GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

[deleted]

all 91 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

How are humans made?

And how does that answer fit into your beliefs?

Also- it wasn’t obvious you were on the fence. It was obvious that you leaned qt and weren’t interested in anything gc had to say. People on the fence tend to engage when they ask questions. When I first started participating in the old sub I was on the fence. I posted asking all of my questions and explained my reasoning for having those questions, and turned gc after both qt and gc responded and I engaged with them. You linked comments defending qt theory and then... nothing. You engaged once and said both gc commenters (myself and someone else) made sense. But here you are qt as can be lol. Because despite you knowing it makes no fucking sense, that’s where you want to be. You’re either trans or sheep. Have fun with that willful ignorance. I hope you’re male, because if not, you’re complicit in your own dehumanization and oppression. Enjoy it I guess, but be warned- if you’re female, tras will turn on you and guilt trip you about everything and you’ll never be able to keep up with their ideology or demands of you. But at least you can call yourself woke

[–]MissDimples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You edited your comment and I didn't see the longer text below the first few lines. Even if I am qt, and not on the fence like I consider myself to be, I came here because I am interested in being convinced by GC to change my position.

I get lazy sometimes due to the depression, and don't wish to write a whole essay to explain my reasoning, excuse me but I barely care about getting out of bed, don't see how you can expect me not to be lazy, so I linked posts from tqs that would do the job well enough and said the same things I would, which you didn't like. So I wrote an essay explaining myself like you wanted here. But you still don't like it.

I'm female and aware of trans women getting in women spaces and sports, but I don't really care about being "dehumanized". I'm an animal, not anything special, and don't believe I can be "dehumanized". The reason I came to be convinced of GC is because I feel there's something missing. I only know the tq arguments and don't understand GC, but wish to, but if tq wanted to debate me, they would win the argument and I would lose because I only know their line of thinking.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

/1. You don’t have to write an essay to be clear about your views.

/2. Didn’t say I didn’t like it lol. Said you come across as full of shit. Depression made you lazy but not too lazy to find those comments, bring them here and ask? But then you went back to being lazy? So lazy you couldn’t bother to respond to something that so obviously interested you? But again you found ways to not be that lazy and find more comments from other subs to bring here? Odd. But okay.

Also odd that you can’t respond on your posts but can make a whole new one declaring your stance but now you can’t defend your stance you just defend yourself against... nothing really. Didn’t accuse you of anything but willful ignorance.

/3. Look up what dehumanized means. It doesn’t mean men in sports and bathrooms.

/4. Sounds like you’re saying you know gc is right and you would lose a debate so you don’t engage but you can’t help but try to point out gotchas. QT AF.

/5. You don’t want them to get in your space but you’ll see them as women?

/6. There’s not much to understand about gc. Gc is most people. Sex can’t be changed. TW are men. TM are women. It’s super simple. It’s qt that’s complicated.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Finding those comments were so much easier than trying to explain myself in a second language when those comments already did the job for me yep

I am defending my position, maybe you need to wash your eyes.

Most people are not GC, show me stats that most people are GC and then I will believe you.

As I said, dehumanization means objectification or seeing someone less than a human or whatever else you want to add to it, I'm an animal, consisted of a bunch of atoms. I am an object, and don't care about being "objectified" when I am clearly an object

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your position is I’m too lazy to articulate how I think but I came to a space intended for people to articulate how they think? Got it.

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

I don't really see most of the posters in this sub, or any other GC sub, being articulate, so ...

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

Well you’re comments have proven that you struggle with reading comprehension, so maybe it’s not that gc isn’t articulate. Maybe it’s you. Didn’t mean that as an insult I just don’t know how else to word that. GC people say the same things as each other for the most part. If you can’t grasp what just one of us is saying (though your comment history indicates that at one point you understood two of us quite well) that’s more you than us.

Actually- if you can understand qt but not gc then that’s because you want to side with them. They can’t even agree with each other.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was my first comment on this sub: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/70fm/gc_thoughts_on_xenogenders_and_neopronouns_why/qmdu

Yes I get GC say the same things, isn't that every debate? I can guarantee you, if you talk to any tq they will say the same things "if sex is just reproduction, what about people that don't reproduce, are they sexless? What about people that have no gametes and genitals, are they sexless?"

All the discussions with tqs will be the same thing, should we have no debates then?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that gc always has a ready response for QT’s whatabouts. People who don’t reproduce or can’t reproduce are still born with a sex. That’s been explained so many times. There is always a way to determine sex. There are plenty of trans people who disagree with each other. Transmed does not represent the whole trans community. There’s so many different ways people define woman and man or what it means to be trans or who qualifies as trans. They do not have a cohesive stance.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get lazy sometimes due to the depression, and don't wish to write a whole essay to explain my reasoning, excuse me but I barely care about getting out of bed, don't see how you can expect me not to be lazy

Lots of people posting on social media are clinically depressed, some to the point of near-catatonia; many are dealing with severe physical disabilities and diseases; some are even terminally ill. But that doesn't change the fact that anyone posting on debate subs - and especially starting debate threads - should be expected to put the time and effort in to explain their reasoning.

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

I did put time and effort in to explain myself like the first post I made here, again, so can we stop talking about what I did a few days ago when now you don't see me doing that? Also, wow, all these people on social media are disabled and depressed but have so much energy to explain themselves, almost makes it look like they are lying about their depression and disability or they are just not as depressed and disabled as they claim

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

wow, all these people on social media are disabled and depressed but have so much energy to explain themselves, almost makes it look like they are lying about their depression and disability or they are just not as depressed and disabled as they claim

I didn't say that lots of people posting on social media are saying they are depressed, disabled, seriously ill; I said they actually are. Distinctions seems to be lost on you.

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

My bad then. But how do you know they are actually depressed, disabled, or seriously ill? Do they post photos of themselves? I don't know. If they are depressed and disabled, but have the energy to write anything longer than two sentences, then more power to them. Today I listened to your and lovesloane's advice. I was trying not to be lazy and actually put effort and time in my post, I did well don't you think?

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

How are humans made?

What does that have to do with anything? You said there are features/characteristics that are associated with one sex, features that have nothing to do with genitalia, and that's gender essentialism. According to that, these same features/characteristics determine one's sex as they are innate to that sex.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So you’re gonna ignore my other comment (on your last post) so you can pretend what you’re saying now makes sense?

You gave an example of a man who “looked like a woman”. Yet everyone discussing him knew he was a man? Why? Shouldn’t he be a woman now, regardless of how he identifies? Or is it the combo of looking and identifying?

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It's looking not identifying, the post from before was about someone with really soft features, and others saying "he" is a cute woman. Since according to gender essentialism, certain features are innate to a man or a woman, anyone with features that are innate to women is a woman meaning "he" is not a "he" but a "she" even if not identifying as such due to having features associated with women.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So then the guy in the band is a woman according to you. That’s what you’re saying. Because people looked at him and saw a feminine features. So he has no say in it. Which would mean that a TW who has had CSH and surgery but still doesn’t fully pass is still a man? And in fact only fully passing TW are women? Which would mean that no TW is a woman because pass or not with clothes on, inverted dicks don’t pass for vaginas so no TW can ever fully pass?

What if some people think you look like a man and some people think you look like a woman? Does that force you to be non-binary?

Would this also mean that a pregnant woman who isn’t showing yet but looks masculine is a man? Because despite her body doing a very female thing, we see a man? So she has no choice but the be the father of the child she births? Later in her pregnancy, when she’s showing, does the bump cancel out the male features or do the features cancel out the bump? Or is she also forced to be non-binary?

Just tryna understand, I’m obviously on the fence.

Eta- how many people have to decide what you look like before you find out if you’re a man or a woman?

What happens when someone doesn’t want to be the sex you see them as? They just have to deal? So most trans people should just accept being misgendered? I’m just confused.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

When I was in transmed circles, few transmeds would tell me that only fully passing tw would be considered women. And that if a man identified as a woman, passed as a woman to some but not to others, then they would fall in the nonbinary or genderqueer category. That would mean even if a woman identified as a man but didn't pass as a man to everyone that sees them, and a man identified as a woman but didn't pass as a woman to everyone, it would be okay to "misgender" them and they would have to deal with it ...

Those are what I have been told. In the pregnant woman example, according to the tras, if she passes as a man, she would be a man, and the tras would say that's a male being pregnant, and counting that as male pregnancy. Have you see the news where trans right activists say "trans man got pregnant, first male pregnancy" or things similar? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/20/the-dad-who-gave-birth-pregnant-trans-freddy-mcconnell

Are you really on the fence? I thought you said you were on the fence but started being GC.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

No I’m not on the fence I was being facetious.

If you’re letting trans people, transmes or not, tell you what makes a woman/man rather than deciding for yourself then idk what to tell you.

GC explained to you a unified, clear, and reasonable explanation about sex. You choose to reject it for QT’s contradictory, wishful thinking version. That’s on you. I don’t really know what the point of engaging with you is, which makes me regret even pointing out that you don’t engage. I can’t keep explaining how sex works to you. I get the feeling other gc users are tired of it too. Our answers are never going to change. Males are born male and are boys or men and females are born female and are girls or women. Reproduction proves this. Female and male specific functions prove this. Even the reasons that a female or male don’t function as they typically do always comes back to sex. It’s really that simple. You can chose not to accept it. I choose not to waste more effort explaining the same shit to someone who pretended to understand a few days ago and then backtracked for no clear reason.

Maybe you should aim your questions at qt. Gc is always gonna have the same answer.

[–]MissDimples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I choose not to waste more effort explaining the same shit to someone who pretended to understand a few days ago and then backtracked for no clear reason.

When did I agree with GC that now you think I backfired? I was on the fence back in the first post too. You said I should be articulate in the debate sub, and put in time and effort to explain, but when I did all you've been giving back has been "males are males, females are females, I'm not going to waste time on you to explain to you anymore". You're ironic.

Fine, if you don't want to explain then don't. But don't go accusing me of not being articulate this time, because I was.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

When you asked me to link those articles?

You aren’t addressing points made or questions asked. You’re defending how you post and your lack of response to the actual points and questions. Idgaf about why you post what you post or why you don’t respond- I wanted you to answer my questions. For example- can you explain how humans are made, and how that explanation would fit in with the statement you made in this post?

Also- isn’t it kind of up to others to say if someone is articulate? Like I can understand gc comments and even if I disagree with qt I at least usually get what they’re saying. I don’t really ever get what you’re saying.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

When did I ask you to link any articles? I think you're confusing me with someone else. Please check the past interactions you had with the people here, even click on my username and go to my post history, because you and I only talked in my second post about that person with soft features.

Ah so now tqs are articulate and logical, very good at expressing themselves, where did the "tqs are delulus" go?

I said in my post that I don't see how only reproduction is the only thing determining sex, you said certain features that have nothing to do with genitals are associated with one sex, so the conclusion is these certain features also determine sex, because only one sex can have those features, just like only one sex has certain genitalia. Am I hard to understand?

[–]emptiedriver 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How are humans made? What does that have to do with anything?

Do you understand what "sexual reproduction" is? A person's sex is which reproductive system they have. Their primary sexual characteristics are their sexual reproductive system. Babies are made by the interaction of two of those systems - one from column A, one from column B. Those systems cause secondary characteristics - people with a sexual reproductive system that produces sperm also have more testosterone, so tend have more hair, larger bones, and so on. A person with a womb tends to have softer skin and mammary glands in her chest, with more breast tissue around it - but these things vary. The key part that does not change and that defines who is male and who is female is which reproductive system you have.

You can get a lot of plastic surgery to look different, but if you still have a reproductive system, you are still male or female. If you have your reproductive system entirely removed, you are no longer technically sexed, but you don't become the other sex.

For people who medically alter themselves like this, I think it is a form of trans humanism, and that we should talk about how to deal with this new technological aspect of life since obviously it is becoming more normal. However, it doesn't change your reproductive sex so it is basically just weird cosmetic surgery.

According to that, these same features/characteristics determine one's sex as they are innate to that sex.

The only part innate is your reproductive system. Everything else is SECONDARY characteristics. That means it's not innate. As you said above, "associated with", common to, usually the case, but not necessary. You can have hairy women and men with boobs naturally.

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

The only part innate is your reproductive system. Everything else is SECONDARY characteristics. That means it's not innate. As you said above, "associated with", common to, usually the case, but not necessary. You can have hairy women and men with boobs naturally.

I think you are misrepresenting the meaning of innate." It means inborn, natural. Which is very different from essential or fundamental.

In most of the human population, secondary sex characteristics are indeed innate, inborn, natural. Although both males and females take measures to remove or shape facial and body hair, and many do exercises and wear clothes meant to accentuate the appearance of secondary sex characteristics, very few people on earth have had or will ever have surgeries, take hormone treatments or undergo other extreme interventions to alter our/their inborn, natural secondary sex characteristics.

Also, whilst many men have "boobs naturally" they cannot fulfill the same reproductive functions as the breasts of mature females. In females, mature breasts are both secondary sex characteristics and reproductive organs that can and are meant to fulfill a vital role in the survival of offspring and the perpetuation of the human species.

[–]emptiedriver 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In most of the human population, secondary sex characteristics are indeed innate, inborn, natural.

Of course, but the point is that you can't judge the sex by them. It isn't defined by the secondary characteristics because those are the things that happen as a result of the primary characteristics. They do usually happen, but if they don't, that doesn't change a person's sex.

I think innate means inborn and essential, like a characteristic is either part of your nature or caused externally. The question of what innate characteristics of a woman would be is different for innate to individual women and innate to the entire sex. Large breasts can be innate to Justine but we can't say they're innate to every woman. Some healthy mature women just have flat chests but XX chromosomes are innate to women

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

I think innate means inborn and essential, like a characteristic is either part of your nature or caused externally. The question of what innate characteristics of a woman would be is different for innate to individual women and innate to the entire sex.

Just to clarify: The secondary sex characteristics that individual humans might or might not develop during and after puberty are not the same as the essential qualities that determine and define the two human sexes as categories. Secondary sex characteristics are not essential determinants of the two human sexes - male or female. Human fetuses and children all have a sex, and can be sexed, many years before the time when humans develop secondary sex characteristics.

Large breasts can be innate to Justine but we can't say they're innate to every woman. Some healthy mature women just have flat chests but XX chromosomes are innate to women

Agreed. But it's also important to note that many women's breasts tend to vary in size over the course of the menstrual cycle - and over the course of the life cycle, most women's breasts will change dramatically in size due to pregnancy and childbirth, and coz of fluctuations in weight and the aging process. Even women whose breasts are/were usually small tend to have large breasts after giving birth when their/our milk comes in and so long as they/we breastfeed.

Also, girls and women who have their breasts entirely removed due to breast cancer or "gender identity" claims do not become any less female as a result.

[–][deleted]  (9 children)

[removed]

    [–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

    I'm female, just because I have a vagina doesn't mean I'm well-versed in or that familiar with female biology. Actually, before I got my first period in highschool, I thought periods meant some white thing would come out of me, and I was wrong.

    Question: why would reconfigured organs not be the real thing? Let's say a neopenis is reconfigured arm skin, or vagina, and a neovagina is reconfigured penis, why would you say that a reconfigured arm skin, or vagina that looks and feels like a real penis is not a real penis? Or a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina not a real vagina?

    And regarding the men and women who remove their genitals due to injury or other issues, why would they still be men or women when they have no genitals and no gametes? Aren't genitals and gametes the two things that determine sex according to GC? Why would one still remain the sex they were after the two determinants of sex are lost?

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not knowing what anatomy you have does not make it less related to your sex.

    Have you ever seen a pseudopenis? A pseudovagina? They do not look the same, feel the same, or function the same. If I construct a very detailed facsimile of a penis with the pork roast currently in my oven, does it become a penis? What about if it looks and feels very convincing?

    You misunderstand the gc stance on sex. Ones sex is the reproductive role they would potentially play. The body developed according to one of two possible plans barring a disorder of sexual development. Either to produce sperm or to produce ova. The actual production of either being removed due to injury/illness/age etc does not change the role they developed to play in procreation. So their sex clearly does not change.

    [–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I'm female, just because I have a vagina doesn't mean I'm well-versed in or that familiar with female biology. Actually, before I got my first period in highschool, I thought periods meant some white thing would come out of me, and I was wrong.

    I am sorry you are so in the dark about your own biology and human biology in general, and that you are depressed as well. Not being informed about your own body can feed into and even cause depression and feeling powerless.

    To learn about your biology, please get an old copy of "Our Bodies, Our Selves" and some basic biology books. Your local library will have plenty. There's lots of material and biology course available online as well.

    Question: why would reconfigured organs not be the real thing? Let's say a neopenis is reconfigured arm skin, or vagina, and a neovagina is reconfigured penis, why would you say that a reconfigured arm skin, or vagina that looks and feels like a real penis is not a real penis? Or a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina not a real vagina? A pocket of flaccid flesh meant for penetration and "validation" purposes surgically inserted into a male pelvis made out of penile and scrotal skin - or pieces of male colon, peritoneum, thigh or back skin - is nothing like a real vagina.

    It's only in the perception/opinion of some males that there's such a thing as "a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina" and is a dead ringer for a "real vagina." A real vagina is a muscular, elastic, self-cleaning organ with its own unique flora and biochemistry and a remarkable ability to expand and contract in order to facilitate childbirth. Another fundamental function of the vagina is the passage of menses.

    Where have you seen or heard of a "vagina that looks and feel like a real penis"?

    Aren't genitals and gametes the two things that determine sex according to GC?

    No, this is not the view "according to GC."

    According to biologists and science, and those who are GC who understand basic biology, what determines the sex of individuals in sexually-reproducing species is whether from the time of conception development occurred along one of two pathways - one with the potential capacity to produce small gametes at some point in life; the other with the potential capacity to produce large gametes at some point in life.

    Genitals are not what determine sex - the gonads one is meant to have developed are.

    Only male gonads are genitals "between the legs." Female gonads are internal organs in the abdomen - not between the legs.

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

    I don't know if you're being sarcastic or if you genuinely mean you feel sympathy for me for being in the dark about my biology and being depressed, but if you are being genuine then thank you 😊. I will try to get my hands on that book online, if I don't find it online, I will see if the library has it.

    It's only in the perception/opinion of some males that there's such a thing as "a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina" and is a dead ringer for a "real vagina." A real vagina is a muscular, elastic, self-cleaning organ with its own unique flora and biochemistry and a remarkable ability to expand and contract in order to facilitate childbirth. Another fundamental function of the vagina is the passage of menses.

    Where have you seen or heard of a "vagina that looks and feel like a real penis"?

    I didn't know that about the vagina. I actually started hating my vagina because there's always this sharp pain when I'm on my period, I don't look forward to periods, the pain starts a week before the period (I have PMS) and I can barely walk the first 3 days when the bleeding starts. I don't want this to be graphic so I will stop there.

    But yeah, it seems to not be that bad.

    What about the penis? Do you know what differences there are between penis and neopenis, even if the neopenis really looks and feels like the real penis? 🤔

    [–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I was being sincere, not sarcastic at all. I really think you'd benefit enormously by learning about female biology.

    I actually started hating my vagina because there's always this sharp pain when I'm on my period, I don't look forward to periods, the pain starts a week before the period (I have PMS) and I can barely walk the first 3 days when the bleeding starts. I don't want this to be graphic so I will stop there.

    I sympathize. I had severe, debilitating pelvic pain when I ovulated and when I menstruated for most of my adolescent/adult life. But the locus of my pain was not my vagina, it was my ovaries and uterus. The vagina is not usually the cause of of menstrual and ovulation pain.

    Politics aside, the more you know about your different organs and their different functions, sensory capacities and the nerves that are linked to them, the better you will be able to describe and locate the source of your pain and find ways to resolve it.

    Rather than spend your time debating esoteric matters on contentious forums like this, please consider refocusing your time and energy on issues and support forums that have a direct bearing on your own physical and mental wellbeing.

    Even though I have vehemently disagreed with views you've expressed here, I wish you well as a fellow/sister human being. Please take care of yourself and seek information and support outside of social media. Best wishes to you.

    [–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Thank you! I wish you well too and hope you have a happy holidays!

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

    Please take care of yourself first before immersing yourself in, engaging with, all this gender ideology BS any more. It's not good for anyone's mental health, and it's further damaging to women's sense of self and self-esteem. And you in particular are not going to have any chance of winning any arguments about human sex when you, as you have now made clear, know so little about human biology, even your own.

    Happy holidays to you too. I hope you will be able to come out of your current depression and will have a lifetime of good physical and mental health.

    Edit added: PS - I am dealing with severe depression and serious, disabling physical illness myself, so I know what it's like not to have energy or the will to do much. Some days brushing my teeth seems as difficult as climbing Mt Everest. I really do sympathize with your situation. But when any of us makes a choice to engage in online debates, it's not fair to say we can't be held to basic standards of discourse due to depression or other illness. It's an underhanded tactic.

    Again, best wishes.

    [–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Comment was removed for violating sub rules. OP was given an opportunity to edit. I really dislike having to remove comments so please considering editing in the future.

    Original: TIM/TIF are not allowed in this space. The sidebar recommends substitute terms like trans natal male or trans natal female. Please edit your comment when you are able. Thanks!

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

    Comment is permitted. Tim and Tif are perfectly reasonable terms. After all, we allow that hateful term "cis".

    [–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Gender essentialism, or biological essentialism

    I didn't read the fucking novel that you wrote. Please, PLEASE, learn the definitions of terms before using them. What you are talking about is just biology, biological essentialism means something completely different. If you don't want people to think you are a fucking moron learn about what you are trying to write about. ETA - if you are going to use a term in a different way than its commonly used meaning you need to admit that you are doing that and define it how you are planning on using it.

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

    If anyone thinks that anyone else is a “fucking moron“ then they’re being ableist and illogical. No one deserves to be put down for not knowing things

    [–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm super tired of having the same conversations with people who don't do even a bare minimum of research.

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

    I am not even sure that is the case. It is just that they make reseraches and then ignore everything they found, make up their own theory that makes sense only to them and pretend it' s the "official" one shared by everyone. See also: everyone except "TERFs" use the word "woman" with no biological connotation.

    It' s an entire different thing than just not making researches, and a thousand times worse.

    [–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You should try to write something that makes sense and is cogent before posting it. You typed a rant using words that might seem big or official to you, but it is really just gibberish. Try again.

    Here's an example: "It is said men are taller", no it is not said. What difference would it make if it is said? Idiots say things all the time. We should not waste our time on what "is said", even on SaidIt. Men do tend to be taller, it does not need to be said: it just is.

    You use a phrase, "gender essentialism" but I have never heard that before. Are you creating your own term as a play on biological essentialism? That phrase originated as a way of describing the sexist notions that women are just not as smart or women are naturally nurturing or that women are more emotional, and all sorts of assumed behaviors that may be adaptations by some or most women to the social roles they are forced into and the term biological essentialism describes when people have presented those behaviors as somehow a result of biology not socialization. Gender ideology and gender identity rely heavily, entirely really, on biological essentialism claiming there is something innate about the sexes that is mimiced by an innate gender identity. It is just a toxic mimic ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--Ry7lGcZI ) built on sexist stereotypes.

    Also, what do you mean by "innate"? Innate as used in this gender-bullshit refers to the idea that in spite of having fully functioning reproductive organs there is something "innate" in some individuals that makes their "gender" the opposite of their sex. Why this innate trait called gender is somehow sexed and must use the vocabulary that describes a sexed reality and must use the fucking bathrooms of a sexed reality makes no sense and is just creeps being creepy.

    Come back when you make sense.
    (Edited for spelling and punctuation and to fill out a paragraph and add a link)

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

    secondary characteristics have ranges, you could even call them a spectrum if you like. But that have varying frequencies which is why we tend to use them for a first opinion on someone's sex. What we do not do is use them to define sex. And you've been around here long enough to know that.

    [–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Most sheeps are white. So if we see something white - it is a sheep? By gender theory - yes, being white means it is a sheep, so white goat is a sheep. By everyone else - no. Goats can be white too. White goat is not a sheep, it is a goat.

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

    correct.

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

    Features like height, facial hair, body hair, shape of face, shoulders, etc. vary a lot within sexes. I don’t think there is like any particular secondary characteristic that only women have and no men have or vice versa. It’s all just like averages so it can’t really be what sex is because if it were, we’d all be mixed-sex people. Sex is what gamete your body is developed around producing. Most of time, that means a lot of other characteristics will develop around that, but sex is just what developmental path you are own even if it didn’t work to where you had the gametes, or it was disrupted, or you changed parts of yourself. Like, I don’t have many male secondary sexual characteristics, am not very tall, and have had bottom surgery, but I’m still a male because that was how my body developed before I was born.

    [–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    Physical traits like height and body shape are not "gender essentialism".

    GC denounces gender essentialism, but recognizes differences between the two sexes. That's the part you're missing: gender is not sex.

    [–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    "Gender essentialism" is also called biological essentialism, which is these "differences between the two sexes" you're talking about, differences that have nothing to do with genitalia.

    Gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, is the belief that certain characteristics like body shape, height, and even masculinity, femininity, and simply personality are innate and natural essences of a woman or a man.

    Biological essentialists say that men are tall, women are short, men have more body hair, women have less body hair, etc, and that if a man tries to induce these characteristics that are an essence of a woman in himself*, then he becomes more of a woman and less of a man.

    You are not denouncing this gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, you are arguing for it

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Nope. Gender essentialism is the idea that women are innately softer, more nurturing, prone to wanting prettiness etc. and that men are hard, brutish, and unemotional etc.

    Recognising sexual dimorphism is not gender or biological essentialism. It’s not assigning any value to either trait, just describing what occurs in 99% of the population.

    You’ve got some very confused ideas going on.

    [–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    "Sexual dimorphism" doesn't mean when a man has boobs, smoother skin, shorter height, etc, he's "feminized" or "looks like a woman", or that when a woman has really small breast tissue, taller height, etc she is "masculinized" or "looks like a man". There's also an issue with "sexual dimorphism", it varies specie by specie, and is really low in humans, so ...

    Human male and female appearances are perceived as different, although Homo sapiens has a low level of sexual dimorphism compared with many other species. The similarity in the sizes of male and female human beings is a good example of how nature often does not make clear divisions.

    https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio300b/sexdi.htm#:~:text=Human%20male%20and%20female%20appearances,does%20not%20make%20clear%20divisions.

    What you call "sexual dimorphism" is humans' putting the two sexes in boxes that don't really fit them, just because they think it's easier for them to say "women look like xyz" or "men look like abc", nature doesn't care. You see why tras say "sex is bimodal"? Well, it's not sex that is bimodal, but the "sexual dimorphism" is what's bimodal. You see all these characteristics you think are only essences of women also exist in men, and all these characteristics you think are only essences of men also exist in women.

    Gender essentialism doesn't just argue that psychologically women are softer, etc and men are brutes.

    Gender essentialism takes into account "sexual dimorphism". Where do being more nurturing and being brutish come from? Psychology, which really means the brain, and the brain has evolved. Pretty sure brains didn't stay untouched and didn't stay the same between men and women in evolution, just like the other body parts did not stay untouched and the same. The differences between the body parts of men and women is called "sexual dimorphism". Brains are parts of the bodies. So the brain differences, which lead to the differences in psychology are a part of "sexual dimorphism" which then are what gender essentialism or biological essentialism argues are essences of men or women.

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Right, sexual dimorphism in humans, whilst not as obvious as being brightly coloured or 45x larger than the other sex, is males typically having larger bones, coarser body and/or facial hair, lack of breasts, a more narrow pelvis, etc and females having a higher fat distribution, a wider pelvis, lower muscle density, developed breasts etc.

    This does not mean males cannot have a high fat distribution or that women cannot have a hairy back. It means that certain features are more typical to the respective sex.

    How do they not fit? It does not say women are always smooth and hairless and men are all as hairy as an ape. It means males typically have more, coarser body hair. That’s it.

    These features do not define ones sex, they are dictated by ones sex. I’ve already explained what sex is and it is absolutely not bimodal. A man with breasts does not develop the ability to produce ova so his sex does not change.

    [–]MissDimples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. I did not say sex is bimodal, I said what tras get wrong is sex is not bimodal, it's "sexual dimorphism" that is bimodal, and they are confusing the two.

    As long as "sexual dimorphism" does not mean "men are always tall, always don't have smooth skin, always have a low saturation of fat, always have larger bones, etc", or "women are always short, always have a wider pelvis, always have a low muscle density, always have a high saturation of fat, always have less body and facial hair, etc", and only means typically there are some characteristics we see in women or men, but that these characteristics are not essences of or innate to men or women and are shared between the two sexes, then that's true and fine.

    What I meant is gender essentialists or biological essentialists take "sexual dimorphism" to mean men or women always look like xyz or abc, and that's not true.

    So yeah. No disagreement here. :))

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    Nobody here has ever even insinuated that dimorphism means anything like that. So now you agree that we are not gender essentialists and we don’t actually argue it?

    Can you pick a lane lmao

    [–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I thought that's what you were arguing, because that's what gender essentialists or biological essentialists argue. But realized later you were not arguing that. It was a misunderstanding. And I apologize if it was of any inconvenience to you.

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Maybe instead of accusing people of arguing things they don’t, actually read what’s being said to you without automatically being combative and dismissive.

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

    Okay 😊

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

    "Gender essentialism" is also called biological essentialism, which is these "differences between the two sexes" you're talking about

    Not at all what I'm talking about, and I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just stating a fact.

    You might be overthinking this.

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

    Gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, is the belief that certain characteristics like body shape, height, and even masculinity, femininity, and simply personality are innate and natural essences of a woman or a man

    You are not denouncing this gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, you are arguing for it

    Prove that we do this thing. It's you here claiming that GC think sex is determined by gender roles and mutable secondary sex characteristics. So if this is truly the case then it should be easy for you to show us how happy trans people are that "terfs" define them to be their desired sex just by them wearing certain clothes or taking certain hormones.

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

    Secondary sex characteristics are just that, secondary. Sex determination is really not that complicated.

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

    It is said men are taller, have more body and facial hair, have a certain shape of face, have broader shoulders, etc Women are shorter, have smoother skin, have less body and facial hair, have a certain shape of face, etc

    On average, the same way adults are on average taller than children. It's not part of the definition.

    If that's the case then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics.

    No, just as someone can mistake a minor for being an adult due to looks yet not consider the minor to be an adult when they realize the minor's age as looks isn't part of the definition.

    That's exactly like saying that genitalia, gametes and chromosomes determine sex

    Looks and gametes are not synonyms so no. Sex is determined by reproductive organs and structures just as age determines who has attained the age of majority. A person can lose their gametes but ever having had those gametes to begin with means they are of the sex which produces those gametes.

    A man is someone with more facial and body hair, taller height, less breast tissue, a certain shape of face

    Being man a isn't determined by that look, that look is just more common in men on average, a man is an adult human male.

    If saying male people are male is biological essentialism to you then so is saying a 170 cm tall person is 170 cm tall.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

    Tra do not believe in either gender or biological essentialism so there’s one problem

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

    Except for all the tra who claim they are men because they dislike performing femininity or women because they enjoy performing femininity.

    What’s not gender essentialism when a male person says they are a woman because of enjoying tea parties, skirts, shopping, and netball?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (22 children)

    A fringe minority

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

    if you can find a single description of a ‘woman gender identity’ in a man that isn’t pure sexism I might believe it’s not at least 80% of transgender people who are gender essentialist.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (20 children)

    An instinct to conceptualize oneself as a member of a specific perceived sex-trait group for the evolutionary purposes of passing on fitness increasing sex-trait linked but non-instinctual behaviors and norms, filtered through the artificial sex binary paradigm that exists in society.

    [–]strictly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    An instinct to conceptualize oneself as a member of a specific perceived sex-trait group

    And all trans people conceptualize themselves as members of their so called "assigned sex at birth" which they prove every time they feel gender dysphoria, take hormones and do surgeries.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    How is that proved?

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

    It's self-evident. The only reason someone who wants to be female would be sex dysphoric is because they conceptualize themselves as male. The only reason someone who wants to be female would call themselves trans is because they conceptualize themselves as male. The only reason someone who wants to be female would seek a penis-inverting operation is because they conceptualize themselves as male.

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    They aren’t fitness increasing, and sex is a true binary. Can you name the third gamete?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Clearly human infants imitate the behavior they see in the environment as a means of learning as doing so increases fitness. The idea that there would be a tendency for absorbing certain behaviors more from those with similar sex traits than those with different because it increases and decreases is not so strange.

    Sex is based on anatomy not gametes or else people without gametes are sexless, and the anatomy that constitutes sex occurs in a variety of intermediary forms and combinations making sex a spectrum

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    You are incorrect about sex. It’s potential gamete production but this has been explained to you plenty of times before.

    So transgender people, as babies, see members of the opposite sex and try to mimic them and this is supposedly related to fitness of the species. It doesn’t make sense. Why do some babies mimic traits and behaviours that are apparently sexed and others don’t?

    Which behaviours are sexed in particular?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It affects 99.9% of infants.

    Mating strategies, group dynamics, behaviors related to caring for offspring

    [–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Which behaviours specifically? How do they translate to an adult male saying he is a woman because dress go spinny?

    What causes some infants to mimic the other sex?

    Are you suggesting infants are aware of their sex from a neonatal stage? This is less of a theory you have and more of an opening question. It answers nothing and raises a hundred other issues with the initial statement.

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

    Clearly human infants imitate the behavior they see in the environment as a means of learning as doing so increases fitness. The idea that there would be a tendency for absorbing certain behaviors more from those with similar sex traits than those with different because it increases and decreases is not so strange.

    Golly, you've clearly not spent much - oops, I mean any - time tending to human infants, have you? Infant humans imitate the behaviors of others they see and who interact with them, and especially those who lovingly care for them, coo at them, smile at them, talk and sing to them, play with them, etc - it's called "mirroring." But human infants do this regardless of the sex, age, race, ethnicity, hair color etc of the people who interact with and care for infants.

    Human infants do not choose to model their behaviors only on those with "similar sex traits" to their own coz infants are unaware of their own sex and sex traits. Human infants can discern the differences between male and female voices, and other differences between mom and dad, men and women, that adults and older kids know to be linked to sex. For example, an infant who is exclusively breastfed quickly learns that when they are hungry, it's their female parent they need. But infants don't know that sex-linked traits are indicative of sex coz they don't have the intellectual or language capacity for such complex kinds of thoughts yet. Coz they're babies.

    Sex is based on anatomy not gametes or else people without gametes are sexless, and the anatomy that constitutes sex occurs in a variety of intermediary forms and combinations making sex a spectrum

    Sex anatomy is determined by which of two distinct, typical pathways each human has developed along. Except in very rare cases, males will have the potential capacity to make male gametes, sperm, at some point in their lives. Except in very rare cases, females are born with all their female gametes, ova, already formed, and once they reach menarche, females will have the capacity to mature and release female gametes on a cyclical basis, usually once a month, over a span of time usually lasting 40 or so years (commonly from circa age 11 to 51).

    Gametes are made by male and female gonads, which are the testes and ovaries respectively. Testes and ovaries are entirely different. Except in cases of ovotesticular disorder - which is extremely rare, and which does not result in the production of viable gametes of either kind - males and female gonads do not exist on a spectrum, no there is no overlap between them. Similarly, the gametes produced by male and female gonads are also entirely distinct and different: sperm and egg. Those two are the only kinds of gametes that there are; there is no spectrum of gametes.

    [–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Sex has nothing to do with perceived groups or with perception at all, and the rest of sentense is kinda describing sexist stereotypes just with different words. And this describtion is non-descriptive, as it describes nothing anyways, you can't say who is woman or man by using this description.

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

    Sex traits are objective but the sex binary is based on subjectively generalizing those sex traits into a 2 sex model which is ignores the reality of the sex spectrum. No this description can describe who these people are imprinting off of and whether or not that instinctual imprinting is being filtered through the artificial binary sex paradigm. So yes you can say who is a woman or man using this description

    [–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What "sex spectrum reality" is? There "less woman" or "more man"? And how is that "spectrum" reality is better to describe world? How it helps in medicine and healthcare for example? Where sex is binary works perfectly good. How "less female" will help anywhere and not do more harm? How calling every gender non-conforming person as new sex instead of saying that it is perfectly fine to look and act whatever you like as man or woman will be better and less harming? This just makes no sense and only creates harmful categories, which will hurt people, as being "less female" can make that person want to be "just female". Instead of saying that "less female" is still female and same female as any other female.

    subjective

    And what is subjective in sex is binary? Every single mammal species have binary sex, every single mammal is developing body supposed to support one of two gametes. How is that can be "subjective", if it is correct in 100% of cases for thousands of billions examples? Subjective is when it is different for each person perceiving it. Here it does not different for everyone, it is always the same, regardless of the watcher. While for sex is binary - it is completely depends on a culture of person looking, like "feminine" traits in the Western world can be "masculine" traits in the Eastern world. And through out the history it was the same, so when this "spectrum" changes depending on the observer - it makes it subjective, while two sexes are always the same, regardless of observer - this makes it objective.

    So yes you can say who is a woman or man using this description

    So say then. And what is different between man or woman by this. Or if there even man or woman in such vague system at all? And what are the words for all the rest sexes? What traits of each of those sexes on spectrum? And where new gametes too? Where new ways of those new sexes of sexual reproduction? Any answers?

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

    the sex binary is based on subjectively generalizing those sex traits into a 2 sex model which is ignores the reality of the sex spectrum.

    The sex binary is actually 100% objective and scientific. It applies to all sexually-reproducing plants and animals across the board.

    In humans, there is a wide variation in certain sex characteristics within each of the two sexes, male and female, particularly secondary sex characteristics; and there can be overlap between the sex characteristics and sex-lined traits of the two sexes - this is called bimodal distribution of sex-linked characteristics and traits.

    But that does not mean that sex itself is a spectrum. Sex describes the way plants and animals reproduce, and it's a strict binary. Coz there are only two kinds of gametes - male and female - and each and every time for reproduction to occur, one of each kind of gamete is required and the two must merge together. Reproduction can't occur with only one kind of gamete, and there are no third, fourth, fifth, sixth and so on kinds of gametes. Just the two.

    You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that sex is mainly about superficial things like appearance and mannerisms instead of about reproduction, which is fundamental to biology and the perpetuation of all species. Sex isn't about how someone's body looks, or how "girly" or "manly" a person behaves, it's about the potential reproductive function of each person's body.

    Men who've had tons of cosmetic surgeries and who take hormonal treatments to make themselves look like facsimiles of women like Gigi Gorgeous, Blaire White, Munroe Bergdorf are still 100% male coz they developed to have the capacity to produce sperm. Just as women who pump themselves full of testosterone, have their breasts removed and grow beards are still 100% female coz they developed so that they were born with millions of ova inside them, and to have the capacity to mature and release ova on a cyclical basis at a later point in life following menarche.

    [–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    sex-trait linked but non-instinctual behaviors and norms

    What does that mean?

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

    Mating strategies, social structures (chimps, bonobos), offspring care strategies. It would usually be a tendency to pay more attention to the strategies and behaviors of people whom share some of the same sex traits

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

    The old nurture or nature debate is far from settled to begin with, and none of those behaviours are exempt of sexist tropes and social influence (which is often of the sexist variety).

    Plus, I don' t really understand why you call them "non-instinctual". You could have a point if they were instinctual, but you can' t tell which one is and which one exists more because of socialization.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    The tendency to imprint onto a perceived sex group is instinctual, the behaviors that are exhibited by the members of the perceived sex group is not.

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

    Again, that' s your opinion, it' s not proven. What does that "imprinting" even entail anyway?

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

    An instinct to conceptualize oneself as a member of a specific perceived sex-trait group for the evolutionary purposes of passing on fitness increasing sex-trait linked but non-instinctual behaviors and norms, filtered through the artificial sex binary paradigm that exists in society.

    I have read this pretentious, nonsensical word porridge a number of times, and still have no idea what on earth any of it is supposed to mean.

    I get the impression you are modeling your writing/explanation style on the obscurant gibberish of Judith Butler.

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

    still have no idea what on earth any of it is supposed to mean

    Despite what they keep saying that it' s not about stereotypes... it is about stereotypes. It is the usual bullshit of "if you display the same behaviour as a group, then it means you are part of that group". Except they are bringing the idea that those behaviours are sex based, even though they admit that they are not instinctual, which makes no goddamn sense whatsoever.

    If they were instinctual, then they could maybe have a point (women are biologically programmed for X trait, so everyone who displays that trait is a woman), but it can' t be proven and it has been one of the biggest topic of discussion for ages. Not to mention, the behaviours they would probably list as a proof of their theory would be directly in contraddiction with feminism and real life, including trans people' s behaviours. However, that poster admits that those behaviours are not instinctual, which means that they are influenced by external parties, and as such they can' t be considered innate and sex-based, so basically they destroy their own argument by themselves.

    In general, it' s the kind of language people use when they know they have nothing concrete to say and want to hide their agenda behind big words hoping that people will be put off enough that they won' t delve too much into it.

    It also had the added bonus that it makes them feel super-smart and look down on you for being too dumb to understand what they are saying.