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 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.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lmao you’re so pressed about this that I kind of feel bad for you. If you’re so miserable that you need to argue over something like this with me- just me, oddly, even though someone else is saying the same thing as me- then you go ahead and tell yourself that you “wiped the floor” with me while not “wiping the floor” with the person who elaborated but disagrees with you. We refer to each other’s comments all the time here, now all of a sudden it’s wrong? Sure then. Go ahead and take your “win” you certainly must need it, you seem like a miserable angry human. There’s nothing to win or lose. I used a phrase we use here all the time. I even acknowledged way before you Involved yourself, that it’s a disorder but that most people refer to it as condition. It’s what’s said here everytime it comes up and yet for some reason today I’m a liar (despite conceding a while ago that it’s a disorder) for using the same phrasing we’ve all used since the Reddit sub? Thanks for the laughs. Have a wonderful day.

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

You were wrong and you got the floor wiped with you. You soiled your diapers because of it? idc. 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 -  (0 children)

it's no wonder you're struggling against someone on the level of Tea_Or_Coffee

I think I'm doing just fine arguing against that poster. With you too. But thanks for the concern.

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

No, it means that the person's development went slightly awry at an early point in utero. Your questions show that you have no idea what human zygotes/embryos/fetuses develop go through in utero, and no idea about biology and evolution more generally.