GC: Hermaphrodites in other animals show that sex, male and female, is man-made and a social construct that doesn't exist in other species

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from (self.GCdebatesQT)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Simultaneous hermaphrodites have both the male and female sex organs and produce both types of gametes.

In animals, simultaneous hermaphroditism is one of a number of novel reproductive strategies that occur very rarely in certain species of fish in specific habitats that pose unusual challenges to reproduction. It does not occur in any mammals or other land-dwelling creatures. Doesn't occur in birds either.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/simultaneous-hermaphroditism

Now, though hermaphrodites only exist in plants and other animals, think of these hypothetical scenarios where humans also have simultaneous hermaphrodites among them, so we're not just talking about other animals, but humans too:

No, this is a stupid sci fi "thought experiment" that's a total waste of time.

I think simultaneous hermaphrodites show us that sex, male or female, is not a universal thing

But even simultaneous hermaphrodites produce only two kinds of gametes - male and female. They don't produce a third kind of gamete that's part male, part female or is in some entirely new, separate category altogether. Moreover, sequential hermaphrodites can only reproduce if there's a fusion of a male gamete (sperm) with a female gamete (ova). So actually, sequential hermaphrodites prove that binary sex male/female sex is indeed a universal thing.

HTH.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Can you respond to these scifi thought experiments then? It will be nice to know how things for simultaneous hermaphrodites in other animals work, I can't ask "biologists" because most of them are tra.

Hypothetical 1- A simultaneous hermaphrodite has sex with another simultaneous hermaphrodite. One fertilizes the other. What's happening here? Which one is true and why? a) a "male" is fertilizing a "female", b) a "female" is fertilizing a "male", c) a "female" is fertilizing a "female", d) a "male" is fertilizing a "male", e) all of those

Hypothetical 2- A male has sex with a simultaneous hermaphrodite. He fertilizes the hermaphrodite. What's happening here? Which one is true and why? a) the male is fertilizing a "female", b) the male is fertilizing a "male", c) both of those

Hypothetical 3- A hermaphrodite gets pregnant. Which one is true and why? a) a "male" gets pregnant, b) a "female" gets pregnant, c) both of those.

If sex, male and female, exists in mammals but not in non-mammal species, then sex is a social construct. We could sit here all day and come to the realization even "specie" and the difference between mammal and non-mammal is a social construct, some categories humans made up to make it easier for them to navigate through the world.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sexual reproduction still exists if there are species that don’t do it. How on earth is sexual reproduction impacted by how a slug or a slime mold makes another slug or slime mold?

Would a chicken stop being a chicken if we didn’t evolve language? Or would the entire category of animal cease to exist? Would they suddenly start laying fertilised eggs without roosters around if we got rid of the names?

The categories are not invented. They are observed and recorded in an invented language.

Human sex can’t be forced to fit into the mating habits of a clownfish just because you want it to.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (1 child)

Sigh.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

do you understand what hypotheticals are? You can't even answer hypothetical questions?

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

Who gives a sperm is male during that time, who have egg is female. It is not rocket science. Definitions are very simple and complete - and it describes overwhelming majority of species, with some exceptions among viruses and bacteria (and maybe mushrooms, I don't know if their reproduction is sexual or not).

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

If sex, male and female, exists in mammals but not in non-mammal species, then sex is a social construct.

How do you draw this conclusion? Is warm bloodedness a social construct? Is hair? I mean what is NOT a social construct if it only counts if it applies universally across all species and types... Are you trying to make some broader claim about reality being a social construct? If so, sex is the same level of social construct that a rock about to hit your head is, which is to say, it has real consequences that can't be changed by you personally or even with the agreement of your peers deciding that it is not so.

Human beings reproduce sexually, as in A+B, and each of us has a body that can provide one or the other part of the necessary equation. We have lots of other characteristics, but a sexed body is one of them and it isn't dependent on the traits of other animals or plants