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 →

[–]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.