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 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.

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

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

we can define the anatomy of a typical, healthy breast. But breasts with tumors or are otherwise atypical are still breasts.

Why not sex as well?

we can define biological sex as typically falling into the categories of typical male and typical female anatomical phenotypes. But atypical cases that don't fall into these phenotypes exist, therefore these phenotypes are not covering all cases.

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

I'm not defining biological sex by atypical development, I'm defining biological sex in a way that acounts for atypical development.

Why define something by how it’s typically not?

because I am not doing that?

Sex isn’t a spectrum.

yes, it is. And by insisting on a strict binary you are categorizing people who do not fit into typical male or typical female anatomical phenotypes as "broken men/women", which is the line of argument that leads to IGM.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lmao you’re just hopeless. Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night man.