GC: This article explains well that even if there are only two sexes, and not many sexes, or a continuum of sexes, "trans men are men, and trans women are women", do you have any arguments against the things said in this article? What are your arguments?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from (aeon.co)

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANOITDOESNTHAHAHAHAHAHAHANICETRYTHOHAHAHAHAHA

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Uh...why did you even have to post this? If you don't want to answer the question the original poster had with some explanation for your answer, why even bother to make a comment? Why couldn't you have at least put more into your comment than just laughter at the original poster?

Sorry if I come off as a bit rude—this is my first time in this community.

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

A few reasons:

  1. It was a joke

  2. OP had just made a post about how hermaphroditism in other species proves that sex is a social construct just to post this essay about sex that has no relation to their stance on the other post, which to me indicates they’re just grasping at straws

  3. It’s a bit frustrating to have qt continue to post other people’s articles or threads they didn’t participate in and then just ask our opinion with no real input about their own thoughts on the topic. We’re here to debate each other, not people who aren’t here to back up their words. I get doing it sometimes, but it seems to be QT’s most frequent MO lately

  4. It’s a needlessly wordy and ridiculous essay that manages to say nothing meaningful or insightful despite its length

  5. Why did you have to ask me what you did? You didn’t have to. You felt like it. And I felt like laughing at this post. If you read through old posts you’ll see people laugh or joke sometimes.

  6. It’s funny to me that people try to complicate sex in such desperate ways, and after OP’s last post I found this post particularly amusing. I wouldn’t have laughed if this wasn’t coming directly after the hermaphroditism post.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please provide context of the article and quote the relevant parts.

Transmen are men and transwomen are women only if one either wildly misunderstands sex or accepts gendered roles as natural desirable systems rather than oppressive garbage.

Transmen are men and transwomen are women the way koalas are bears. In misnomer only.

[–]SnowAssMan 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, was the author being paid by the word? How was any of that information relevant?

You only need to read the last two paragraphs to understand what the article is getting at. It basically says it's up to us to prove that sex is relevant beyond reproduction.

If there is no reason to distinguish between the sexes, then there is certainly no reason to distinguish between members of the same sex, regardless of their self-identification as the opposite sex.

The article is an own goal.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is not how discussions are made, do we need to make full review of very long article? You are asking, so make some work and highlight or specify, instead of making a lot of people waste a lot of their time to even find if there anything to argue about.

Random bit I saw was "XY and XX chromosomes is what defines sex", which is pretty stupid claim to do, especially because that person is speaking about non-human species, which can have absolutely different DNA. Like, for example, birds have ZZ for male and ZW for female. Yet we always know who is male and who is female, every time - because we checking sex for everyone not by "XY or XX", but by something else, which exist in almost every single species, and by which we can always find who is male and who is female, every single time. So that author's claim have no sense at all. Author seems to have zero knowledge and zero idea in any biological field. So I am not sure if article is even worth reading at all.

[–]comradeconradical 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sex has impact beyond reproduction. It doesn't take a big imagination to see that. For example, health. Certain conditions are more common in, or exclusive to, one sex or the other. Symptomology and severity of illness can differ.

I wonder, why are QT so desperate to dismantle such a fundamental aspect of life?

This is a lazy post.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

or exclusive to, one sex or the other

You can say 'gender', it's a synonym for sex. It's clear you're not talking about femininity. We must stop allowing them to get away with using the word 'gender' as a shorthand for 'gender identity' (we must also stop allowing them using 'gender identity' to refer to their 'cross-gender self-identification').

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

Good points, I try not to use gender at all because of how averse I am to gender ideology and to keep the meaning clear, but you're right to say the meaning here is obvious and we should reclaim the language they seek to redefine.

"cross-gender self-identification" now that is truthful language, and circumvents the 'sacred' word 'identity' lol

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

"Cross-gender identification" was the term in the DSM-IV. They've since "updated" it to "felt gender" & the more ideologically-pandering "experienced gender". Either way, it's a separate term from 'gender identity', which is not something anyone is born with, it's a result of how we were socialisation. Basically, everyone's gender identity is "congruent with their sex", unless the parents go out of their way to condition you otherwise (in the case of penile ablation for instance).

[–]kwallio 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Its worth pointing out that the person who wrote this is supported by the Templeton Foundation which previously supported Intelligent Design proponents (aka creationists) and is considered a conservative organization.

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

That is interesting. I believe they're pro-religion in science but moderate politically. Years ago the atheists who are currently pushing gender ideology had a huge problem with the Templeton Foundation/grants (PZ Meyers).

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

I used to respect PZ but he has completely gone off the deep end. IDK what happened.

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

I did not read the entire article.

If sex is meaningless why transition.

If sexual reproduction is meaningless why the push for pregnant women to be rebranded pregnant people and the idiotic "chestfeeding" BS.

If sex is meaningless why all the BS about how sex is a "spectrum" and not binary.

You can't talk about human sex determination and sexuality and start talking about how other organisms determine or have sex. This is not applicable to humans.

The article went in a million different places, needs to be cut by like 2/3 and have some point.

It seems to me that TRAs are constantly talking about of both sides of their mouth - sex is both meaningless and so important that they MUST transition and be validated 24/7.

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

Just based on the sentence you provide in your question: the reason to differentiate gender and sex is that sex is physical, and gender is some weird non-specific concept that gender critical people tend to think is basically useless. Physical sex is easy to define: human reproduction requires one from column A and one from column B, so everyone who's born is capable of being either one or the other half of the needed interaction.

Socially this creates a whole mess - bearing the child makes one sex physically more vulnerable and the other sex has taken advantage of that historically and built the world based on their needs, much like a playground ruled by bullies.

But physically it is simple. You are either male and produce the sperm - or female and contain the ova. Your body is either structured in order to ejaculate semen that could potentially fertilize someone else or to release an egg every month that may become a pregnancy or may just be some days of blood.

Do you have a body that has never done either of those things? Then it is probably worth seeing a doctor. Otherwise, you have a sex.

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

First, let's set aside any arguments based on the characteristics of other species. This argument is about humans.

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

In my opinion, transgender people that have undergone sex reassignment surgery aren't either sex—they would be put in the same category as infertile people, as both cannot reproduce with fertile males and females. I guess there technically is a continuum of sexes, as you're more likely to hit the infertility line with less testosterone and vice versa, but I don't think it would be as complex as this. Some things like males being taller than females have no connection to sex right now. This could be because we haven't discovered any connections yet, or it could be because there really are no connections.

Assuming—and emphasis on assuming (please clarify if I assumed incorrectly)—your central point is "trans men are men, and trans women are women", I disagree, because they haven't changed reproductive capabilities—which is what I believe primarily defines sex. The exception to this would be changing reproductive capabilities to infertility via SRS which still doesn't count as male or female in my opinion, if we are only talking about biological definitions.

Even if we looked at how other people see transgender people—actually, it's pretty likely that people will think a transgender woman is female if she looks feminine enough. This is just because most people don't want to check genitalia to confirm the sex of someone, and they'll just spit out whatever pronoun they want to use to refer to someone, since pronouns are just parts of speech, after all. I believe that everyone should try to use preferred pronouns, but there should be no stigma around constantly failing to use someone's preferred pronoun, as long as they are trying to.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Why do you base sex on reproductive capabilities, rather than reproductive class? Do you think prepubescent adolescents don’t have a sex? And do women who’ve gone through menopause lose their sex? If yes, why?

Not going to comment on the pronoun part, I just disagree and I’ll leave it at that

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is my partner sexless or less of a man due to a low sperm count? If so Then no female could ever be a man and pronouns are stupid pandering. 🙄🙄

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why do you base sex on reproductive capabilities, rather than reproductive class? Do you think prepubescent adolescents don’t have a sex?

Good point. I just realized that someone taking drugs for infertility would quickly change between two sexes if they frequently forgot to take it. And yes, I believe that prepubescent adolescents would be in the same category as infertile people.

And do women who’ve gone through menopause lose their sex? If yes, why?

They would be in the same category as infertile people because they wouldn't be able to reproduce which I—remember, I, not everyone else—believe should be what determines sex.

However, this system that I came up with which occasionally beats the current system in providing a definite answer for people with parts of both reproductive systems greatly struggles at differentiating between people who probably wouldn't be able to reproduce in their entire life (people born without a reproductive system or some other crazy thing) and people who just haven't entered puberty yet. This is why I think having scientists check to see what sex a human would be in the future (for kids), and what sexes someone was in the past (for women who already went through menopause).

This doesn't mean that the old system will be useless—even though the article seemed like it was trying to use the excuse that most people aren't biologists to blur the line between male and female, there is still some truth in that statement. Female-only rape shelters would probably be better off if whoever was managing them didn't have to deal with edge cases. In my opinion, it would probably be best if sex-segregated spaces discriminated with the current sex classification system since that's what everyone's used to from socialization and that it's hard to account for less than ~1% of the population unless you're a scientist.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Wow

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lmao infertile people are still sexed, Thankyou very much.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I believe that everyone should try to use preferred pronouns, but there should be no stigma around constantly failing to use someone's preferred pronoun, as long as they are trying to.

Do you feel the same about any other belief people have? That nobody should be stigmatized as long as it' s a honest mistake, but the second someone refuses to do it because they don' t want to play along with something they consider stupid/dangerous/religious, then stigma is ok? Why is stigmatization an acceptable thing to do in this specific case?

If pronouns are a part of speech, shouldn' t people be allowed to use them the way they want? If the meaning of a word is destined to change, then so be it, but even in that case there is no reason to make the previous meaning illegal and/or socially unacceptable to the point of receiving threats, abuse and economical problems.

If everyone starts using the word "blanket" to mean "door", and I refuse to do it and keep using those words in the way they have always been used, do I deserve to be stigmatized? Do I deserve to be fined and/or jailed because it might offend some people?

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Whoops, I should have added on to the fact that social stigma is as far as it should go—companies shouldn't be allowed to fire someone for not using preferred pronouns, nor should someone be threatened for it.

If everyone starts using the word "blanket" to mean "door", and I refuse to do it and keep using those words in the way they have always been used, do I deserve to be stigmatized?

I can't come up with a good answer for this. It's already weird that there's a group of people that are basically saying "use my preferred pronouns or I'll kill myself". If this were to really happen, it would be a super strange apocalyptic scenario.

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

If this were to really happen, it would be a super strange apocalyptic scenario.

It IS happening already. That is the problem. It' s happening with words like woman and man, she and he. So if you think that happening is a weird apocalyptic scenario, then there is no reason for you to think that everyone should comply and play along with it.

[–]OffAndSpherehere from roblox lol 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I still don't think it's that big of a deal if some people don't want to be your friends because you don't want to use their preferred pronouns, although the problem of people going to extreme lengths just to try and get a someone to refer to them with one more or less letter in a pronoun should still be addressed. At the end of the day, pronouns are just words that are used to refer to someone; they're not even referring to someone as bad (i.e., piece of sh*t) or good (i.e., awesome person), and the reason why someone decided to create pronouns based on sex seems to be nonexistent.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Do you really think the issue here is that people don’t wanna be our friends over pronouns? Cause it’s actually about how you can lose your job and get sent death threats and be told you deserve it for being an evil terf.

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

and the reason why someone decided to create pronouns based on sex seems to be nonexistent.

And what exactly do you think pronouns "were invented" for? To describe gender identity? One could make the argument that they referred to presentation (I don' t personally believe it), but considering that since the beginning of time presentation was linked to sex, the thing is the same.

Still, the point is meaningless: as you say, they are words used to refer to someone. THe one who uses them is the one who is referring to someone, and as such that person uses those words according to their own definitions and opinion on the subject in question. Long story short, if they are words, people are free to use them the way they want. And if someone wants to use them to describe sex they are free to do it. That is the thing I still don' t understand: TRAs use words with meanings that they have invented and it' s ok, so even assuming that we invented the link between pronouns and sex (we didn' t, but let' s pretend we did), what' s the problem? We are doing the same thing they are doing when they link pronouns to gender identity, fetishes, performances or whatever the fuck else.

EDIT: Also, we don' t give a damn if some people refuse to be our friends if we don' t comply to their language rules: I don' t want to be friends with people who either force me or guilty trip me into lying to make them feel better.