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 - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

At not point, I said Müllerian and Wolffian ducts define which gametes the bodys produces. You're the one who said it. The gonades are the place where gametes are produced. And I already explained the basics of sex determination even if you "forgot" about it.

except that would requiere to define biological sex solely by present gonads, which, as we had already established when talking about swyer syndrome and when talking gonadectomy is not what you define biological sex on.

I only brought müllerian vs. wolffian ducts up because it is the closest I) can come up with to make sense of your "what gamete the body is intended to produce"-criteria.

It would depend on the predominant features. This disorder is very, very rare, yet you're here trying to use it as a gotcha

"depend on the predominant features" - exactly. It is a spectrum, and you put a case that is somewhere in between into one of the two typical modes based on an arbitary judgement about which mode the case is closer toward to.

I've told you this already: we don't use edge cases for making generalizations.

one doesn't include edge cases when making generalizations, no. But when someone makes a claim that is supposed to apply to everyone, edge cases have to be included. So, when you make a claim towards their being a strict binary with no one ever falling outside it, you have to include every single edge case.

They are genetically males. They have testes even if they body don't respond properly to androgens. They don't have ovaries. In the case of CAIS, it makes sense to treat them as women in most cases since fenotipically they look female, they are raised as female, and they don't find out about their condition until their teenage years at least. But they're still genetically male.

And a passing, post-op transgender woman does fenotypically look female and is - with increasing time since transition - increasingly female socalized. If they did social transition in early childhood, they may even be raised female. Therefore, does - by the same line of logic - it not make sense to treat them as female despite being genetically male?

Also, to find the path back to the actual topic of this thread: if sexual orientation is based on biological sex, and CAIS women are biologically male, does that mean, a man/women who is sexually attracted to a CAIS woman, even after being informed of her condition, would not be heterosexual/homosexual ?

You make it sound like they were hermaphrodites, they are not. They have uterus and fallopian tubes, but they don't have ovaries where to produce ova. They can't get pregnant. They have testes. They are males.

actually, sometimes there are ovaries ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800541/ ). I actually (when researching the condition) found on reddit a transgender woman with this condition, that had one functional testicle and one non-functional (but hormone producing) ovary ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TransDIY/comments/gcvnwl/transitioning_mtf_while_intersex_how_to_approach/ note: this was in transDIY, were she was pretty much asking on how that would mean for her medical transition), and then there is also the mikey chanel case ( https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mikey-chanel-pmds-trans-teen-who-was-raised-a-boy-is-four-months-pregnant-after-finding-she-has-ovaries-womb/683136 - unfortunately I do not know on how that case developed, as her instagram and tiktok acounts appear to have disappeared)

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

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

one doesn't include edge cases when making generalizations, no. But when someone makes a claim that is supposed to apply to everyone, edge cases have to be included. So, when you make a claim towards their being a strict binary with no one ever falling outside it, you have to include every single edge case.

Yet, somehow, you know the pancreas is supposed to secrete insulin. It seems you understand the difference between what is normal and what is an anomaly, but you refuse to take this approach when it comes to sex.

And a passing, post-op transgender woman does fenotypically look female and is - with increasing time since transition - increasingly female socalized. If they did social transition in early childhood, they may even be raised female. Therefore, does - by the same line of logic - it not make sense to treat them as female despite being genetically male?

Most trans identified males don’t look like women and their behavior often makes it clear they were socialized as males. What is more, their idea of a woman is rooted in sexist stereotypes.

Also, to find the path back to the actual topic of this thread: if sexual orientation is based on biological sex, and CAIS women are biologically male, does that mean, a man/women who is sexually attracted to a CAIS woman, even after being informed of her condition, would not be heterosexual/homosexual ?

Since they have a female phenotype, my guess is that their partners remain heterosexual/homosexual. Though, I’ve no idea how said partners would feel about the situation. I’ve no personal experience with this.

actually, sometimes there are ovaries ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800541/ ). I actually (when researching the condition) found on reddit a transgender woman with this condition, that had one functional testicle and one non-functional (but hormone producing) ovary ( https://www.reddit.com/r/TransDIY/comments/gcvnwl/transitioning_mtf_while_intersex_how_to_approach/ note: this was in transDIY, were she was pretty much asking on how that would mean for her medical transition), and then there is also the mikey chanel case ( https://www.timesnownews.com/the-buzz/article/mikey-chanel-pmds-trans-teen-who-was-raised-a-boy-is-four-months-pregnant-after-finding-she-has-ovaries-womb/683136 - unfortunately I do not know on how that case developed, as her instagram and tiktok acounts appear to have disappeared)

Re the case report: this is so rare that even the authors couldn’t find a similar case. I should remark, though, the authors refer to this patient as male. The patient refused to do further studies, so we don’t know if there were something else going on besides the PMDS.

Re the reddit thread: sorry, but I don’t find this sub trustworthy.

Re Mikey Channel: there is this thread.

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

I said you were making it sound like they were hermaphrodites and I explained why that wasn’t the case.

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

Since they have a female phenotype, my guess is that their partners remain heterosexual/homosexual. Though, I’ve no idea how said partners would feel about the situation. I’ve no personal experience with this.

precisely. Glad you finally understand. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with biological sex and all to that with Phenotype, aka what I called "apparent Gender".

Re the case report: this is so rare that even the authors couldn’t find a similar case. I should remark, though, the authors refer to this patient as male. The patient refused to do further studies, so we don’t know if there were something else going on besides the PMDS.

doesn't matter how rare.

You make it sound like they were hermaphrodites, they are not. They have uterus and fallopian tubes, but they don't have ovaries where to produce ova. They can't get pregnant. They have testes. They are males.

And, additionally, you don't make "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" or "does have ovaries" a criteria for the intersex cases you sort in as female to do so.

I said you were making it sound like they were hermaphrodites and I explained why that wasn’t the case.

are "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" and "does have ovaries" the criteria to be used or not? Because quite a few intersex phenomena I mentioned do not qualify for their respective sex you sorted them in under these criteria.

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

precisely. Glad you finally understand. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with biological sex and all to that with Phenotype, aka what I called "apparent Gender"

Trans natal males don't have CAIS, though.

doesn't matter how rare.

Unless I'm understanding that report wrong, he didn't have a functioning ovary, in fact the ovarian tissue was extirped among the cistic mass.

are "can get pregnant", "does produce ova" and "does have ovaries" the criteria to be used or not? Because quite a few intersex phenomena I mentioned do not qualify for their respective sex you sorted them in under these criteria.

I stand by what I said multiple times already female refers to the biological category of individuals whose bodies are built around the potential capability of producing large gametes (ova) at some point in their life. And likewise for males and sperm.

Not all females can get pregnant, but only females can get pregnant.

Anyway, I only mentioned the pregnacy thing to explain how males with PMDS are not hermaphrodites. Evidently, that went wrong, so I'll try to be more straightforward this time.

Hermaphrodites are individuals who can produce either gamete. Sequencial hermaphrodites start producing one kind of gamete and later swich to produc the other one. Simultaneus hermaphrodites can produce both kinds at the same times. We agree (I think) that humans can't swich the kind of gamete one can produce. So, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites. And we aren't simultaneus hermaphrodites either because our bodies develop either a male reproductive system or a female one. Moreover, the development of those systems are mutually antagonic. There are rare cases where things go wrong and you find a mixture of female and male feaures. However, there are no reported case of people both functional set of reproductive systems because we're not supposed to produce both ova and spermatozoa.

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

Trans natal males don't have CAIS, though.

how does that change the argument?

Unless I'm understanding that report wrong, he didn't have a functioning ovary, in fact the ovarian tissue was extirped among the cistic mass.

still means ovarian tissue.

I stand by what I said multiple times already female refers to the biological category of individuals whose bodies are built around the potential capability of producing large gametes (ova) at some point in their life. And likewise for males and sperm.

except that you don't define what "built around the potential capability of producing" a particular gamete means.

Not all females can get pregnant, but only females can get pregnant.

maybe. I mean, naturally? Of course yes (since anyone on the female side of the bimodal spectrum close enough to the "typical" case to be fertile would also be close enough to the typical case to be easily sorted in as female under the binary modell). Artifically? Maybe you only need an Uterus and a female hormone profile(though if we discount the Mikey Chanel case [which might or might not be a hoax] it is going to be hard to find volunters to test that, and I don't think any scientific journal is going to accept a paper to the effect of "I abducted some guy who, due to rare genetic abnormality had an uterus, subjected him into a hormone regime against his will, and forcibly impregnated him. Here's my results.")

Hermaphrodites are individuals who can produce either gamete. Sequencial hermaphrodites start producing one kind of gamete and later swich to produc the other one. Simultaneus hermaphrodites can produce both kinds at the same times. We agree (I think) that humans can't swich the kind of gamete one can produce. So, humans are not sequential hermaphrodites.

so far, yes.

There are rare cases where things go wrong and you find a mixture of female and male feaures.

precisely. Some amount of male or female or both or neither.

However, there are no reported case of people both functional set of reproductive systems because we're not supposed to produce both ova and spermatozoa.

No, there aren't reports of both being functional. But there doesn't have to be, since not having a functional one of either doesn't disqualify.