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

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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.