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 →

[–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce. Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

This just made my lesbian pussy recoil. I don't believe I was born to reproduce as a female. If every fertile female on Earth had babies, I think the human population would've faced extinction a long time ago.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I have a sample of a GC arguing that: https://imgur.com/FOtDLaw

And that was a few hours ago

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is true that female bodies develop in a way that (presumably- if functioning properly) prepares the body for the ability to carry a child and give birth. That’s kind of what puberty does. Our hips widen, we menstruate etc, because female humans are the only humans capable of giving birth- as a sex, not on an individual basis. We don’t have to get pregnant or give birth, some of us can’t, but every single person in the world who ever has has been a female. This person chose interesting wording, but I don’t think they’re saying what you think they’re saying.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One of the issues in that post from Ovarit is the term "meant to," which I'd take issue with. There's a difference between "equipped to" and "meant to" - the former indicates a potential capacity, the latter indicates a purpose. I think evolution/nature equips us female humans with the possibility and potential for having children, but that does not mean it's our purpose.

But I am not gonna waste time arguing over something said on an entirely different forum here.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why I said they chose weird wording- but I think given what she says towards the end, that she’s not necessarily advocating for the idea that women have to give birth, to me it seems like poor phrasing but saying that females are the sex that have bodies capable of giving birth. Of course I don’t know her so I could be wrong, but I honestly think it’s possible it was just a poor choice of words.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.