GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

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 →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

what about people who don't produce any gametes?

One time, I had anorexia Nervosa and I stopped ovulating and menstruating. This did not mean I was a man. In fact it was medically significant that I had stopped making gametes as a 23 year old female and led to the diagnosis of AN.

The cessation of ovulation did not make my ovaries or uterus disappear, nor did it turn them into testes or a vas deferens. The entire time I was still a female, since my body developed into a female body in utero. Even without making gametes, the gamete factory was still developed.

This is a part of what other users mean when they suggest you learn a bit more about human development. You’re misunderstanding the entire gamete argument.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Technically speaking, we only producing ova when pregnant with a girl.

All our ova we have in our ovaries since birth and we only maturing them one by one. So we are not even producing them.

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

True, true. I suppose maturing and releasing would be better phrasing.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (27 children)

One time, I had anorexia Nervosa and I stopped ovulating and menstruating. This did not mean I was a man. In fact it was medically significant that I had stopped making gametes as a 23 year old female and led to the diagnosis of AN.

The cessation of ovulation did not make my ovaries or uterus disappear, nor did it turn them into testes or a vas deferens. The entire time I was still a female, since my body developed into a female body in utero. Even without making gametes, the gamete factory was still developed.

This is a part of what other users mean when they suggest you learn a bit more about human development. You’re misunderstanding the entire gamete argument.

a.) and you misunderstand the counter to the gamete argument. No, you did not become male because you didn't ovulate. Therefore ovulation is not conditional to being female.

b.) so do you define biological sex based on müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I am female because I developed the reproductive system that would produce ova. That’s what you aren’t understanding.

Your counter argument does not work because it still insists on active production/release of gametes not what actually defines sex; what the reproductive system developed to produce. It’s either one or the other barring a DSD.

I define by genes, (SRY activation) and gametes, (reproductive system). Either works really, since disorders of sexual development are disorders, not a third sex or any sort of reason to redefine sex. Would you change the definition of ‘dog’ if one developed a disorder causing it to look like a cat?

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

It’s either one or the other barring a DSD.

except that you can't barr intersex conditions from the definition of sex.

I define by genes, (SRY activation) and gametes, (reproductive system).

so is it either

a.) chromosomal (e.g. sorting people with chromosomal anomalies into the wrong biological sex)

b.) active gamete production (which would not work with people who, for whatever reason, don't produce gametes)

c.) müllerian vs. wolffian ducts ?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Why on earth wouldn’t you exclude a disorder from the definition of the typical order? Are we not bipedal since some people are born with ameliorated legs?

Why do you keep insisting I’m saying active gamete production/release? I’ve explained it to you twice and others have countless times as well. At this point I can o lay assume you either aren’t capable of reading comprehension or you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand. Your refusal to answer what’s asked of you on top of you ignoring me to repeat yourself leads me to believe it’s a combination of both. Seems like a waste of time to continue, no?

I don’t define it by ducts, but wolfram are male and mullerian female in typical development.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

Why on earth wouldn’t you exclude a disorder from the definition of the typical order?

because a systematic definition has to cover not only the typical cases, but also the atypical ones.

Are we not bipedal since some people are born with ameliorated legs?

humans are typically bipedal. This does not exclude cases of people who aren't.

Why do you keep insisting I’m saying active gamete production/release? I’ve explained it to you twice and others have countless times as well. At this point I can o lay assume you either aren’t capable of reading comprehension or you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand. Your refusal to answer what’s asked of you on top of you ignoring me to repeat yourself leads me to believe it’s a combination of both. Seems like a waste of time to continue, no?

so if it is not active gamete production (as you just said), chromosomes (due to atypical cases regarding those), or müllerian vs. wolffian ducts (as you said below) which solely determine biological sex, what singular anatomical feature or biological process is then the sole determiner in all existing cases?

I don’t define it by ducts, but wolfram are male and mullerian female in typical development.

and atypically?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

So we are a bipedal species? We don’t define a human as a 0-3 legged because a disorder in the usual development does not make the usual development obsolete.

What possible reason is there to define something by the typical process going wrong? We don’t say a breast tumour is just breast because it’s there and growing on the mammary.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

So we are a bipedal species?

humans are typically bipedal.

We don’t define a human as a 0-3 legged because a disorder in the usual development does not make the usual development obsolete. What possible reason is there to define something by the typical process going wrong?

an inclusive definition must acount for atypical cases, otherwise the atypical cases are excluded from said definition. In your example of "Humans are bipedal" that would then exclude people who (naturally or aquired) have more or less than 2 legs.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

An inclusive definition is not scientific or accurate. Is a seizure disorder not a disorder because it’s just electrical impulses in the brain?

You don’t seem to understand what definitions are or what purpose they serve.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

An inclusive definition is not scientific or accurate

A inclusive definition is scientific and acurate if it includes everything that is supposed to be under the definition. So in regards to your example if humans are defined as bipedal, this definition would mean that people with more/less than two legs would not fall under that definition and therefore not be human. This is pbviously not acurate. What is acurate is that humans typically have two legs.

Is a seizure disorder not a disorder because it’s just electrical impulses in the brain?

it is an atypical behavior of the brain that is generally considered to be inimical. What does this have to do with anything?

You don’t seem to understand what definitions are or what purpose they serve.

they express, in words, the meaning of a word or group of words. Definitions are descriptive and not prescriptive.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

what singular anatomical feature or biological process is then the sole determiner in all existing cases?

Why there should be a singular one? There a lot of biological processes, that are starting in womb that are determening sex and which are making people of different sex have different processes in the future. You know that we can determine if kid is male or female (and even predict most intersex conditions) by just mothers blood test and ultrasound when kid is just a foetus in mother's womb and only 10-11 weeks old? Changes are already noticeable, long before birth.

If you mean not just process, but factor, the definition - there is exactly one such factor - development of body to support one or another gamete type. That feature is so universal, that it works for determening sex for every single mammal and multicellular living organism, even when their chromosomes are exactly the same (Turtles, where sex depends on temperature of the egg, as example) or different from humans. That is why we know that it is male Seahorses, who are carrying eggs after being produced by female and fertilized by male. That is how we know when Clownfish have male and female function and when they change it. It is so simple and covers every single case, that it is unclear how it can be an object of discussion at all.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

Why there should be a singular one? There a lot of biological processes, that are starting in womb that are determening sex and which are making people of different sex have different processes in the future. You know that we can determine if kid is male or female (and even predict most intersex conditions) by just mothers blood test and ultrasound when kid is just a foetus in mother's womb and only 10-11 weeks old? Changes are already noticeable, long before birth.

precisely. There is not a singular biological process/anatomical feature that determines biological sex, but it is a composite of a lot of biological processes and anatomical features, that may or may not be alligned. In the vast majority of cases, they are aligned. This is where the conception of "biological sex as a spectrum" does come from.

If you mean not just process, but factor, the definition - there is exactly one such factor - development of body to support one or another gamete type. It is so simple and covers every single case, that it is unclear how it can be an object of discussion at all.

The object of the discussion is on how to define what gamete the body is supposed to support. That's why I bought up müllerian vs. wolffian ducts as those are the respective anatomical features dealing with the gametes released from the gonads.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This is where the conception of "biological sex as a spectrum" does come from.

And it makes no sense, because in every single case body is still aimed to support one or another gamete. We are not magically producing third gamete, or gamete that is "on spectrum".

Short man is not becoming a woman or "in-between sexes", infertile woman is not becoming a man.

Dysfunction of one or few of the many systems is not cancelling the rest of them, not cancelling where oganism is aiming to develop or was aimed to be developed before was stopped by either problems in development or outter factors like surgery or car crash. Especially when those disfunctions are happening so rarely and in a such small minority of people, that their amount in percents is below statistical margin of error.

And again, even intersex conditions are almost all sex specific (only few are affecting both sexes, but often one sex is strongly affected, while other sex is just carrier to future generations). And again - on 10-11th week of a baby we already know will baby be male or female, before the genitals even appear.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

gamete on spectrum

What about 8 gametes?! Clownfishes never even dreamed about such diversity!

https://twitter.com/Iamthisnotthat1/status/1361257104942784512

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

And it makes no sense, because in every single case body is still aimed to support one or another gamete. We are not magically producing third gamete, or gamete that is "on spectrum".

The conception of biological sex as a spectrum does not requiere a "third gamete" or a "in between" gamete, it means that how much of the biological processes/anatomical features meant to support one or the other gamete is present is on a spectrum, with in the vast majority of cases it being fully one or the other.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t know if you are actually serious, but if you want to understand I feel like these do a really good job explaining.

https://youtu.be/XN2-YEgUMg0

https://youtu.be/XLH-y2nLocw