GC: what are the definitions of male and female that do not exclude cis men and cis women who don't produce sperm or egg or removed their genitals?

submitted by BubblyBrush from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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 https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/