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 →

[–]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.