GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people?

submitted by Tea_Or_Coffee from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

“Then what is it defined as? If gametes, then gametes are for reproduction, so it would mean sex is defined as reproduction or the capability to reproduce?“

Being born of the sex that (insert dictionary definition of male that we recite ad naseum) or (insert dictionary definition of female). It literally just means you were born with a body that (assuming you function typically) will eventually be capable of contributing to the reproductive process in one of two specific ways. It doesn’t mean you have to. It doesn’t mean if for some reason you don’t or can’t you’re any less the sex you were born. It doesn’t mean if you have a gender identity or dysphoria that you switch sexes. It just means you’re born either male or female, and can (presumably) either impregnate or get pregnant.

Eta: it also doesn’t refer to any specific sexuality. So idk where you got the idea that gay people are disordered, homophobe.

“Aren't anormalies disorders?”

No. They’re anomalies. It’s a whole different word with a whole different meaning.

“I thought GCs called intersex a disorder because something goes wrong with the sexual development ...”

You thought wrong.

“Then there is no issue with calling intersex a disorder?“

Again can’t speak for intersex people but I’d say, yeah, there’s an issue, since they don’t necessarily have a disorder, but I guess you can call anyone what you want to call them whether you’re correct or not.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

You thought wrong.

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

I suppose you can call it a disorder of sexual development. I’m saying most people don’t. I’m saying you’re the only person I’ve see phrase it this way. Most people refer to it as intersex condition(s), not disorder(s). It’s one of those things where a term can be, at it’s base, technically correct, but not really a term most people use. But i think it could also depend on the specific intersex condition. As I said, I’m not intersex, so I won’t speak for them. But I do think it’s odd that you’re so focused on this one part of what I said, when I addressed your whole post.

Also- there’s nothing “wrong” with their chromosomes or their genitals.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Uuuh, yes, it absolutely is a disorder of physical development. In what universe is having a faultily developed reproductive system not a disorder of sexual development? This shouldn't even be controversial.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Uhhh yes I literally said I just choose to use different wording, and it wasn’t that deep.

but also- see what Twaniac said, it’s not as simple as saying it’s a disorder.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

GC trying to be PC and then tripping over themselves because of it is pathetic. Call it what it is instead of chickening out the second it doesn't sound "nice enough" to some group of people, and then letting all kinds of bullshit slip by just so someone's feewings wouldn't get huwt.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Like I (and someone else) said- it’s not as simple as saying being intersex is automatically a disorder. So I choose not to call all intersex people disordered without knowing specifically what condition they have. The phrase “intersex condition” is incredibly commonly used in this discussion. It’s odd to me that you seem to have an issue with this. I didn’t say that it doesn’t sound nice enough, I said it’s not always accurate. You harping on this after I’ve already said it’s not even that deep to me and is as simple as me choosing to use different wording is just absurd and I’m not wasting any more time on this. I said what I said and will continue to use phrasing that I choose to use. What’s pathetic is going back and forth over this. There’s nothing wrong or even “PC” with saying intersex condition, rather than calling it a disorder. Pretty sure my comment history both here and on the old sub would indicate that I’m the last person who cares about the language I use hurting someone’s feelings.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Having body parts that do not function due to disordered physical development cannot possibly not be a disorder, just as a condition characterised by extreme anxiety over something normal cannot be considered not a mental disorder. No amount of pc bs can change this.

It’s odd to me that you seem to have an issue with this.

I have an issue with people lying to make someone feel better when that lie gets abused to muddle actual science needed to properly define things.

I didn’t say that it doesn’t sound nice enough, I said it’s not always accurate.

And you provided no evidence for it other than "it wasn't that deep" and "different wording". "Different wording" is what got us to calling men women just because they changed their pronouns.

What’s pathetic is going back and forth over this

Then stop squirming around the issue after having it explained why you're wrong, and whining about how it's "not supposed to be deep"? If rationalising what you say is too difficult for you, then don't bother coming to a debate sub, instead of hiding behind "idc lulz" once you realise your point fell apart.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Oh my god move on lmao

Twaniac elaborated so I don’t really see why I need to explain anything. I’m not squirming around any issue- I literally said I choose to use the phrase “intersex condition” rather than “intersex disorder”. That’s it. Get the fuck over yourself. Someone else offered multiple responses stating exactly what I was thinking when I typed what I typed. So why waste effort basically saying the same thing? I don’t know what chip you have on your shoulder but I didn’t put it there and this is a waste of my time. As I said, I will use the phrasing I choose to use, you can block me if it bothers you too much, you can keep commenting at me about it (you’ll be ignored), or you can just not respond- regardless of what you choose to do, I’m still gonna use the phrasing I want to use. Bye.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

OR you can move on from a debate sub if you're going to cry the second someone wipes the floor with you because boo hoo people are mean for calling you out on being wrong and not being "lulz idc" on a debate sub.

I literally said I choose to use the phrase “intersex condition” rather than “intersex disorder”. That’s it.

Right. And you were wrong. And I explained to you why you were wrong. Cue whining and "idc lulz".

Someone else offered multiple responses stating exactly what I was thinking when I typed what I typed.

Hiding behind someone else saying things that you cannot justify does not suddenly make you have a point. That "someone else" isn't some god I have to nod my head to, and you're not any less wrong just because you're trying to bail out of justifying the falsehoods you wrote by pointing to someone else.

I will use the phrasing I choose to use,

It is your right to be full of shit, and it is my right to wipe the floor with you for being full of shit. It's hilarious that people think the fact that they can can stupid shit somehow makes them "win" a debate. Wooow, you can say things that are wrong like a toddler can! This changes everything!

So why waste effort basically saying the same thing?

Because the fact that you are wrong hasn't changed, despite you being convinced that parroting "lulz idc" has any relevance on how wrong you were? Either accept you were wrong, or provide an argument other than your soiled diapers for why you aren't wrong. Can't? Bye.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, Sloane, even when a person does have a disorder, it's a big leap from that fact to calling them "disordered." I have a very serious immune disorder that very much affects and limits my life, but I am hardly "disordered" as a human being in either body or mind. My house at the moment, however, could definitely be said to be disordered, LOL.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

GC trying to be PC and then tripping over themselves because of it is pathetic. Call it what it is instead of chickening out the second it doesn't sound "nice enough" to some group of people, and then letting all kinds of bullshit slip by just so someone's feewings wouldn't get huwt.

This isn't about being PC or trying not to hurt people's feelings. It's about using precise language consistent with the facts. Not all physical anomalies or the approximately 40 specific conditions known as DSDs/VSCs, or to use antiquated terminology, as "intersex," are disorders.

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

Right, and having dysphoria isn't a mental illness, despite it being defined by extreme anxiety over something perfectly normal.

Having sexual organs that do not function because they literally physically failed to develop properly cannot possibly not be a developmental disorder. What the fuck is science coming to?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Right, and having dysphoria isn't a mental illness, despite it being defined by extreme anxiety over something perfectly normal.

Huh? We're not talking about "dysphoria" here; we're talking about DSDs and other physical conditions. Chalk and cheese.

Having sexual organs that do not function because they literally physically failed to develop properly cannot possibly not be a developmental disorder. What the fuck is science coming to?

I've made it clear that many people with conditions considered to be DSDs have sexual organs that function just fine. Some people with DSDs have sex organs that simply look different, or ended up in the wrong place, but they work just fine.

And some people with DSDs have sex organs that don't work normally in one way, but work normally in other ways. For example, many males with 5-ARD, the male DSD that Caster Semenya has, are missing penises or have very small ones. And their testes are often internal, or in the wrong place in the external groin. But their testicles work normally. They produce normal amounts of testosterone, and they make sperm too. With medical assistance, many such men can father children. And have. Like former World Cup ski champion from the 1960s, Erik Schinegger, formerly Erika:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mgQ97TKxc8&t=3s

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let's put it simply; can you acknowledge the fact that human beings have evolved a certain body plan and accompanying biology where abnormal individual deviation isn't representative of a normally developed human body consistently present in the vast majority of the population, and that severely disordered development that makes the human body lose its biological functions counts as something wrong with the body? The fact that some other parts of the person's body work is irrelevant to the fact that a certain body part does not. The fact that the person can mitigate their issue through medical intervention does not negate that there is a disorder, or else they wouldn't need medical intervention in the first place.

If you can't even acknowledge this, then it's no wonder you're struggling against someone on the level of Tea_Or_Coffee who couldn't even tell you the difference between a human and a snail.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Depends what you mean by "faultily developed."

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As in, not capable of serving the reproductive function for which the entire organ exists in the first place because it literally didn't physically develop properly.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

There are intersex people with underdeveloped uteruses, and penises. How is that not something wrong with their genitals?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don’t consider someone with a condition (or disorder) as having something “wrong” with them. They have a medical condition. It’s really not that deep to waste time going back and forth- I just choose different phrasing.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are talking about males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome. There is nothing wrong with the genitals of males with PMDS. Please stop spreading lies.

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome is a disorder of sexual development that affects males. Males with this disorder have normal male reproductive organs, though they also have a uterus and fallopian tubes, which are female reproductive organs. The uterus and fallopian tubes are derived from a structure called the Müllerian duct during development of the fetus. The Müllerian duct usually breaks down during early development in males, but it is retained in those with persistent Müllerian duct syndrome.

Affected individuals have the normal chromosomes of a male (46,XY) and normal external male genitalia.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They have underdeveloped female genitalia such as uterus, etc, why wouldn't that be considered as something wrong with their genitals? Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus? I fail to understand why you don't want them to be called a disorder, do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes, or for a male to have underdeveloped female genitalia and there's nothing wrong with those cases?

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

They have underdeveloped female genitalia such as uterus, etc, why wouldn't that be considered as something wrong with their genitals? Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus? I fail to understand why you don't want them to be called a disorder, do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes, or for a male to have underdeveloped female genitalia and there's nothing wrong with those cases?

Most people use the term genitals consistent with the way Oxford dictionary defines the word:

a person or animal's external organs of reproduction

And as Merriam-Webster does:

the sexual or reproductive organs located on the outside of the body

And as Cambridge dicitonary does

the outer sexual organs, especially the penis or vulva

The uterus is not on the outside of the body. Most women do not think of, or call, our uteri - or our Fallopian tubes, ovaries - genitals. Most women who use the anatomically correct terms also don't call our vaginas genitals, either. Most of us consider the female genitals to be the vulva - labia, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening.

Again, males with PMDS do not have anything wrong with their male genitals. They have vestiges of organs from the internal female reproductive tract coz of a DSD, but their DSD does not affect the function of their male genitals.

Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus?

I don't see where "right" comes into is. Some people are born with extra toes or fingers, or with body parts missing, or with body parts that look deformed and/or don't function properly. But that's not an matter of morality.

do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes

No, it's not normal for females to have any kind of testes. But which specific condition are you referring to here? Meaning, what is the name? I can't tell from the way you are describing it. I think you are mixing up different conditions and talking about one that doesn't actually exist.

The views you are expressing make me really hope you don't have children.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they? And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, etc are not female organs but organs that both male and female can have?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they?

They're reproductive organs. Just as female breasts are. Not every female reproductive organ, or part of the female reproductive tract, is called genitals. Thinking they are is something only guys tend to do.

And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries,

You are just making stuff up now - and out of whole cloth too. Males with PMDS have vestiges of uteri and Fallopian tubes, but they do not vaginas and ovaries. Some very few males with rare DSDs have vestigal ovotesticular tissue. No male human has ovaries or a vagina.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Since males with Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome have uterus and fallopian tubes, does that mean uterus and fallopian tubes are not female organs, but organs that both males and females have?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

Not all DSDs involve atypical sex chromosomes, though most involve a genetic mutation of some kind. Many people have genetic mutations that can cause or contribute to disease and disorders - I know of several that I have personally - but not all people with these mutations develop disease or disorders. Oxford defines a disorder as

an illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions

But even some illnesses and conditions that once were considered disorders per this description are not seen that way today coz the treatments for them are simple and 100% effective.

For example, I have an inherited, presumably genetic condition called pernicious anemia, that if untreated leads invariably to death - a long, slow and painful death, and which prior to getting to the terminal stage causes people with PA to lose their minds. But with a monthly IM injection of vitamin B-12, which is cheap and easy to self-administer, pernicious anemia is 100% reversed/cured. So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

Now that genome sequencing is being done for more and more people, it's turning out that genetic mutations that are linked to disease and disorders, but are not always causative of them in every case, are more common than previously assumed:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/one-five-healthy-adults-may-carry-disease-related-genetic-mutations

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are?

You keep revealing that you actually know very little about DSDs. Not all DSDs affect the genitals. Many people with DSDs have typical-looking genitals and/or normally functioning gonads.

Please when you speak of these matters don't use language and framing that lump the two sexes together and make the mistake of assuming that what's true of human males is also true of human females. Only the male gonads, the testes, are considered part of the genitals. Human female gonads, the ovaries, are not external and thus not usually called genitals like the testes are. Whereas testes are between human males' legs, human ovaries are internal organs inside the abdomen at considerable distance from our crotch and genitals, eg our vulvas.

One of the most common conditions that in the past was labelled "intersex" or a DSD is micro-penis, which is a normally functioning male genital organ that is smaller than normal but which functions normally. Most micro-penises and normally developed and function fine; they're just small. Another condition traditionally considered "intersex" and a DSD is hypospadias, a congenital condition where the male urethra opens on the underside of the penis. This doesn't impair a male person's ability to urinate or ejaculate seminal fluid - it just looks odd. And it's easily corrected by surgery.

By far the single most common DSD is congenital adrenal hyperplasia, CAH, which I've read accounts for the majority of ALL DSDs (though I can't find the source at the moment). CAH comes in several different forms - and only the rarest form, known as classical CAH, which can be fatal if it involves salt-wasting, requires treatment and might affects genitals. Yet even classical CAH usually only affects the appearance of female genitals Most males with CAH have normal-looking and functioning genitals. The most common form of CAH is the mild form. Many persons with the mild form have no obvious symptoms.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

A genetic disorder that would literally kill you because your body attacks cells that are needed for it to function is not a disorder because medicine can keep it at bay?

wat??

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

So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

A genetic disorder that would literally kill you because your body attacks cells that are needed for it to function is not a disorder because medicine can keep it at bay?

wat??

You don't seem to understand that medical science is constantly progressing, and as a result many conditions that once were fatal are now curable. When I was growing up in the 1960s, most cancers were fatal. Now most cancers are treatable and most people with various cancers will go into remission and be considered/declared "cured." In the 1980s, HIV usually progressed to AIDS and was a sure death sentence. Now with medication, HIV is considered a manageable condition with which a person can live in a state of good health for a normal lifespan.

When it was first discovered in the 1970s through the 1990s, severe combined immune deficiency, a form of primary immune deficiency affecting males aka "bubble boy disease," was invariably fatal - and boys with it had to lead very limited lives, as seen in the movie Bubble Boy. But since bone marrow transplants and mandatory testing for SCID at birth became standard, SCID is now caught very early - and if a BMT is given early in a child's life (by age 2), the donor bone marrow takes over and becomes the norm and the child is cured.

Also, re pernicious anemia, it's not "medicine" that keeps it at bay, it's vitamin B12. In much of the world, vitamin B12 for injection - and the needles for it - can be obtained without a doctor's prescription. It's very easy to self-administer the shots. Diagnosis of PA requires "medicine," but treating it does not. This is even more the case today than in the past, coz new oral formulations of B12 specifically for people without parietal cells are now available without prescription (you can get them on Amazon), so now the monthly shots aren't even necessary.

Also, there are lots of conditions, both genetic in origin or acquired or a bit of both, that potentially can be disabling which it's now possible to effectively eliminate once and for all by surgery. Like certain tumors of the eye orbit and certain gynecological conditions.

Without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy - a potentially fatal disease. Other diseases develop when people don't get sufficient vitamins, calories, nutrients and trace minerals. Do you think everyone should be thought to have nascent or "sleeper" disorders as a result?

Why does this bother you? Why is it important to you that the sorts of conditions under discussion all be labelled "disorders" and that everyone with such conditions be regarded as having something terribly "wrong" with us? What's it to you?

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So a disorder of the body that would kill you if untreated because your body cannot function normally is no longer considered a disorder just because medicine can keep it from killing you? Just...what??

Now most cancers are treatable and most people with various cancers will go into remission and be considered/declared "cured."

Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured". "Cured" means the problem is no longer there, as in, medical intervention is no longer required for you to function normally. Having a body with a fatal developmental issue that will literally kill you if not compensated for does not mean you are "cured" and that your body doesn't have the disorder anymore, wtf do you think you're taking those injections for if you're "cured"? jfc 🤦

Now with medication, HIV is considered a manageable condition with which a person can live in a state of good health for a normal lifespan.

Right, and now you've got gay men claiming it's acceptable to not tell their partners they have HIV because "it's managable with medicine".

Why does this bother you?

Because putting virtue signalling and feewings over actual physical human reality is how we got to where we are with trans issues in the first place.

Why is it important to you that the sorts of conditions under discussion all be labelled "disorders" and that everyone with such conditions be regarded as having something terribly "wrong" with us?

UUH you do have something wrong with you, your body is literally attacking its own cells that it needs to live because it thinks they're dangerous. THIS IS NOT NORMAL! This isn't some cute character quirk or a different eye colour, it's your body not being able to live without medical intervention because it cannot tell the difference between healthy and problematic cells the way a properly developed human body can. Just because medicine has found a way to deal with this does not suddenly make it disappear, just because medicine can make you feel fine enough to pretend it's not there does not mean it's actually gone. No wonder the trans ideology has gotten such a hold if medicine now subscribes to the "if I close my eyes it can't hurt me" school of though.

Without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy - a potentially fatal disease. Other diseases develop when people don't get sufficient vitamins, calories, nutrients and trace minerals. Do you think everyone should be thought to have nascent or "sleeper" disorders as a result?

This is completely normal given human biology, because we lack the mechanisms to synthesise vitamin C on our own. That's completely different from an autoimmune disorder where your body has faulty development that makes it think it's coming under attack when it receives vitamin C. One is normal properly developed human anatomy, the other is a developmental issue that is severely affecting your life or quality of life without medical intervention.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No wonder the trans ideology has gotten such a hold if medicine now subscribes to the "if I close my eyes it can't hurt me" school of though.

Huh? Who is saying that? I sure never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, I have been pointing out that with proper treatment, certain physical conditions that once were disabling and a death sentence no longer are. Which is the opposite of arguing, as trans ideology does, that harmful medical interventions - hormone blockers, CSH, surgeries - which diminish physical health and destroy bodily functions should be available on demand for people with psychological problems who are in denial that their issues are mostly "all in their heads" and with society and culture, not with their their bodies.

Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured".

But nowadays a condition like PA doesn't require one to "spend a lifetime dealing" with it, LOL. In the case of PA in particular, it involves self-administering a shot of vitamin B12 once a month, or swallowing oral tablets of the new formulation once a day or once a week. From start to finish, administering B12 by injection takes about 90 seconds a month, 18 minutes a year. Yes, once a year I've gotta order B12 for injection online and put it in the fridge when it arrives. And I have to remember to keep needles on hand, though box of 100 needles lasts more than 8 years. Hardly onerous.

But even if dealing with PA took up a good chunk of my life and energy the way some medical conditions do (including others I've experienced myself), what's it to you? Why are you so determined to be the boss and final arbiter of how people with serious time-involving, life-limiting conditions view their problems and view themselves?

People with serious, legitimate medical conditions requiring tons of medical care have nothing in common with transgender people and the trans lobby. No one is arguing that people with cystic fibrosis, kidney disease requiring frequent dialysis, Parkinson's or any other serious physical illnesses must given whatever medical interventions they want on demand, including treatments that it's been been shown definitely or likely will do them - and society - more harm than good. No one is insisting that scientists should not allowed to research and objectively examine various physical diseases and conditions, or that the general public should not be allowed to discuss them. No one with serious physical conditions is trying to take away the civil rights of others, to get the whole world to deny reality and bend to their will, and demanding that people in good health all redefine themselves in relation to the particular diseases/conditions that small minorities of the population have.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL! This isn't some cute character quirk

Huh? No one who has suffered, or suffers, a serious physical illness or chronic health condition would define them as "cute" or as a "character quirk." For you to imagine and suggest they/we do is extremely offensive.

You seem to view human health in a very simplistic, immature way, dividing people into two black-and-white groups: those who are physically and genetically "normal" and those who are not. You also seem to think that being in 100% perfect health is the human norm. These views speak volumes. They suggest you have very limited "lived experience" and a narrow social circle.

Fact is, lots of people are born with, or develop, all sorts of medical conditions in the course of life, particularly as we age. Yet even so, these conditions don't necessarily dominate our self-perceptions or the way we experience life the way you appear to want them to. Even people who have deformities, disabilities and diseases that are a real cross to bear and very evident to other people - and which require tons of special accommodations and care - do not necessarily regard these aspects of themselves as their defining characteristics the way some outsiders might. Rather, for many people, these aspects of the self tend to fade into the background and become more like wallpaper.

The fact that this bothers you so much that you feel compelled to shout

THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

At people who have a more nuanced view than you makes you sound unhinged, and authoritarian to boot. But go ahead, keep shouting that people who view the very real physical conditions we/they have differently to the way you want us/them to are "denying reality" and are

NOT NORMAL!

Coz the more you holler out such compelling and well-reasoned arguments, the more those pesky, uppity NOT NORMAL people are bound to fall in line and do as you command. Soon enough they'll all surely agree that not seeing reality exactly as you do is the same as not seeing - or facing up to - reality at all.

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I have been pointing out that with proper treatment, certain physical conditions that once were disabling and a death sentence no longer are

Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the problem exists and that it is a result of faulty physical development. Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured". "Cured" means the problem is no longer there, as in, medical intervention is no longer required for you to function normally. Having a body with a fatal developmental issue that will literally kill you if not compensated for does not mean you are "cured" and that your body doesn't have the disorder anymore, wtf do you think you're taking those injections for if you're "cured"? jfc 🤦

But nowadays a condition like PA doesn't require one to "spend a lifetime dealing" with it, LOL

Just because medicine has found a way to deal with this does not suddenly make it disappear, just because medicine can make you feel fine enough to pretend it's not there does not mean it's actually gone. Reality exists regardless of your feelings and wishful thinking.

the more those pesky, uppity NOT NORMAL people are bound to fall in line and do as you command

Your abnormal development is FATAL. It's not some cute character quirk like a different eye colour, it's something that will kill you if left untreated. I would tell you to get that through your thick skull, but you already know it, because you're taking your medicine on time so why this pity-inducing little game where you pretend like the thing that will literally kill you if untreated got magically whisked away by fairies?

that people in good health all redefine themselves in relation to the particular diseases/conditions that small minorities of the population have.

I like it when you try to form an argument because then I can rip it apart instead of just having to do the usual copy-pasting for people who pretend they get amnesia when someone wipes the floor with them.

I never said that people are divided into "all healthy" and "all disordered". Plenty of people have different kinds of disorders, some minor, some major, some major that don't interfere with anything, some minor that require surgeries or a lifetime on medicine. Most people with disorders have normal bodies in other ways, but a disorder affecting a specific part of their body. None of this changes the reality of what they are experiencing. Their feelings, their wishful thinking, how good they feel from treatment (unless it can be fixed for good, i.e. the disorder doesn't require any further intervention), whether they feel they're a five-headed hydra, it is 100% irrelevant.

Yet even so, these conditions don't necessarily dominate our self-perceptions or the way we experience life the way you appear to want them to.

You keep failing to understand that I don't give a damn if you "perceive" yourself as a five-headed hydra or an attack helicopter or Santa Claus. Your feelings are irrelevant to what is actually happening in reality

For you to imagine and suggest they/we do is extremely offensive.

Oh, great! So you're going to stop with this bullshit that people with life-threatening physical disorders have nothing wrong with them because you feel well after you take your shots and they should just stop defining themselves according to their disorder?

what's it to you? Why are you so determined to be the boss and final arbiter of how people with serious time-involving, life-limiting conditions view their problems and view themselves?

Because putting virtue signalling and feewings over actual physical human reality is how we got to where we are with trans issues in the first place. I am not going to entertain lying and delusional thinking for the sake of not huwting feewings of people who can't deal with the harsh reality of life.

It's kinda funny how I literally already answered most of your questions, but I guess the power of "If I close my eyes it can't hurt me" is just too hard to resist. I mean you've been using it so well as a crux of this entire argument.

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

I think the condition I meant is the Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome, where there's developed male genitalia and an underdeveloped uterus, vagina, etc. Would that not be considered a disorder?

For the definitions of male or female, when we ask what about someone that surgically removed their gonads, GCs argue they don't stop being male or female eventhough they don't produce gametes, just as someone doesn't stop being human if they amputate their leg.

But is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though? Are humans defined as a bipedal specie? If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human? They don't meet the definition of human, or the requirement of which is to have exactly two legs, two hands, and 5 fingers

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

For the definitions of male or female, when we ask what about someone that surgically removed their gonads, GCs argue they don't stop being male or female eventhough they don't produce gametes,

So you think girls before menarche and women after menopause are no longer female? I suggest you inform your mother and, if you have on, grandmother and all the other women you know over age 51 of this and see what they think. Or go over to a local nursing home, senior center, Hystersisters or a menopause forum and say that.

BTW, my own gonads were removed nearly 20 years ago. Since then, no one has ever suggested that I am not female - or that I am now without sex. Never, not once. My children have never thought to claim that they now have a mother who isn't female. If your mother is past menopause age, do you claim she is not female? Do you no longer refer to her, or consider her, your mother?

Basic concepts like the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions seem lost on you. As does what happens over the human lifespan. I suspect you are quite young. Is that the case?

If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human?

This is not just ignorant, it's heartlessly cruel and offensive. I dare you to go say that out loud to persons getting medical care at a VA hospital or a medical facility like the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC or the various Shriners Hospitals for Children in the US. Your views are beyond the pale. I am not engaging with you any further.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is not just ignorant, it's heartlessly cruel and offensive. I dare you to go say that out loud to persons getting medical care at a VA hospital or a medical facility like the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC or the various Shriners Hospitals for Children in the US. Your views are beyond the pale. I am not engaging with you any further.

I'm trying to understand the position. It may be cruel, and that's why I look for justifications. 'Why is someone born without a leg, or someone that amputated a leg still a human despite not meeting the definition of human which is to be bipedal?'.

If I wanted to believe they are not human I wouldn't ask.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is generally true of any given species is not necessarily true of each and every individual member of that species at every point of each individual's life. Human beings as a species can be said to have two legs and arms, 10 toes and 10 fingers. This applies to 99+% of Homo sapiens. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside the norm for our species. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens. It does not mean they are not human any more, or never were.

As I've said elsewhere, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

I think you would greatly benefit by learning about the lives of people with severe disabilities. Starting with reading Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, all the people born with missing limbs due to the Thalidomide tragedy, and watching the Daniel Day- Lewis film My Left Foot, based on the real life story of Christy Brown.

You could easily have an accident tomorrow that causes you to lose a limb or an eye, or get sick and have to have your appendix or spleen removed. You really think you would then no longer be human?

Have you really never met a single person in your whole life who due to accidents, combat, blasts or surgery necessary coz of illness, dental wear & tear and/or aging doesn't have every single body part that the majority of humans have and which constitute the norm for our species? You don't know anyone who's had their tonsils or gallbladder out, or is missing teeth? You know no completely bald men? That's really hard to believe.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am not engaging with you any further.

Please don't leave. You said vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals and I have more questions left hanging :(

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they? And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, etc are not female organs but organs that both male and female can have?

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You've been leaving literally every time you got your ass handed to you, only to return with amnesia later and ask the same question, and get your ass handed to you in the same way. I feel like you're the last person who should be saying this.