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 -  (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.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What’s supposed to be under the definition. Which is not disorders. Saying humans are bipedal isn’t saying amputees aren’t people. They are people with a disorder, injury, or defect that made them not bipedal. They would be bipedal if they did not experience a defect/injury/disease. Humans do not have a spectrum of legs.

Idk how you can possibly not understand that.

So the brain has electrical impulses that are meant to happen and some that aren’t right? That’s a disorder. We wouldn’t say that the brain is an organ that randomly distributed electrical signals just because some epileptic brains do that. Why would we define any other system by a disorder or malfunction? That’s what you’re doing when you claim disorders of sexual development are actually just the ~spectrum of possibilities~ for human sex.

Another example you chose to ignore: some breasts have tumours. If we define the breast without including tumours as a part of normal anatomy, are we dehumanising breast cancer sufferers?

Descriptive yes. Descriptive of the typical system as it functions. Not descriptive of what it should be and also what it is when it does wrong.

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

What’s supposed to be under the definition. Which is not disorders. Saying humans are bipedal isn’t saying amputees aren’t people. They are people with a disorder, injury, or defect that made them not bipedal.

except that you are saying that people who - whether by birth or aquiered - have some other number of legs than 2 aren't human if you define humans as having 2 legs (instead of defining humans as typically having 2 legs). That this is generally considered as " a disorder, injury, or defect" is irrelavtn to this.

Another example you chose to ignore: some breasts have tumours. If we define the breast without including tumours as a part of normal anatomy, are we dehumanising breast cancer sufferers?

a typical, healthy breast does not include tumors. A breast with tumors in it is an atypical, unhealthy one. Both are breasts.

Descriptive of the typical system as it functions. Not descriptive of what it should be and also what it is when it does wrong.

"descriptive of what it should be" is what you are trying. I clarified here always with "typical", see my definition "humans are typically bipedal", carrying both the typical system (that the vast majority of humans have two legs) while including the atypical cases.

That’s what you’re doing when you claim disorders of sexual development are actually just the ~spectrum of possibilities~ for human sex.

biological sex is a spectrum, in the sense of there being people whose biology does not completly fall into the female/male categories. Insisting on on an absoloute binary harms these people, as this often results in involuntary medical intervention in order to ensure people with these conditions better fit into said binary.

Also, please avoid the term "Disorders of sexual Development" as that term is considered quite problematic by intersex organizations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development#Controversy

and thing is, that is not just my claim, and I am increasingly tired of an argument I did not wanted to go into in the first place. Take it out to academia https://massivesci.com/articles/sex-gender-intersex-transgender-identity-discrimination-title-ix/#:~:text=The%20science%20is%20clear%20%E2%80%94%20sex,too%2C%20exists%20on%20a%20spectrum.&text=Traits%2C%20including%20hormone%20levels%2C%20can,what's%20considered%20normal%20face%20discrimination.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No I am not. So breasts are defined by being both tumorous and non tumurous? Shit definition. Doesn’t work.

The definition does not need to include disorders that are better defined by their aberration from normal development or function.

This is a waste of time though. You’re gonna keep choosing to misunderstand and misrepresent and muddle definitions because you, personally, need it to be true to maintain your illusion about sex change being possible.

You’ll continue to ignore common sense and I just don’t see any point wasting time and energy on someone who refuses to learn in order to protect their coping mechanisms.

Don’t cape for intersex people. They can speak to me themselves about the term DSD. I’ll continue to use correct medical terms despite them hurting feelings.

Sure sex is a spectrum. Green is orange, humans have anywhere from 0-8 legs. Whatever you need my dude.

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

No I am not. So breasts are defined by being both tumorous and non tumurous? Shit definition. Doesn’t work.

no. A breast is a breast, whether it has tumors or not. A breast with tumors is merely atypical, unhealthy.

The definition does not need to include disorders that are better defined by their aberration from normal development or function.

which is why the word "typical" is important here. The "normal" development/function is the typical one, the "aberation" is the atypical one.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So we can define the anatomy of the breast without including disorders like a tumour?

Why not sex as well?

Why do you think sex must be defined by disordered development? You’re being extremely inconsistent.

Why define something by how it’s typically not? It’s a stupid practice and serves no purpose beyond deliberate obfuscation of facts to soothe the feelings of a handful of people.

Sex isn’t a spectrum.

[–]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.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Then you are misusing word "spectrum". Spectrum means that there is some range either between few different points - 3-4-5 gametes, or that one end is slowly becoming other end, so it starts with "Male", then goes "less male", goes less and less, until meets center with "same male and female" and then goes "more female" until ends in "female", and same if go reversed.

What you are saying is that "secondary sex characteristics can be on spectrum", and yes, they can - men are taller than women, but there can be man who is shorter than most women (DeVito, with 143 cm height), it still does not make him less of a man. There can be towering 2 meter tall woman, and it not makes her more of a man, or less of a woman. They are all still men or women in all their diversity. Sex binary is very inclusive and removes all prejudices, because every man is a man, regardless of anything else, opposite view creates "correct man" or "correct woman" images. Intersex people are men or women as well in all their diversity. Being different in one or few aspects from "an average" or "typical" is not making you lesser of that something. My face and body features are very feminine-looking, with very little body hair, yet it not makes me less man than Schwarzenegger.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Then you are misusing word "spectrum". Spectrum means that there is some range either between few different points - 3-4-5 gametes, or that one end is slowly becoming other end, so it starts with "Male", then goes "less male", goes less and less, until meets center with "same male and female" and then goes "more female" until ends in "female", and same if go reversed.

except that is the case. Biological sex has now here been defined as which gamete the body is supposed to support, with the ends of the spectrum being respectively fully supporting exclusivly one gamete or the other, with the spectrum being that there are also cases of biological features meant to support a gamete missing (for example müllerian agenesis) or biological features meant to support a gamete from both being present (for example persistent müllerian duct syndrome).

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I've re-read this message few times and still can't understand what you want to say.

And how exactly persistent müllerian duct syndrome is against it? Body is aimed to support small movable gametes. There are non-functional leftovers of female reproductive system, indeed, but they are not making that person to produce or support big immovable gametes at all. Most of them can father a child. They are same men as me or Schwarzenegger, not "less men on spectrum".

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

And how exactly persistent müllerian duct syndrome is against it? Body is aimed to support small movable gametes. There are non-functional leftovers of female reproductive system, indeed, but they are not making that person to produce or support big immovable gametes at all. Most of them can father a child.

It is a body with anatomical features evolved meant to support sperm, and some (incomplete) anatomical features meant to support ova, with the first being dominant. Since biological sex has been defined here to refer to which gamete the body is supposed to support, there is a spectrum here.

And another question: what about androgen insensitivity? Another intersex condition, which is outright a spectrum by itself, going from mild (resulting in a male appearing phenotype) to complete (resulting in a female appearing phenotype).

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

People with PMDS are clearly and fully men, nothign strange there. There is no spectrum there, there no cases and can not be cases of both systems working. They are built from same tissue and initial hormones making them mutually exclusive, it is not possible for both working. So that person is producing sperm or can produce and is not producing ova and can not produce ova. Metallic bone-implant is not making human a robot.

PAIS and MAIS are easy to determine, and they are almost always clearly males, almost always infertile (thought PAIS are often looking like women, so growing up and perceived as women). CAIS cases are more difficult, but they are too rare to study, as they are occuring only in 0,000025-0,0000025% of population, or just around 15-17 thousand people in a whole world have such condition, so in one randomly picked country there may be only 5-50 people with it of all ages. Most of them are not diagnosed. In general their bodies are not developed to support any gamete, while they were supposedely to be built to support male gamete, yet mechanisms in organism broke and so nothing was built. Their bodies are very close to female bodies, except some skeletal differences and lack of reproductive system, so they are just going in the world as women. We know exactly what is not working and why they are like they are, as we know how sexual development should go and can predict how it will go if something not working. Their condition still not proves nor disproves anything, as they have very-very rare disorder in sexual development, same as there are people born without hands - it does not make human hands "on a spectrum", so I am still missing the point of discussing them at all. And I am missing the point on finding out are they males or females. Those people deserve love and often need medical help and acceptance, not being used as "gotcha" to prove that "there people who are less or more males/females!", which leads to othering and hurts them. And I am missing the point on discussing them in relation to transgender people - even if "they are different sex", this does not prove that someone born male can become female.

[–]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