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 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?

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

  1. If it wasn’t you then my bad but that just proves that you post and post without interaction so it’s not much better

  2. Qt makes an argument. Whether it’s a reasonable, logical or valid argument is up to interpretation but they are least say something. It’s not always well articulated, it’s often full of bullshit, but at least we can discuss and ask for clarification and get some type of response. You can be a “delulu” and still reply.

  3. I literally said that people can recognize sexed features on either sex. If I see breasts on a male that doesn’t mean I am confused and think he’s a woman. It does mean I may assume he’s likely trans. If I see a woman with a square jaw I don’t automatically assume they are a man or trans. You asked us about a musician who someone said looked like a “cute woman”. But they knew he was a male. My point was and still is- we as a species can observe that someone has features typically associated with the opposite sex and still understand that they are the sex they were born. Because humans understand how sex works. At least most of us do.

You said in this post that (basically) looks like a woman is one, looks like a man is one. You’re saying sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics. And then I asked you how humans are made and how that answer ties into your claim that sex is determined by secondary characteristics.

If that’s to complicated- why are secondary sex characteristics called secondary if they determine sex? Why are genitals considered primary?

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

Even if I didn't say anything before, I started saying something today, so there should be no issue.

If secondary sex characteristics do not determine sex, why are they even called secondary sex characteristics? The name says that yes primary sex characteristics determine sex, but there's also this second category of characteristics that also determine sex with the primary characteristics that are the genitals.

But let's say I concede, I surrender and we conclude the secondary sex characteristics do not determine sex. I think there should be no classification of primary vs secondary sex characteristics. They should say genitals determine sex, and that's it, everything else like different types of faces, breast tissue, bone structure, facial and body hair, etc are all the things we can see in both men and women, they can be seen in one sex more than the other but these are still shared characteristics, they are not sex characteristics. Just characteristics.

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

  1. Im saying that your lack of comments before are what lead to the tone of the responses you’re getting and this very discussion itself. I recognize that you’re responding now- I feel like we’re saying it’s odd to not have replied before

  2. Secondary sex characteristics are called secondary because they are most often found on the same sex. Most men have broader shoulders that women- so a broad shouldered woman is noticed if that makes sense. Like- we know that women are typically shorter, but we don’t think that female supermodels are men because they are tall. I’d also say that there are characteristics that get needlessly gendered.

  3. Secondary characteristics don’t define sex, they typically indicate sex. Definitively, it actually does essentially say that genitals (or rather reproductive function which is obviously directly related to genitals) defines sex. Thats why gc sticks to textbook definitions.

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

I feel like we’re saying it’s odd to not have replied before

Okay! Makes sense, I'm doing this because you and MarkTwain told me to be more active. I have this habit of trying to fix something if someone else tells me it is an issue and I get convinced that it is in fact an issue.

And for why it's called secondary sex characteristics, I just think it confuses people. There are so many tqs on gendercynical saying secondary sex characteristics determine sex because they are called secondary sex characteristics, implying that though primary sex characteristics determine sex, secondary sex characteristics after the primary ones also determine sex for having the same name as primary sex characteristics.

But since they don't determine sex, it would be less confusing to just get rid of the primary vs secondary thing, and just say genitals are the sex characteristic which determine sex, and the breast tissue, height, facial and body hair, etc are just characteristics we see in both sexes.

That's just a suggestion I think will stop the tqs from being confused. Though I get why they are called secondary sex characteristics after you explaining it

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

They are saying that secondary sex characteristics determine sex because that’s what they want to be true. That doesn’t make it true, though. Secondary characteristics are typically indicative of sex, but they don’t define it.

Like, think about it- if a transwoman gets bottom surgery, hormones and ffs, he’s getting surgery to mimic the secondary sex characteristics of a female, surgery to mimic the primary sex characteristics, and hormones to alter his fat distribution etc, (let’s assume he had implants too)- he’s mimicking female secondary sex characteristics, he’s doing this because he knows it’s all associated with females and he wants to appear female. he would not have to do this if he were female. He still has a male reproductive system- functioning or not (though without interference we know he would most likely function like a typical male), he still has male chromosomes, he has to continue to take cross sex hormones to maintain the side effects- he didn’t develop any of it on his own. I just don’t get how people can say that if you change these secondary characteristics artificially/surgically, that you’ve somehow changed sex. It’s the fact that it’s completely manufactured that makes it irrelevant to me. Sex characteristics are not bought or induced through introducing cross sex hormones- they are developed, naturally, regardless of how anyone feels about it. That same transwoman could want to become a “mother”. He would have to (1) have stored his sperm and get a female (could even be a transman) to surrogate for him, (2) adopt, or (3) attempt a uterine transplant- which would mean he’d be experiencing pregnancy (not really because it wouldn’t work but let’s pretend) but carrying someone else’s baby entirely (dna wise). Unless he (4) got a uterine transplant and impregnated someone else’s uterus with his own banked sperm... hell the only way he’d be able to adopt is if a female got pregnant and the baby was put up for adoption for some reason. Sex, determined by primary characteristics, will always be relevant. And imo too relevant to be dismissed in favor of secondary characteristics just so 1% can feel happy.

My point is just that it doesn’t take much to tear apart the idea that secondary sex characteristics determine sex. If that were the case, we’d all still end up being split up some how based on reproductive function and medical/biological sex specific issues. There is just no way to not have a need to separate males and females for some inevitable reason.

Eta- qt/tras aren’t confused- they want to confuse the rest of us and or they need to twist things to make their identity mean what they want it to mean.