appeal to emotions- you’re a smart and media savvy minority. Most women and men do agree with gc. And sure more women are qt than men (maybe, idk that’s true or if you’re including men as women) but that doesn’t mean more women are qt than aren’t

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If neither side can be proven, people shouldn’t be fired or ostracized for believing and stating one over the other

Than find a company that welcomes your transphobia.

There’s ample proof that transwomen are men and transmen are women. Biology. Reproduction. Chromosomes. And so much more. Like... there’s just so much that disproves the idea that TWAW/TMAM

But most of us don't define ourselves by our biology and many external sex characteristics like genitalia or appearance can be modified.

Google is your friend and it’s free, but if you’d like to exchange links, you can link me proof that transwomen are women and I’ll send you just a few of the several links that back up the statement that narcissism is common if not rampant in the trans community.

You're the one that claimed that there are multiple studies that trans people are narcissists.

Sex is not a mental state. if what you’re saying is true, they’d literally be identifying with typical sexual function, or bodies they don’t have, not gendered stereotypes, you haven’t really made a good case for them not being delusional. It’s not mentally sound to identify with a vagina or a penis or with fat distribution, or a set of chromosomes, and since you’ve said they identify with the opposite sex, that’s what you’re saying here. Maybe delusional isn’t the proper word- mental illness of some type surely is.

Gender identity is a mental state. Most of us define ourselves by our gender identity. If I was born male, I would feel uncomfortable and want to transition. The only reason I don't is because I was born in the correct body. That doesn't make me delusional.

Lesbians? Or straight females who think they’re men and want homosexual men to be with them? I’ll have to look it up because it’s still not too clear to me

Trans men aren't lesbians. They aren't female either.

But you will take away a female’s ability to class herself separate from males?

I have no issues with GC females classifying themselves as a separate sex.

You’ll take away her safe spaces to give them to men who think they’re women?

Trans women are women, not men who think they're women. Though to answer your question, yes.

Will you make a female play sports with males because the males claim to be women/girls?

I think sports is the only thing that should be sex segregated.

Would you give a scholarship intended for females to a male if he identifies as a woman?

Yes.

Will you send male rapists to female prisons because of their sense of identity?

I would treat male rapists the same as female rapists. Though to be honest I think our prisons need more oversight and there should be stricter security for violent offenders.

Will you vote for a transwomen to be a political representative for females?

That’s you supporting males over females.

Passing trans women are not treated as male and go through the same things cis women go through.

Instead, you throw us all under and tell yourself it’s okay because a loud minority of females think like you and will back you up, and the men you support over females show you gratitude.

If we are a loud minority, why are you complaining about being fired and silenced for expressing GC views? Most women secretly agree with you. Though anyway, women are more likely to be QT than men.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneGCAF[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ETA- as far as the narcissism goes- in addition to looking up the articles, I’d suggest just reading up on narcissism itself, then reading the words of trans people online. Even without the studies, having a basic understanding of narcissism is enough to see it in the trans community. That’s not to say every trans person is a narcissist, I’m saying it’s very common and very evident.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneGCAF[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is nothing to prove trans women are men and trams men are women.

We can look at this two ways:

  1. If neither side can be proven, people shouldn’t be fired or ostracized for believing and stating one over the other

  2. There’s ample proof that transwomen are men and transmen are women. Biology. Reproduction. Chromosomes. And so much more. Like... there’s just so much that disproves the idea that TWAW/TMAM

Link to them.

Google is your friend and it’s free, but if you’d like to exchange links, you can link me proof that transwomen are women and I’ll send you just a few of the several links that back up the statement that narcissism is common if not rampant in the trans community.

Being transgender is essentially being mentally a different sex. If you're a trans man, you're a man in a women's body, but you're still a man. That's not delusional.

Sex is not a mental state. if what you’re saying is true, they’d literally be identifying with typical sexual function, or bodies they don’t have, not gendered stereotypes, you haven’t really made a good case for them not being delusional. It’s not mentally sound to identify with a vagina or a penis or with fat distribution, or a set of chromosomes, and since you’ve said they identify with the opposite sex, that’s what you’re saying here. Maybe delusional isn’t the proper word- mental illness of some type surely is.

It's a slur GC uses for gay trans men.

Lesbians? Or straight females who think they’re men and want homosexual men to be with them? I’ll have to look it up because it’s still not too clear to me

I do not support the oppression of females. I have been discriminated for being female and Jewish, just not as much as I was discriminated for being disabled. But you will never hear me say women should not be allowed to enter certain professions, or women should be paid less than men, or women should be sexually harassed. I even voted for female presidential candidates

But you will take away a female’s ability to class herself separate from males? You’ll take away her safe spaces to give them to men who think they’re women? Will you make a female play sports with males because the males claim to be women/girls? Would you give a scholarship intended for females to a male if he identifies as a woman? Will you send male rapists to female prisons because of their sense of identity? Will you vote for a transwomen to be a political representative for females? The scope of oppression of females extends further than what you listed. If you support allowing TW access to female rights and spaces, you support female oppression on some scale. So it sounds to me like you support equal pay and in theory equal opportunity (idk where you fall on giving female specific opportunities to tw), but are more than ready to throw females under the bus when it comes to TW. That’s you supporting males over females. That’s you contributing to misogyny, patriarchy, and female oppression. You can support trans people without throwing females under the bus. By supporting them having human rights and their own spaces and opportunities. Instead, you throw us all under and tell yourself it’s okay because a loud minority of females think like you and will back you up, and the men you support over females show you gratitude.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I have no issue with desegregating facilities.

Yeah, we know you have no issue with this. You've made it clear throughout this thread that you think you and people who share your identical mindset are the only persons who count. You've repeatedly referred to persons with views different to yours as "bigots" and have called for them/us to be treated as less worthy than you. You've also made it clear that your sole point of reference is your own personal experience.

Other quotes of yours just from the tail end of this thread that show you think you are the only person who matters and also are an authoritarian who is entirely unaware - or just couldn't care less - that other people have life experience and needs different to your own. Your lack of empathy is so total you really seem to believe you have the right to trample over, ostracize, punish and exclude from society those whose experiences and POVs diverge from yours:

I am all for all placee being unisex

I've been using men's rooms since I was a teenager and never had a problem.

Open up your own park with segregated bathrooms. Open up your schools and gyms. Just don't expect any government funding.

I understand basic biology. That doesn't mean you can say what you want without repercussions.

Also, I don't think you understand basic biology at all.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So out of curiosity, if I have I don't know let's just say a 1990 Honda Accord in my driveway, would you say it wasn't a car if I had the engine taken out of it?

What would you say it was? What would you call it? Why why not?

In case you haven't seen it, here is Peachy Yogurt's brilliant "bicycle analogy" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNIHdWyUsEY

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have a hard time figuring out exactly who comments are addressed to on this forum, especially on long threads.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most of us recognize that gender is different from biological sex. We just don't believe people should be defined by their biology and biology is irrelevant outside of a medical context.

Biological sex is irrelevant in most contexts, but it's still relevant in a number of situations outside a medical context.

For example, toilet facilities in schools, workplaces and the public sphere are designed and outfitted differently because males and females have different urinary anatomy and because whereas males only urinate and defecate in toilets, female people have additional physical needs and processes that we attend to there - menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, menopausal flooding, etc. Females can't use urinals, males can. Females need sanitary bins for soiled pads and tampons we use when menstruating, after childbirth and during menopause, males don't.

Generally speaking, females need to use toilets more often than males do due to menstruation, pregnancy, miscarriage, menopause, birth injuries, coz we developed hemmorhoids in pregnancy that nevere went away - and coz due to our different urinary anatomy, females get UTIs much more frequently than males do. Due to birth injuries and hormonal changes of peri menopause and menopause, many women have issues like urinary and fecal incontinence, chronic UTIs, bladder and pelvic organ prolapse...

It typically takes girls and women longer to use the toilet each visit coz we have to partially undress, sit down, wipe after urinating, pull up our drawers and put our clothes back on, sometimes wash off blood from our clothing and hands, etc. Also, coz females tend to wash our hands after using toilet facilities for any reason, whereas males don't.

When using toilets, girls and women are vulnerable in ways that boys and men generally aren't.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/09/20/762764826/how-to-design-a-female-friendly-toilet

Sports is another area outside the medical context where sex really matters a great deal. And not just in sports competition, but in more basic ways like the kit that's issued to the two sexes and the actions that each can and should/n't do. Boys and men doing various sports need jock straps and cups. Girls and women need sports bras and attire cut for female bodies. Females playing soccer need to be careful about using their heads to contact/control the ball coz due to differences in skull anatomy and brain fibers, females have a much higher risk of concussion. Males can train in the exact same way every day of the month, but females need to adjust their activity according to their menstrual cycles and pregnancy status coz changing hormone levels in females mean there are certain times in the month/life that girls and women are much more prone to various injuries coz of such factors as different levels of tension in our ligaments...

Sex matters a whole lot when it comes to PPE and safety equipment, too. Most safety equipment has been designed exclusively to fit male bodies and male faces and heads. Seat belts and air bags were designed, tested, instituted and made mandatory by law without anyone thinking how they would suit female bodies. Seat belts customarily cut into women's breasts and necks, and can't accommodate a heavily pregnant woman's belly.

Airline design is another area where sex matters. The seat belts don't work for pregnant women past a certain stage of pregnancy. The way seats are designed make it impossible for many visibly pregnant women to stand up and exit their own seats if the people in the row ahead have their seats tilted back. The toilets on commercial airplanes are very difficult to use if you're in the sixth month or beyond - especially if you're carrying multiples.

Sex sometimes matters in the workplace too. There are chemicals, conditions and other things (like X-rays) that women who are known to be pregnant or possibly might be pregnant unbeknownst shouldn't be exposed to coz of risk to fetuses. Sometimes this is the case for women who are TTC or breastfeeding, too. The design of machinery, work tools, office furniture, and the standard temperatures that indoor workplaces are kept at are all designed and calibrated for male bodies and male attire only. Also, women who are BFing need a private, sanitary place and work breaks to express milk and store it.

Sex matters when it comes to figuring out life and car insurance rates, as any actuary can tell you.

Sex matters when it comes to policing and prison facilities. Males and females have completely different offending/criminality patterns.

Sex matters when it comes to nutrition and food costs. Food shopping, cooking and budgeting for food costs in a household made up of 5 males and 1 female will be very different than if the numbers were reversed.

Sex matters when it comes to population planning. Women tend to live longer than men, so there needs to be more suitable housing accommodations and senior services for elderly women than for elderly men.

I could go on with many more examples.

Sex is assigned on our birth certificates based on observations.

Sex is determined at conception and develops early on in utero, and it can be ascertained with 100% accuracy in utero - as early as 8/9 weeks with CVS and the NIPT, later through amnio and sonograms.

At or shortly after birth, midwives and physicians observe and record a child's sex on medical records. In most countries and US states, births must be registered with the appropriate government body within a certain time frame following a birth - in most US states, within a week or less. In England, Wales & NI, parents have 42 days to register a birth; in Scotland, it's 21 days. But only after a birth is registered with a government does the government issue a birth certificate.

However, not everyone in the world has been issued a birth certificate. And for many who do have BCs, there is a huge gap between the time of birth and when a BC is issued. For example, Caster Semenya wasn't issued a BC until Semenya was 16.

I hope your throat is better. When you're up to it, I hope you do some research into the areas you keep spouting strong opinions about coz you're coming off as very poorly informed about the actual facts and complexities.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The issue was that bathrooms and locker rooms were male only, so women demanded their own separate facilities. I have no issue with desegregating facilities.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People are getting fired for saying trans women are men”

Because it upsets trans people. There’s nothing to prove that transwomen aren’t men. Or that they are women.

“trans men are women,”

Because it upsets trans people. There’s nothing that proves that transmen aren’t women, or that they are men.

There is nothing to prove trans women are men and trams men are women.

There’s actual studies that show that narcissism is commonly found in trans people,

Link to them.

thinking you are something you literally are not is delusional

Being transgender is essentially being mentally a different sex. If you're a trans man, you're a man in a women's body, but you're still a man. That's not delusional.

idk what a fujoshi is

It's a slur GC uses for gay trans men.

You can support the oppression of females but not of Jewish people or the disabled...

I do not support the oppression of females. I have been discriminated for being female and Jewish, just not as much as I was discriminated for being disabled. But you will never hear me say women should not be allowed to enter certain professions, or women should be paid less than men, or women should be sexually harassed. I even voted for female presidential candidates.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So much of the gender crap just seems like a subculture to me. Instead of being goth or punk or whatever they've decided to do..this.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not opposed to females creating their own spaces. Open up your own park with segregated bathrooms. Open up your schools and gyms. Just don't expect any government funding. By the way, I'm not trans. I'm a cis woman.

Sorry I got your sex wrong. I thought earlier you said you used male toilet facilities outside the home, and everything you say sounds like it came straight out of the big book of trans clichés and propaganda, so I got confused. My bad.

Sex-separated facilities for toileting, changing, showering, getting & giving, certain types of medical care, healing from sexual trauma like rape, escaping from domestic violence, expressing breast milk and so on are legal in the country I'm a citizen of - the US - and in the other country where prior to COVID I was spending a lot of time, the UK.

I am old enough to remember when girls and women had no sports or locker rooms in schools in the US, and in many places didn't have PE either - and we had to campaign for them, then build our sports programs from scratch. When I was in college, when we women finally got our own locker room in the athletic center at my previously male-only uni, it turned out not to have any lockable lockers, which meant we couldn't leave our belongings in there safely when at the athletic center - and we had to lug around all our kit and sports equipment back and forth from our dorms or apartments each and every day. So we had to beg and plead and raise money for lockers. When we finally got lockers, the next thing that happened was that the water in the locker room was mysteriously always turned off - so we couldn't shower, wash or hands or use the toilets. Then when the mysterious "plumbing problems" were solved, the toilets were always clogged and overflowing and every day the floors were flooded...

You seem to think girls and women were handed own locker rooms, toilets and sports on a silver platter, and that now we all should be forced to give them up. Coz after 40+ years of fair(ish) play for girls and women, you've decided "time's up - that's enough." You may be a woman, but you sure sound like one who also hates others of your sex and is entirely ignorant of what previous generations of women went through to win the right for the spaces and provisions you want to remove.

I was also involved in creating shelters for battered women in the 1970s and 80s, as well as services for female victims of rape and other forms of male sexual violence, and support groups for women dealing with issues affecting us as females, like birth injuries, miscarriage and menopause. We women did this all on our time and on our own, using our own money or funds we privately raised through donations. Only much later did any such facilities and programs get any government funding.

BTW, although it seems you think you are the boss of the world and what you decree goes, in fact you are not the government of the US or any US state or municipality or any other country. Your word and wish isn't the law. And you don't control the public purse.

Also, since you seem to think that US federal, state and local taxpayer funds are yours and yours alone to dole out or withhold, I'm very curious as to how many years you've been paying income and other taxes such as property and investment-related taxes - and how much you've paid in total taxes exclusive of sales and luxury taxes over your career/lifetime. I also wonder if you've ever served on a jury, a government board, a budget committee, in the military, or done any other civic duty/public service like serving as a volunteer at a food bank, fire department or EMS, crisis hotline, homeless shelter, hospice, home for the disabled, literacy program, school, public library, charity and so on.

I wonder this coz IME, people who've been paying income and other "grown up" taxes for the bulk of their lives and who've been involved in the democratic process and have a history of personally contributing to civic and community life in meaningful ways tend not to talk the way you do. They tend to be aware that in a society such as the ones that countries like the US and UK aim to be, the rights and needs of all citizens and residents need to be considered, not just their own. And they tend to believe that public funds are for the public and should be distributed to serve everyone's interests, not just to their own small "in" group for the purpose of fulfilling their own narrow agenda and meeting their own needs exclusively.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it’s easy to say “she.”

That's interesting. My view is very different. I have a very hard time calling an obvious male person, she - and calling someone I know to be female, he. Making note of people's sex is basic instinctual behavior of humans, and female humans tend to be better at sexing others than male humans, for obvious reasons. Also, using sex-based pronouns when we speak of other individuals is basic to my mother tongue, English, and the other languages I've studied.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LoveS, I wasn't disagreeing with either the word "right" or "respect" or the general point. I was quibbling over the part where you said

people should be allowed to believe what they believe and have those beliefs respected

I think we all need to respect other people's right to believe what they believe, as you say, but I draw the line at everyone having and expecting to "have their beliefs respected." I respect my parents' right to believe in Roman Catholicism, but I do not respect many of the beliefs of Roman Catholic doctrine itself - or the beliefs inherent to many other religions, either. I respect the right of other people to believe in gender ideology, but I do not respect that ideology itself. I think it's a bunch of regressive, pernicious made-up malarkey entirely based on sexist stereotypes and misogyny. And I don't think genderists (or anyone else) must "have their beliefs respected."

but I don’t really think we can tell someone “you’re belief is wrong so stop believing it.”

I never said that we should go around telling people their beliefs are wrong, so they better stop believing them, nor did I imply such a thing, so I'm not clear why you'd say this to me. I wouldn't say such a thing in a million years, in fact, coz telling someone that would be pointless - and rude. Anyone familiar with basic human psychology knows that shaming and scolding people for their beliefs only makes them dig in their heels - and it's disrespectful of them as persons too.

My position is that if you disagree with other people's beliefs and their beliefs bother you to the point where you you want to try to get them to abandon their beliefs, you don't tell them that they and their beliefs are "wrong" - you refute those beliefs with evidence-based arguments presented in a civil tone.

But even so, I'm not big on the idea that any of us can change anyone else's minds. Each of us can only change our own minds - and the first step in doing that is to open our minds.

For the most part, I'm very "live and let live" when it comes to other people's beliefs. I am not bothered by the fact that other people believe all sorts of things that I find nonsensical, and I don't spend time arguing against many beliefs I consider harmful or dangerous. For example, I don't spend a lot of time arguing with Islamists, Mormons, anti-vaxxers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Stalinists and so on about their beliefs. As the saying goes, pick your battles.

However, I do spend time arguing against the beliefs held by gender ideologues and queer theorists - both in general and with persons who hold those beliefs - because I find said beliefs to be harmful to individuals and society, and to be a genuine threat to the women's rights and feminist issues I've spent my whole life devoted to. I don't want to go back to the days of my youth and early adulthood when girls & women didn't have a lot of the rights and freedoms that so many take for granted today.

Still, when I argue about gender ideology on forums like this, it's neither with the aim of getting adherents of the ideology to abandon their beliefs - nor with the idea that this will ever happen. My first principal aim is to hone my own arguments and share some of the info and knowledge I've accumulated over a long lifetime so they can be useful to others already in general agreement with my position. And my second principal aim is to reach those who are sitting on the fence or have just begun critically thinking about these matters. My secondary aim is to be an example, to show that it's possible to present one's arguments with clarity and force, even with fierceness, whilst still remaining civil and never resorting to name-calling.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]yousaythosethings 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, this is what I’m getting at. Trans women’s dysphoria often seems awfully conveniently selective and superficial. But I was hoping OP would also ponder these questions on their own and give it serious thought.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Answer was about ones who do not have ova, as it was in question of "being sexless for lacking eggs or sperm".

GC: What are your thoughts on this pro-trans person's arguments? Can you tell me why their arguments are unsound and why you disagree with them? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OP - What do you like to make a new, perhaps more targeted post with a couple primary points that you either rephrase or say clearly here, though feel free to include links that may elaborate the point but shouldn't be necessary to read to support the point being stated?

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah my understanding is people often say infertile when they actually mean sterile.

IE an infertile woman as a woman who has tried to get pregnant for a year without success I believe, but many of these women actually are capable of getting pregnant through normal means.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So out of curiosity, if I have I don't know let's just say a 1990 Honda Accord in my driveway, would you say it wasn't a car if I had the engine taken out of it?

What would you say it was? What would you call it? Why why not?

Could I just put the drive box of my tesla in it to make my Honda work? Why why not?

After all, they're both cars, why can't I just put the drivetrain of my Tesla into my Honda?

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I imagine you already know that the answer: Males who identify as trans keep their prostates coz their prostates give them enormous amounts of sexual pleasure. And they don't talk about how "dysphoric" their prostates make them feel for several reasons: 1) this body part does not actually make them "dysphoric" coz of the sexual pleasure the prostate brings them; 2) coz they can't see their own prostates and nobody else can see them either - and "trans" people are obsessed with appearance and being "trans" is largely about appearance and being seen; 3) talking about their prostates would reveal the dirty little secret of the trans movement, which is that for males who identify as trans, both their cross-sex identity and their "dysphoria" are sexually motivated and are an expression of male sexuality and male libido.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, Mez infertile does not necessarily mean a persons has no gametes. Lots of infertile people have or can make plenty of eggs or sperm, it's just that for for various reasons their eggs and sperm aren't "viable," meaning capable of conception. For some people with infertility, the issue isn't with the eggs or sperm themselves, it's with the fluids that are necessary for sperm to travel towards an egg and for conception to occur - the components of seminal fluid made by the prostate and other glands in the case of males, and cervical mucosa in the case of females.

With current assisted reproductive technology and methods, some people's eggs and sperm that can't accomplish conception on their own via the old-fashioned route (PIV coitus) can be made to work for procreation purposes.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]yousaythosethings 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you ever wonder why bottom surgery in trans women never seems to involve removing the prostate even though women don’t have prostates? Women don’t produce semen so why is the prostate kept in tact during bottom surgery? Why does it seem that no trans women talk about how dysphoric their prostates make them feel?

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I am all for all placee being unisex (except sports) but I'm not opposed to females creating their own spaces. Open up your own park with segregated bathrooms. Open up your schools and gyms. Just don't expect any government funding. By the way, I'm not trans. I'm a cis woman.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey! I just wanted to say, I appreciate you trying to engage in good faith and I think some of your points may be being missed. (I am not GC myself, strictly speaking, but I agree with the scientific definition of sex in humans as male/female, just as GC does.)

From how I understand it, this is what's going on:

Your perspective:

You state (1): "GC people believe that all species sexually reproduce the same way as humans, and want to apply the male/female labels to other species when it makes no sense to do so."

  • Claim (2) Not all "sexually reproducing species" have the same means of sexual production as humans do. (i.e. "male" and "female" is not universal across other non-human species)

  • Conclusion: (3) Therefore, the terms "male" and "female" are just made-up.

Here are the problems:

First, it is worth observing about your statement (1) that I've never seen a GC person claim this. GC people actually believe that male/female is true of humans, not other species. GC people do not believe that all other species' sex designation works like male/female does in humans. (If you ran across a nutty individual who believes this, though, my condolences.) If you have any examples of GC people saying this, please share with me, because I'm not GC and if they actually believed that then I'd love to know it. However-- regardless of what GC people actually believe, let's get to your logic.

  • Your Claim (2) is a true statement and I think all GC would likely agree with it. And so would a basic biology textbook.

  • Your Conclusion (3) does not follow from the evidence (2) that you presented. Just because "male/female" does not apply to NON-human species... does not mean that it does not apply to humans. Does that make sense? The concept of male/female was invented not by GCers but by scientists to describe how human sexual reproduction works. By definition, it is about humans (and other species that use male/female, many mammalian) and does not necessarily apply to other species.

My perspective

Some trans rights activists claim that sex in humans is a spectrum, and that there are more than just 2 sexes in humans. (Correct me if I'm wrong please.)

  • Claim: (1) Scientists have observed in humans the existence of 2 types of gametes used in human reproduction-- sperm and ova. They made up names for the reproductive systems and external characteristics that correspond to each of these two: "male" for sperm-gametes and "female" for ova-gametes.

  • Claim: (2) Not all species' sexual reproduction works the same way as humans' sexual reproduction does.

  • Conclusion: (3) Humans' sexual reproduction still works the same way humans' sexual reproduction does.

Does that help? Happy to talk more if you're interested!

Also would love to hear what got you thinking about all of this.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was responding to your fatuous claim that based on the polling you say you've done on two web forums - one which you admit is TRA site, and the other is a forum for parents in Washington, DC USA - you can pronounce for with total assurance that

GC is the only group requesting sex-segregared spaces

In the whole wide world. I was suggesting that by focusing your "polling" on such a small, narrow group you were missing a lot of the earth's human population.

But rather than address my point, you respond by saying only

I've been using men's rooms since I was a teenager and never had a problem.

Which just goes to show that you seem to think this is all about you, and only you. That you and your wants and the wants of other trans-identified people are all that matters.

Also, the central issue concerning single sex spaces is far less about about female people using men's spaces than male people using female spaces. Female people in male spaces and sports don't pose a threat to the males there. But male people in female spaces and sports do indeed pose a great many threats to the girls and women who need our own spaces and sports and have put a great deal of effort into creating and campaigning for them.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Once again: sex is NOT assigned at birth anymore. Assigning sex at birth was a medical malpractice that was done only on intersex people, and it was leading to IGM and early transitioning to an assigned sex with surgeries and hormones.

Long time since this practice is gone, so now no one anymore is assigned at birth and forced to transition.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]loveSloaneGCAF[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

“Transphobia does not mean whatever upsets trans people.

People are getting fired for saying trans women are men”

Because it upsets trans people. There’s nothing to prove that transwomen aren’t men. Or that they are women.

“trans men are women,”

Because it upsets trans people. There’s nothing that proves that transmen aren’t women, or that they are men.

“calling trans people narcissists, delusional, fetishists, fujoshis, etc.”

Because it upsets trans people. There’s actual studies that show that narcissism is commonly found in trans people, thinking you are something you literally are not is delusional, agp is a fetish even if it doesn’t apply to all trans people, and idk what a fujoshi is but if all the other things are sometimes applicable to trans people I won’t dismiss the possibility that this last one is also

“Most of us recognize that gender is different from biological sex. We just don't believe people should be defined by their biology and biology is irrelevant outside of a medical context.”

I’m saying you should be able to believe what you want but respect that others disagree and your beliefs shouldn’t be pushed on others. Others shouldn’t have to pretend to agree. Also, there’s no reason that gender should matter more and be more protected than sex.

Sex is assigned on our birth certificates based on observations.

But you’re not going to answer the other questions? Is it observed based on fat distribution? Hair length? How soft the baby’s skin is? What are they observing and why is that what determines sex???

I fully understand I can't get the world to behave how I want.

Your comment history indicates that this is a lie

Please don't tell me I'm supporting my own oppression. You don't even get to decide how I'm opposed as a female. I have multiple marginalized identities. Not only am I female, I am Jewish and learning disabled.”

You can support the oppression of females but not of Jewish people or the disabled...

“In my life, I was discriminated more due to being learning disabled than I was due to being female and Jewish combined.”

Then no disrespect meant but this is not related to the topic of discussion. Just because you personally haven’t faced (or more likely don’t realize you’ve faced) oppression due to being female, doesn’t mean that other females are oppression free. When you advocate for forcing males into female categories and spaces (mad rights, and sexuality, etc) you absolutely advocate for female oppression. Whether you see it or not. Unless you support female equality and the ability for females to have their own spaces, sports, representation, the ability to be classed as separate from their oppressors (males) you’re supporting the downfall of the women’s rights movement.

“I know oppression.”

But apparently not female oppression? So what relevance does this have to the topic? It seems like you think since you haven’t faced the same types of oppression that many females are speaking out against, you are blind to it. And rather than listen to what females who don’t think like you say, you dismiss us and cling to your belief while telling us that if we don’t like it we can form our own communities away from everyone else, only work in specific places, and be subjected to ridicule and dismissal if we refuse to conform to your beliefs. Sounds like you do know oppression. But don’t seem to realize that people who support oppression often know exactly what oppression is. Your knowledge of oppression doesn’t automatically mean that your beliefs don’t reinforce and support it.

“You don't get to tell me I'm supporting my own oppression”

Not just yours, all females.

Eta- considering how much you push to ostracize and silence anyone who doesn’t think like you and refuses to play along, sounds like you support the oppression of anyone, male or female, who doesn’t think like you do.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've been using men's rooms since I was a teenager and never had a problem.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]Genderbender 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply. I had a sore throat.

  1. Transphobia does not mean whatever upsets trans people. People are getting fired for saying trans women are men, trans men are women, calling trans people narcissists, delusional, fetishists, fujoshis, etc.

  2. Most of us recognize that gender is different from biological sex. We just don't believe people should be defined by their biology and biology is irrelevant outside of a medical context.

  3. Sex is assigned on our birth certificates based on observations.

  4. I fully understand I can't get the world to behave how I want.

  5. Please don't tell me I'm supporting my own oppression. You don't even get to decide how I'm opposed as a female. I have multiple marginalized identities. Not only am I female, I am Jewish and learning disabled. In my life, I was discriminated more due to being learning disabled than I was due to being female and Jewish combined. I know oppression. You don't get to tell me I'm supporting my own oppression.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

At first glance, the phrasing potential capacity to produce - or in human females potential capacity to mature and release - either large gametes (ova) or small gametes (sperm) might indeed appear to suggest that this is something that will or could occur only in the future.

But that's only at first glance. Fact is, you are overlooking and erasing a key part of the definition of sex, which says that sex is defined by having developed in utero the anatomy organized around the potential capacity to produce male or female gametes at some point in (later) life.

The key words and phrases here are developed, "in utero" and at some point in (later) life. We are talking about the development of a potentiality that occurred in all of us when we were still in our mothers' wombs, prior to our birth - and will occur in the lives of all future humans when they are still in their mothers' uteri as well. It's not a potentiality from this moment on right now this very instant forward nor from every future moment of our lives forward no matter what age we are.

Every human being who has ever lived started out as the fusion of sperm and ova, which then developed into an embryo, and the embryo then became a fetus. All of this occurred within our mothers' wombs. This is when the key elements of sex development - forming the anatomy meant to support the potential/eventual production or maturation and release of either female or male gametes at some point later in life - occurs.

You also are taking a very male view of this topic. Once puberty has started, only male humans theoretically can produce gametes for the rest of their lives.

This has never been the case for female humans. Whilst we are born with all our gametes already extant in our ovaries, we can mature and release them during only about half (or less) of the present-day typical or average female human life span. Menopause is a real and entirely natural thing.

Please go talk to your mother and - if they are still alive - your grandmother(s) about this. You seem to want to deny that the woman who conceived, gestated and gave birth to you, and the women who gestated and gave birth to your mom and dad, are female coz they are no longer of the age where they have either the potential or the ability to mature and release ova. Indeed, you seem to want to say that if your mother, your grandmothers, your great-grandmothers and so on had the temerity to live beyond their early 50s, when menopause usually occurs, it means they spent the last part of their lives as no longer female but as sexless freaks.

The ageism and sexism behind your viewpoint takes my breath away. According to you, because I am in my 60s and no longer fertile, it means I am no longer female. In the view you keep espousing, the fact that I no longer have the potential capacity to mature and release ova means that when I was in my mother's womb, I never developed the potential capacity to mature and release ova to begin with. It also means that the ovulation and period pain I had for nearly 40 years, the miscarriages I had, and the children who grew in my own womb from my fertilized ova and later gave birth to all must be figments of my imagination.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I understand now the word gonad should have been used instead of genital, thank you for correcting me! So if a woman or a man gets a surgery and entirely removes the gonads with the genitals, (ovaries for a woman, and testes for a man), why would they not be sexless after the surgery? What is the definition of male or female that does not exclude a male or a female that removes the entirety of gonads in a surgery?

And I have another question that I asked in the dms but figured I would send it here too. I went through a few posts in gcdebatesqt and this person brings up good points: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/6y33/gc_why_are_penises_testes_etc_considered_strictly/qgjr

People without gametes are sexless?

People who don’t produce gametes do not fall into one of two possible sexually reproductive roles. Without gametes you don't have a reproductive role

If you can’t produce any gametes then you have no potential to produce any gametes. Thus according to the gamete definition of sex classification that those individuals lack a sex. Only going by a total anatomy model can you have people who don’t produce gametes but have a sex trait classification

These are good points and I was thinking about them too. Because GCs' answer to the question "so people that don't produce any gametes and have removed the entirety of their gonads in surgery have no sex?" is this: "the definition of male or female is the potential to produce gametes, not producing gametes itself"

But someone that has removed all gonads, can not produce any gametes, therefore they have no potential to produce any gametes. Potentiality means not being able to do something now, but being able to do it later, and those people can't produce any gametes later so they have no potential either

What do you think? Do you have a better definition of male or female that doesn't use potentiality as a criteria and doesn't exclude men and women who removed all gonads and can't produce gametes?

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, let's not pretend that representation in entertainment media is the real or sole litmus test. Plenty of older trans-identified males are in incredibly powerful positions in society. Such as tech executive Martine Rothblatt - long famous for being "the highest paid woman in America" - billionaire heir and ex military man Jennifer Pritzker, and the much-honored writer and historian Jan Morris, who died in November at age 94. Morris spent nearly half a century as a "transwoman" and suffered no negative repercussions for it. On the contrary, Morris was constantly lionized, praised and given prestigious positions, publishing contracts and awards.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sex and gender are different. You want us grouped by sex which is why you would group me with men. I expressly don’t want to be grouped with men for a litany of reasons, the most important of which is that we are so different that to do so creates a myriad of legal problems and leaves us at the mercy of the unquestionable most powerful and dangerous form of humanity, and the one that does harm to us by a huge margin, men.

So why not campaign for your own spaces, provisions and protections then instead of horning in on other people's? That's what women, people with physical disabilities and the elderly had to do. How come trans people get to barge in and claim women's hard-won spaces, provisions and sports for their own?

Also, why is it okay for trans identified males to be afraid of other males and want spaces away from them, but it's bigoted and "transphobic" for female people to do the same?

In most cities, there are separate lanes in streets for buses, cars and bicycles, and the sidewalks are for pedestrians and people in prams and wheelchairs. Whenever new forms of transport and recreation come along - skateboards, roller blades, Segways, razor scooters, electric scooters, seated motorized mobility scooters for disabled people (all of which have arrived on the scene within my own lifetime) - municipalities and communities have to get together and decide where the new devices belong.

But a majority of trans people today don't want to be held to the same rules and community decision-making processes as everyone else - they want to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want simply because they demand and insist upon it. The position of many trans people is essentially that if they want to drive a bus or car on the sidewalk or in the bike lane, that's their right. Who cares how many people they mow down and how many rights belonging to others they trample and remove in the process?

Trans activists love to tell others to "stay in your lane" but they don't want to have to carve out a lane for themselves, nor stick to their own lane once it's created.

QT: A question of ideology by loveSloaneGCAF in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I asked BabyCenter and DC Urban Mom. BabyCenter is a TRA site. As far as I know, GC is the only group requesting sex-segregared spaces.

Maybe you should broaden your perspective and do your "polling" not online but in person at churches, mosques, synagogues, senior centers, nursing homes, NFL and NBA games, workplaces, gyms, swimming pools, rec centers, maternity wards, department store changing rooms, sororities, fraternities and so on.

When you do, be sure to ask fathers, mothers and grandparents of girls how they feel about their small daughters or granddaughters having to use restrooms in the company of grown men and teenage boys with their dicks out, and whether they think their pubescent and teenage daughters should be forced to undress in front of boys and men who'll be eyeing or staring at the girls with lust as they lick and smack their lips and make lewd comments. Be sure to ask some visibly pregnant women if they want to have to disrobe and express breast milk in front of men as well.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If a man or a woman has this complete surgery where they remove the entirety of genitalia, and I mean all genitalia, nothing is left there, do they become sexless after surgery?

And if they don't become sexless after surgery, why don't they become sexless? I thought genitalia and gametes determine sex, so when there is no genitalia or gametes, there is no sex? Saying sex is defined by genitalia and gametes would exclude a cix man or cis woman that removes the whole genitalia in surgery.

You need to use proper terminology that is "inclusive" of both sexes. Gametes come from gonads and gonads are not necessarily the same as genitals.

In humans, only the male gonads (the testes) are part of the genitals. Female gonads (the ovaries) are internal organs inside the abdomen; they are not part of the female genitals.

A woman could have her genitals and vagina entirely removed - her uterus too - and still retain her ovaries.

You question whether sex exists, but the way you frame your views and arguments seems sexist and male supremacist. You seem to think that males are the default humans, that male anatomy constitutes "the norm" for the human species.

I dunno what country you're in, but if it's the US or somewhere in the Middle East, I suggest you visit a hospital ward or rehab facility for men who've lost their lower bodies or had horrific groin injuries due to bomb blasts and combat and ask them your questions. They'll be thrilled, I'm sure, to hear that in your view they no longer are men, but have been rendered entirely sexless.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can see that people have so many gender identities, they feel they are...

We used to just call that "personality". No one is saying it doesn't exist to have various feelings and preferences. The point is just that it has nothing to do with the category of sex, which is a basic biological fact of our species. Everyone who is born has a male parent and a female parent. Everyone who is born has a body which will either be able to be a male parent or a female parent when they mature (except for the occasional disability or mutation but that is still usually based on one or the other reproductive system, not some third option).

Is it "just" based on procreation? YES. That's what sex is: sexual reproduction. If you don't care about sexual reproduction, great, that's not the point. You still have a body which is capable of one or the other sides of the continuance of our species. That comes with certain specific distinctions that make a category and have created a history. Which body you have is which sex you are.

Both: Do "transbians" exist outside the West? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you consider that a significant portion of trans-womxyn who are attracted to women tend to have their sexual orientation shift into bisexuality after undergoing HRT,

Many males who identify as trans claim to have their sexual orientation shift into bisexuality after taking cross-sex hormones (which are not "HRT"), but what they claim is not necessarily true.

Also, where trans individuals do self-report a change in their sexual orientation, it has not been shown that this claimed change in orientation is either real or is a result of taking CSH and androgen blockers, getting surgeries or taking any other medical treatment to "transition." The correlation with hormone treatment seems to be entirely made up in the heads of these persons and researchers have found no evidence of it, just as is the case with the switch in sexual orientation these persons claim has occurred.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192544/

Both: Do "transbians" exist outside the West? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The sexologists who've studied and worked extensively with males who identify as trans say that those who say they are bi - or to use the more recent nomenclature, pan and "queer" - are mostly fibbing. They say these persons are pseudobisexuals.

Both: Do "transbians" exist outside the West? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The majority of trans women in the west are also androphiles it’s about 1/3 gay 1/3 straight 1/3 bi/pan.

The sexologists who've studied and worked with this population for many decades - Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence, Cantor - say this is not so. Amongst adults, at least 75% of males who identify as trans are sexually attracted to females, including to the idea of themselves as female. Only a minority - 25% or less - are exclusively attracted to males. Most trans-identified males who claim to be bi/pan are not being truthful; they are known as pseudobisexuals.

Actual sexual response in humans exposed to potentially arousing stimuli is pretty easy to observe and measure coz it's physical: pupils dilate, hearts race, blood rushes to the genitals, blood pressure changes, skin temperature elevates, etc. Lots of people who claim to be bi, queer, pan or whatever coz they want to be fashionable, cool or politically correct do not show the same, a similar or any physical response to stimuli involving one or the other sex.

You have to take what trans people say with the proverbial grain of salt - with a whole shaker of salt, in fact. As Dr House always used to say, "everybody lies" - and this is especially true about intimate matters like sex. But people who base their entire sense of self on a lie and ascribe to an ideology that's a pack of lies are more likely than the rest of us to lie all the time about everything - especially if they think it will get them a leg up.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She has CAIS - complete androgen insensitivity syndrom, so she has underdeveloped "balls" and lacking uterus as it was destroyed by anti-mullerian hormones, and almost fully developed female body. She can't produce neither sperm, nor eggs, but her body possibly can support uterus transplant and gestation through IVF.

Mez, it's not true that a person with CAIS has an "almost fully developed female body." Persons with CAIS have observable external sex characteristics - phenotype - that are female. But they do not have female reproductive organs - no ovaries, Fallopian tubes, uterus, and they usually only have the lower or distal portion of a vagina.

Also, AFAIK, persons with CAIS are not eligible for uterus transplants, not even for trials. And for various reasons, they probably would have a very difficult time growing a human fetus to term because every organ and cell in the human body has sex chromosomes. Sex chromosomes affect not just our dedicated sex organs and characteristics, they affect how all our cells and various organs develop and function. What's more, pregnancy involves a woman's entire body, not just her uterus and other reproductive organs.

For example, XX kidneys function differently to XY kidneys - only XX kidneys can do the job of handling/cleansing all the extra fluid/blood volume a pregnancy creates. Also, various female internal organs are designed move out of the way to accommodate the expanding size of the uterus during pregnancy; and female humans also grow an entirely new organ - a placenta - starting early in pregnancy. Without the ability to grow a placenta, sustaining a pregnancy is impossible. I suspect that the instructions for how and when to grow a placenta might come from having female genetics.

The idea that a uterus can be popped into the body of an XY person and - voila! - that person instantly becomes capable of pregnancy is a male fantasy that is insulting to women coz it downplays and erases all the myriad, complex and essential things that a female body must do in order to grow an embryo/fetus to term.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Or someone with Alpha Reductase Deficiency has testes but the genitalia is the same size as the genitalia of a female, so are they female or male?

XY persons with 5-ARD are male. 5-ARD occurs in both males and females, but it only effects sex development in males; it's a DSD exclusive to males.

Many males with 5-ARD can father children, and have done so. Coz many are perfectly capable of producing viable sperm. It's their seminal fluid that's of poor quality coz of issues with their prostates and other ancillary structures, not with their testes. Their testes are simply located in an unusual place, but they function just fine.

I don't know what you mean when you say that in males with 5-ARD

the genitalia is the same size as the genitalia of a female

But a male with a micro-penis that might get mistaken for an enlarged clit, or a scrotal sac that resembles a fused labia, isn't a female. Also, focusing on and comparing the size of genitals is a distinctly male thing to do. The only women I know who are into measuring their clits and boasting about size are those who are taking T and pretending to be male.

People with androgen insensitivity syndrome have ambiguous genitalia and duct development is incomplete, testes exist in the abdomen while the there's external female genitalia. Would this individual be a male or a female? They have both set of genitals that are just not complete.

No, people with CAIS - as well as people with PAIS and MAIS - do not have "both set of gentials."

Also, please don't lump all types of AIS together as one. These are distinct conditions that manifest very differently and should not be conflated. It's insensitive and "othering" to portray them as one and the same.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is not about whether or not you produce gametes now, it is about which gametes was your body supposed to end up producing.

Also, what determines sex is which type of gamete - egg or sperm - a body develops in utero to have the potential capacity to produce - or mature and release - at some point over the course of (later) life.

The potential capacity to produce ova or sperm doesn't have to be realized for it to count and for a person to have a sex. Sometimes the capacity isn't ever realized for various reasons, such as DSDs and many other conditions and situations, but that doesn't mean a person doesn't have a sex. Everyone has a sex coz even those whose potential capacity to produce gametes is never realized still began life in utero with the potential capacity to do so at a later point in life.

Similarly, people don't have to have the capacity to actively produce - or, in the case of human females, to mature and release - gametes in every phase of life for all of us to have a sex. Nor do we only have a sex in the moments we are producing or releasing gametes, either.

I've used the the terms "mature and release" gametes rather than just "produce" gametes when speaking of human females coz the fact is, we are born with all our gametes already; all our eggs are extant inside us when we are still in utero. With puberty, human females obtain the ability to mature and release our gametes. Female humans normally mature and release our eggs one by one - though on occasion, perhaps two or three at once - on a cyclical basis that usually occurs monthly known as ovulation.

It's only male humans who have the capacity to produce/create male gametes anew and in vast numbers during their lifetimes.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Question 2 ... This comment: https://imgur.com/9SSf5lR Imgur

because of trans people (and IVF) you don't even need a man and a woman to make babies.

Because of trans people and IVF, procreation can happen without a man and a woman? So everyone is sexless because IVF exists and procreation can happen without a man and a woman?

This is an idiotic claim. IVF means fertilization of ova by sperm in a petri dish, test tube or some other lab apparatus outside the female body. But it still involves ova + sperm. The ova has to come from a post-pubescent female body, and the sperm has to come from a post-pubescent male body.

Anyone who makes this claim is just showing how ignorant they are about how conception occurs, and what is involved in assisted reproductive technologies and methods.

Also, it's not true that trans people prove that

you don't even need a man and a woman to make babies.

Please show us an example of a single trans person who was conceived by a process other than sperm + ova, and who was gestated outside a female body rather than inside their mother's uterus.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, female children already have all their gametes already inside their ovaries. Female humans do not actually create/produce new gametes during our lifetimes; we are born with our gametes already intact. From puberty/menarche on, we mature our gametes and release them, usually one by one though sometimes several at once, on a cyclical basis.

It's only males who develop the capacity to produce/create gametes during their lifetimes once puberty hits.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh? There are organisms that produce hermaphrodites, others reproduce asexually, but mammals, like humans, sexually reproduce where, as I said, the population is divided into males whose sperm fertilises the ova of the females. How does this lend any credence to the unfounded claim that "trans-womxyn are women"? It'd be like saying "roosters are hens". Simply adding "because sexual reproduction isn't universal across all life forms" doesn't change the initial inanity into something comprehensible.

Trans-womxyn are no less male then any other men & no more female either.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that person is fucking wrong, why don't you ask THEM for sources. Source - someone with a phd in a biological discipline.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But Violet said some bugs are sexless? Do you have sources that no multicellular animal is sexless? https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/74q3/gc_i_have_questions_that_need_answers/r0vi

Depends on bugs. Some bugs are all female (like bees), with only few males, and one reproducing queen. (Ant) soldiers most often are sexless.

Ant workers are sexless too depending on the specie

And this: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/74q3/gc_i_have_questions_that_need_answers/r0vf

There are insects that produce neuter offspring, like ants. Queens are female, but workers are neuter... as far as I remember. I could be wrong though. I'm no expert on ants. It might be more complicated than that. Maybe the workers are still female, but sterile?

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not true, clonally produced organisms have the same sex as the parent.

ETA - for the love of pete get a bio text book and read it. pdfdrive.com I'm sure has some you can read for free. Almost all multicellular animals have sex and the ones that don't are all female, not sexless.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are not sexless, they are female like the queen.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

With ants and bees that form colonies the workers are all female. They only produce males at certain times of the year to produce new queens.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In that case then the clonally produced organism would have the same sex as the parent. Sea stars have sex, FYI.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Because GCs say universally in all sexually reproducing species female is defined as the organism producing eggs, and male as the organism producing sperm. When in some species the definition of male and female doesn't hold true then it would mean it's not universal across all sexually reproducing species and "male" and "female" would be categories that humans made up to better put things into boxes and understand them for their own benefit, eventhough "male" and "female" wouldn't really exist out there in other species like humans want. Which would validate the tra's belief that sex (male and female) is a social construct.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Who cares, mate? Gastropods are hermaphrodites. Point is, reproduction happens a lot of different ways in different organisms. Sexual reproduction in humans, like with many species, requires half the population to be female & the other half male.

But none of this is on topic.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends on ant species. I am actually not sure how queens are appearing in ants, I only remember how bee queens are appearing - it is any worker bee who was fed with royal jelly from when she was small.

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]2oldforschool[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I searched and it says all worker ants are female though? They are just sterile females but not sexless: https://theconversation.com/six-amazing-facts-you-need-to-know-about-ants-100478#:~:text=Worker%20ants%20are%20all%20female,never%20have%20their%20own%20offspring.

Worker ants are all female, and this sisterhood is responsible for the harmonious operation of the colony.

I can't find anything about soldier ants 😔

Thank you for the links about bees!!

GC: I have questions that need answers by 2oldforschool in GCdebatesQT

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Soldiers it is about ant's, there workers are sexless too. Soldiers and workers. Ony sexed ones are queen, (in some species also king, who is sex slave) and winged messengers. Winged messengers are males, who are flying into other colonies to fertilize eggs there - it is way to have gene diversity.

https://www.abis.com.au/termite-life-cycle-behaviour

And bees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_bee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_bee