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 - 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.