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 →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Chromosomal anomalies are happening more rare than in 0.01% of people. Most of us aren't transgender and most transgenders aren't intersex. So sayingg XX/XY or just speaking about SRY gene alone is enough to determine sex of 99.9% of all people. And in 0.01% our bodies are still developed to support either male or female gametes, even if we are most often infertile. Infertile woman is not a man.

The argument from chromosomal anomalies doesn't have anything to do with claiming that transgender people have chromosomal anomalies, it is to refute the argument "A transgender man/woman still has XX/XY chromosomes and is therefore forever female/male", since you can be male wuth XX-chromsomes/female with XY-chromosomes. And for definitions, edge cases (which yes, chromosomal anomalies are) matter, especially since transgender people are edge cases themself.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Same as with other people, 99.99% of transgender people would have XX of they were born female and XY if they were born male. Maybe 99.95%, because of modern intersexphobia and all this wording like from WPATH (who called women with CAIS - "mutants") and "less female" - young people with DSD and their parents may be pushed to do IGM to become not "lesser female" but "fully transman", for example.

Chromosomal anomalities are all sex based as well.

I don't understand why this even dragged on into discussions about transgender people - we are not related in any way. And we are not proving any point either. We are just dragged along.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

DSDs and transgenderism are not related. However you want to classify people with chromosomical anomalies, it doens't impact on trans identified people. And people with chromosomical anomalies are still either male or female. Saying they are something in between is likely to cause more IGM.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And people with chromosomical anomalies are still either male or female. Saying they are something in between is likely to cause more IGM.

if anything, it is the other way around. by saying that everyone is either clearly male or female, the point is made that anyone who doesn't is broken and needs to be fixed, causing more IGM.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

IGM happens because the kids are not considered fully male or female. You're saying the same stuff in a new package.

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

No, IGM's happen because people are stuffed into a strict binary that accepts only male and female, with anything other being considered a "disorder" that must be corrected. Full acceptance of the "biological sex as a spectrum"-model would also mean full acceptance of everyones position on said spectrum, and therefore not pathologizing people with intersex conditions as "broken men/women".