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 -  (11 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?

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 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 -  (9 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.