you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Most of the differences in the biological function of female and male humans are not visible to the eye.

preciesly. And since they aren't perceived, they are irrelevant to sexual attraction and therefore in regards to sexual orientation.

The secondary sex characteristics you are so focused on represent just a teensy-tiny fraction of the sex differences in female and male human beings.

But they represent the vast majority of the sex differences relevant for sexual attraction.

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

You keep shifting the topic, pretending we were talking about something different than the specific issue under discussion in a particular instance.

My response was to your claim that

most of the differences in biological function (fat distribution, pheromones, muscle development, secondary sexual characteristics) depend on the hormone levels, which, in medical transitioning are changed

Which was a blanket and entirely false claim about the "differences in biological function" between males and females across the board, not just a claim solely about the small number of differences that in your opinion are the only ones "relevant to sexual attraction."

As for the rest, you're just making it clearer and clearer that your knowledge of human sexual relations is all or mostly theoretical.