all 38 comments

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The definitions already cover them. Idk what the hell you’re talking about.

A male is born of the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. Period. Doesn’t mean they have to be able to function typically. It means they are born of the sex that functions that way. It’s not complicated. Little boys are male. Infant boys are male. Despite neither of them being capable of producing sperm. They don’t magically become officially male once they enter puberty. They enter male puberty because they are male to begin with. If something occurs in life that prevents them from functioning typically they are still male. They don’t magically become female. If a male chooses not to (or can’t) reproduce, he’s still a male. He doesn’t lose his sex because he doesn’t use it to make a baby.

A female is born of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. Period. Super simple. And everything I said about males in infancy, childhood or with regards to choosing not or being unable to reproduce still applies. A child or childless female is still a female. She doesn’t stop being a female after menopause.

I swear y’all come here with this weird ass reach like once a week. You are the sex you were born. There’s no way out.

As far as “removing” genitalia- first- are they “removed” or reconstructed? Either way, they still aren’t the genitals of the opposite sex and never can be. And they’re still made out of their own genitals. Which means a fauxgina on a TW is made of penis and balls and is a male sex organ and a neophallus made out of vagina and arm skin is still a female sex organ. Sorry bout it.

The only issue with the definitions of male and female is that some people can’t accept those definitions for personal reasons.

[–]SilverSlippers 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly this.

Your sex is based on the type of gametes your body developed to produce. If you have a SRY gene & androgen receptors, your body will develop along a path that ideally leads to sperm production. Even if something goes wrong and you never produce sperm, or later have the testes removed, your body still DEVELOPED with the intention of producing sperm and thus you are male. I.e. Men with Klinefelter's syndrome have an extra X chromosome, causing their bodies to produce higher than normal levels of estrogen. They still have an SRY gene and androgen receptors, so they still develop organs to produce sperm even though the high estrogen level typically makes the testes non-functional.

Conversely if you don't have an SRY gene or androgen receptors, your body will develop along a path geared towards egg production and you will be female. I.e. Women with CAIS have an SRY gene but no androgen receptors and thus as fetuses they develop along a female path, even though they don't develop a uterus or ovaries. They will appear female at birth and be raised as girls. Most women with this don't even find out until later in life when they never get a period or can't get pregnant.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There not "produces", but "support of producing", tho. It covers everyone, including intersex people, except maybe some rare CAIS cases, but even then there sex can be found, or then can be used other characteristics to make it more clean (most often it is female body, as they can support gestation, just lacking needed organs).

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

What are the “not gc” definitions of these words?

[–]Britishbulldog 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Feelz. Because who cares for science when feelz exist

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

Glad you picked up on that odd framing... what does it even mean to say the GC definition as if it's somehow fringe. I thought that's just the standard and universal definition.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is not "GC definition", lol. It is scientific definition, that existed long before trans issues even started.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I just don’t understand why people keep asking this. It’s really easy.

Also, trans people can still be valid even if we acknowledge sex. Why is it so important to pretend that sex can change or is a spectrum?

[–]worried19 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have to wonder if questions like this one are genuine. Do these posters really think the reality of biological sex is a "gotcha" question?

Biological sex wasn't in question 10 years ago. Chances are almost everyone old enough to visit Saidit sat through a perfectly normal biology class in high school that should have explained this stuff.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, I'm not sure either. It seems like a lot of times the person never replies so maybe they are just trying to get a reaction.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suspect so.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What does "being valid" even mean?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I am interested in answer too.

Valid can be concept, argument or answer. Living beings or even items can not be valid. Only time when item (or creature) can be said that it is valid, is when someone created something weird and then "it is valid as a chair" - like it is not exactly chair but it fits the chair role and purpose, so it can be valid as a chair. And even if take such meaning of word, then transgender people are not valid, as they are not fitting neither biological purpose, nor social role of the opposite sex (transwomen can't be pregnant, they still act like men, and very rarely they are passing, same for transmen, they just passing better).

Much more sense would make using word "real" instead. Like "transgender people are real".

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It’s a good question! I didn’t really think about what “valid” means in reality, but I sort of meant it to stand in for whatever the OP wants for trans people. Like, if the OP believes trans people should be treated like their preferred sex, they can push for that without pretending sex isn’t real.

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

if the OP believes trans people should be treated like their preferred sex, they can push for that without pretending sex isn’t real.

But if these people are treated like their preferred pretend sex, doesn't that mean pretending that their pretend sex is real? That would seem to undercut the idea that sex is real.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe. Behaving like someones “pretend sex” or “gender identity” means something is very different than pretending actual sex doesn’t exist though I feel like. Pretending sex doesn’t exist is a far more recent thing and even amongst transsexuals it used to be commonly accepted that it didn’t actually change. Many people just think it is nice to treat people the way they want and not put much more thought into it. It is blurring the lines in some ways though so I understand why GC might not like that. Reminds me of

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If what makes a male or a female is the production of sperm or egg, then that means men or women who can not produce sperm or egg are not male or female by definition.

You misunderstand. Male and female are not defined by production of sperm or egg, but by the potential capacity to produce sperm or egg at some point in life. Many girls and boys die before the age when they can produce sperm or or mature and release eggs. This does not mean they died as sexless beings.

The sex of a human fetus can be easily ascertained in utero at 9 weeks via the non-invasive NIPT or invasive CVS. This is why so many female fetuses in various countries are being aborted simply for being female. Also, one in nine girls born alive in India today will be killed by age five simply for being of the female sex.

You're also using a male-centric definition of sex. Fact is, female humans are born with all our eggs already intact. We do not produce new eggs in our lifetime upon sexual excitation and orgasm the way males produce sperm; our bodies attempt to preserve some of the eggs we already had in utero coz in the natural course of events our eggs deteriorate and die off over the course of our lives. During and after puberty, girls and women's eggs mature and are released one by one on a regular basis during the ovulation-menstrual cycle. No matter how much sexual excitation or orgasms a girl or women experiences, this in no way causes her to mature or release eggs or otherwise affects her fecundity.

And if what makes a male or a female is the genitals, then a male or a female who removed all the sex organs in surgery is not a male or female anymore. By definition.

This is a very male POV. Only the male genitals include male gonads, the testes, where male gametes come from. Female gonads, the ovaries, where female gametes come from, are entirely internal. A female can have entirely altered genitals and still have her gonads and other reproductive organs intact.

a male or a female who removed all the sex organs in surgery is not a male or female anymore. By definition.

Pray tell, what people of either sex do you know or have you ever heard of who've had all their sex organs removed?

I'm a woman who has had her uterus, ovaries and Fallopian tubes removed coz of life-threatening disease. But my vagina, labia, clit, urethra and breasts remain, as do all the other parts of my body which bear the unmistakable stamp of my female sex - such as my pelvis; my post-menopausal pelvic floor issues; the stretch marks, hemorrhoids and pudendal neuralgia I have left over from pregnancy and childbirth 30 years ago; my female-sized heart and lungs; my female-functioning kidneys and immune system; and every cell in my body, which all carry my XX sex chromosome.

Males who get their dicks and testes removed/reconfigured coz they want to mimic women, as well as all the men who lose their penises and testes due to accidents, warfare and explosions, still retain a number of crucial internal male organs such as the prostate. And their male sex is still encoded in every cell of every organ in their bodies.

Male and female mean plants, animals and persons that evolution has determined will develop the anatomy to give them the potential capacity to produce sperm or ova at particular points in their lives after they've matured. Many male plants like trees produce sperm - pollen - only at certain times of the year, which is why humans have seasonal pollen allergies. But these plants are male all the rest of the time they're not producing pollen. Similarly, many sexually mature female mammals only produce ova at a given time each year - but they're still female all the rest of the time.

In any sexually-reproducing species, there will be organisms of either sex who for one reason or the other are incapable of producing sperm or ova at any time even after they mature. But they still are either of the female or male sex, and can be easily sexed.

Your mother, grandmother, aunts, great aunts all are probably post-menopausal and thus no longer have viable eggs and therefore can't reproduce. Some of these women might have had various surgeries to remove certain of their female organs due to health conditions. Please go tell them that in your condescending opinion they are no longer women. And get back to us with their reactions. We'll be waiting with bated breath.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is just dwelling on intersex exceptions again. GC don't make up their own definitions when it comes to sex. Just Wiki that shit if you want to know the GC view, because funnily enough there's quite a lot of overlap between science & GC feminism, which is an understatement.

It's you guys who go on about chromosomal sex, vs. gonadal sex, vs. hormonal sex vs. anatomical sex – check, check, check, check – trans-womxyn's sex is male on every count. So by your own standards trans-womxyn still end up being male & not intersex & certainly not female.

No definition of the female sex, no matter how liberal, will include trans-womxyn's unambiguously male sex, sorry. Intersex exceptions aren't remotely relevant. Most trans-womxyn, just like most people, are endosex, not intersex.

Say there was a possibility that trans-womxyn could be considered female, despite matching the definition of male by both lacking every female sexual organ & having every male sexual organ, it would backfire. Once you erode the differences between the sexes you're left with no justification to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men again. Back to square one.

You can't convince us that a medically transitioned trans-woman is equivalent to intersex, if that's what you meant. You should really change your slogan to reflect your true beliefs: "only medically transitioned trans-womxyn are women" since that what the hive mind seems to suggest every time you go down the "WhatAboutIntersex road", which you all invariably do e.g. "hormonally trans-womxyn are the same as women, therefore blah, blah, blah".

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Intersex conditions in most cases are sex specific and happens only for males or females. In all cases we are still male or female.

Assigning sex at birth - was medical malpractice, when medical personnel was not wanting to be bothered enough to make more tests, or was unqualified to make correct judgement. I am victim of one. And often this was leading to IGM, health issues and even death from lack of correct treatment.

Sex is aspectrum is saying we are lesser females or lesser males, or something in-between. It is very dehumanizing and very triggering. Ant it is just a lie, we are either female or male. Fully.

People born with Congenital Disorders of Sex Development (intersex) are no less female or male, same as people born with Congenital Heart Disorders are no less humans.

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

All babies are born with ten fingers and ten toes, so... anything different is suddenly not a baby? Or if you should lose a limb later in life, that automatically makes you non-human—since humans have two arms and two legs by definition?

This is what you are asking people to believe. Quit trying to twist reality.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

"Humans are bipeds"

"What about humans born without legs (secretly referring to people who cut off their own legs)?"

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

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

All babies are born with ten fingers and ten toes

No, the vast majority of human babies are born with ten fingers and toes. But a small number are born with extra digits. And some babies are born without hands or feet, or with one or the other hand or foot deformed or absent. For example, lots of kids whose mothers took Thalidomide during pregnancy were born with severe limb deformities and absence.

But the fact that these anomalies sometimes occur - for natural and iatrogenic reasons - does not alter the truth that humans broadly speaking are bipedal, with two hands, two feet, ten fingers, ten toes. The small number of exceptions to the rule do not make the general class/categorization untrue. Or "not valid."

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

Exactly my point. Is it worth splitting hairs over and pedantically saying "the vast majority" then? We still know what we mean when we say "all".

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

On threads like this I think it is worth splitting hairs and being as precise and accurate as possible. Not just for the sake of being pedantic, and not for the benefit of posters like you or me, but for the lurkers and readers. A lot more people read what we say than post here. And clearly, many are very confused and ill-informed. You and I might know what you mean by "all" here, but a lot of readers won't.

Also, I'm an old-school journalist who was trained back in the 1970s to be persnickety about precise lingo. I know it makes me seem pedantic and a pain in the ass, but I'm gonna go ahead and keep being a stickler anyways.

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

I do appreciate your persnicketiness, believe me! However—I did originally consider whether or not I actually wanted to say "all" there since it's very relevant to the context of this discussion around making definitions too specific.

I believe we need to be able to speak in generalities when something applies to the overwhelming majority. Otherwise we fall into the trap of labels like "people who menstruate" for precision's sake whenever someone argues that not all women do.

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

And it seems male or female only have to do with procreation

Bingo! You got it. Sex is short for sexual reproduction. That is all it is. Anything else you are connecting to it is your own baggage. What it means is which body you got. In the human species, sexual reproduction requires two types - star bellied sneetches, and those without stars upon thars - or however you want to see it. Some people have pods to grow the life form and little seedlings, some people have fertilizers. You need both to make a baby, and you were born with a body that does one or the other. DOn't want to have a baby? Then forget about it and just be a person...

Oh, except people carrying seedling pods do have an extra inner organ system their whole life that takes away some of the power from other parts of their body and makes them a little more vulnerable, and it's pretty evident from the outside which ones they are, so they get taken advantage of physically or even threatened to fertilize their seedlings against their will.

So it doesn't matter if you do or don't procreate or want to procreate. It matters which body you have if you were going to procreate. Which part would you be able to play at any point in your life if someone forced you to help continue the human race by sexual reproduction. That is all that sex is, but it ends up having a large social impact on how we think about power structures. "Might makes right" has been the rule through much of history, the reason wars are won, and certainly the problem women have faced.

[–]emptiedriver 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I am curious what your non-GC definition of male and female are, if you think a very rare exception of a completely de-sexed individual would be "so many issues". What QT definition could you come up with that isn't just completely vague and useless (how someone feels.. but why is "that feeling" male or female if you've never defined those things before?) or based on stereotypes?

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Often it is "anyone who is saying they are a woman" or "anyone who society is seeing as woman". However, then 10 years ago I would not be a woman in both cases. Now only in 1, lol.

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

"anyone" is not a definition. It's saying "this word has no limits or finitude - it can be anything you want". Why even have the word? If an elephant can be an umbrella can be a cardboard balloon-shaped marble cosmetology forest, what is the point of communication to begin with?

A category has to have boundaries. If people "know" they are a woman, then they "know" something that they are communicating to others by saying that, presumably stereotypes about womanhood if it's not biology. Otherwise, what is it? If it doesn't mean anything don't use the word... It's just completely nonsensical.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's saying "this word has no limits or finitude - it can be anything you want".

I think that is their point.

[–]emptiedriver 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

that's not a point. their point is "we have no point"

points point toward something, this is just vapid nothingness

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Destination is complete entrophy, they are working with second law of thermodynamics to make world meaningless and end faster!

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

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

Simple: Male- underwent the developmental pathway in the womb to produce the biological structures evolved to produce sperm. Female- underwent the developmental pathway in the womb to produce the biological structures evolved to produce ova.

Issue one- the definition above is ‘structures evolved to produce...’ Whether said structures actually work isn’t relevant to it.

Issue two- the definition above specifies development within the womb. Whether a biological structure is later altered or removed is not relevant to it.

Issue three. The act of procreation is not mentioned.

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

Are humans suddenly not bipedal just because some lose their legs? Are humans suddenly impossible to define just because some individuals have developmental disorders or get plastic surgeries to superficially change their appearance? Do humans who lose all their limbs turn into snakes? Is Cat Man actually a cat?

Why do you think a girl who doesn't get her period would be looked at for illnesses or developmental issues, and a boy wouldn't? Why do you think women or men who produce too much of the opposite-sex hormone are still correctly identified as the sex that they are by the medical community?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I find the question odd, especially when you throw in these terms: cis men and cis women. Would the OP please define those terms? Thanks.

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

Your sex is defined by the gametes your body was meant to produce. If your body was meant to produce sperm and impregnate someone, you are male. Even if your body doesn't produce sperm, that is what your body was meant to do. If your body was meant to be pregnant, you are female, even if you are incapable of being pregnant. Sex is binary and immutable.