GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex?

submitted by transwomanHesitantly QT? from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

I guess it's a philosophical question; Is a cat a collection of those features our human concepts and language can identify and describe? Or is it an organic whole with an intrinsic telos--a purpose or function determined by nature, not humans--that our concepts merely attempt to imperfectly describe by noting its features?

A man-made cat is not the same as a nature-made cat. The very fact of its being constructed gives it a different history and meaning to a cat that simply... is. That's my philosophical position, and I don't usually press it on other people.

If we really did have the technology to make males nearly identical to females... they would have the same features, but different histories and meanings. What would that mean for how we treat them? I don't know. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. Could we medically excise men's statistically higher tendency to rape and murder other humans? I might consider dropping my nature philosophy and joining the tech revolution in that case.

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT?[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's true. That philosophical framework you outlined of something that simply "is" rather than something that was surgically/medically created seems to fit into my understanding of how we already classify people into the two sexes. That makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

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

You're welcome. Wikipedia has a page on teleology if you're interested. Obviously not everyone views the world in that way.