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 →

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people.

Uuuh, yes they do? Like they literally have the identical sexed bodies that anyone with children has. Do you think anyone who's childless magically turns into some asexual creature with no functioning genitalia and anyone with a child made their sex organs grow out through sheer willpower?

If sex is defined as reproduction, or the capability to reproduce, are childfree people sexless?

You...literally answered your own question. Childless people have the CAPABILITY to reproduce. Like you literally answered your question, and you're still not connecting the dots?

Ok, how about a test? Go find someone of the opposite sex, have penile-vaginal sex with them without protection, and then see what results from that and just how "special" your corporeal temple of genderfuckery truly is compared to people with children. Actually, don't do that, because science can tell you pretty consistently what's going to result from that and I promise you it's going to be far more predictable than "science" that bases sex on pronouns.

What about gay people and lesbians?

I would suggest the same experiment as above, and then also not to do it because of how predictable the results are going to be.

What about someone that can not produce any gametes, and has surgically removed their genitalia and gonads?

If a person amputates their legs, does that means they proved humans aren't bipedal? What if a person is born without legs? What if they're born with only one leg? If humans are defined by bipedalism, is a legless person a snake? Does this show human number of limbs is a spectrum? Does a person stop being human when they lie down and only become human when they're using their two legs? Does a person lying down lack legs, and are they consequently a new species?

Is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people?

Calling disorders of physical development disorders isn't discriminatory.

tl;dr - Developmental disorders, personal choice and destructive intervention on body parts does not change the realities of human biology and science has accounted for this ages ago.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If a person amputates their legs, does that means they proved humans aren't bipedal? What if a person is born without legs? What if they're born with only one leg? If humans are defined by bipedalism, is a legless person a snake? Does this show human number of limbs is a spectrum? Does a person stop being human when they lie down and only become human when they're using their two legs? Does a person lying down lack legs, and are they consequently a new species?

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 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

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

Please stop with your grotesque characterization of people with various disabilities as less than and other than human.

For the umpteenth time: 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 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 human beings. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside this norms. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens.

Again, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

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

Is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though?

Yes, one of our main characteristics is bipedalism, along with the anatomy of our hands. This specific development combined with our large brain size (which also has its own specific anatomy and function compared to other animals and also isn't rendered irrelevant by the existence of mentally challenged people) is the reason why you're able to use language, type on a keyboard and send messages over the internet to the other side of the world.

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?

You seem to be avoiding the question. Again, why do you think scientists don't call legless humans snakes? What exactly do you think makes science not scratch its heads in confusion at snake-humans, or categorise any developmental disorder as new species? I want you to think long and hard about this and try to give me an answer that makes sense. I don't want to do it for you because I think this will be a good mental exercise for you.

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

You seem to be avoiding the question. Again, why do you think scientists don't call legless humans snakes? What exactly do you think makes science not scratch its heads in confusion at snake-humans, or categorise any developmental disorder as new species? I want you to think long and hard about this and try to give me an answer that makes sense. I don't want to do it for you because I think this will be a good mental exercise for you.

It'd be incorrect to call someone legless a snake, because snakes have a few differences in their dna. But if bipedalism is a requirement for being a human, I don't see how someone born without a leg or someone who amputated a leg can be called a human, when they do not have two legs and do not meet the definition of a human?

If they are still considered a human because of their dna, then a human is not defined as an organism with two legs, it's the certain dna they have that defines a human? Defining a human as a bipedal organism excludes those that are born without a leg or have amputated a leg

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It'd be incorrect to call someone legless a snake, because snakes have a few differences in their dna

So, a snake defined as anyone whose dna is "different"? All human beings have different dna's, otherwise we'd all be clones of each other. So by your logic, since both humans and snakes have differences in their DNAs, it is just as valid to call a human a snake as it is to call them a human.

it's the certain dna they have that defines a human?

See, I could do a few things now in line with trans ideology: 1. demand you provide exactly which parts of the DNA define a human, or else insist you admit humans can be snakes or that there is no measurable difference between the two. 2. Argue that, even if you provide this evidence, that even a single case of a human with DNA parts outside of that (whether as a result of a developmental disorder, or due to something like radiation) disproves that humans can in any way be defined by their DNA, and renders any differences between humans and snakes nonexistent. 3. Claim that, since DNA defines a human, things like human remains are not human if they lack DNA. Archeology is a farce, as human development cannot possibly be traced without DNA evidence.

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

Scratches head

I see your point, what defines a human then? What is a human, a snake, a bear, a bacteria, or anything else. What defines them?

And how can we justify the categories when there is variation?

Say a human is defined as an organism with 2 legs, bipedalism is a requirement to be categorized as a human, and you have someone with human dna that has no legs, or amputated a leg (but what is human dna in the first place, when there are dna differences between humans themselves, what makes a human dna different from a snake, bear, bacteria, etc dna?). They are no longer bidepal, why would they still be considered human when they don't meet the definition of a human which is a bipedal organism?

[–]adungitit 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scratches head

There there, I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually if you just think hard enough pat pat

What is a human, a snake, a bear, a bacteria, or anything else. What defines them?

Do you want to start at the beginning? Do you have one of those baby books on animals with you that make animal sounds? Wanna try and tell me if there are any differences you notice in these categories?

Say a human is defined as an organism with 2 legs, bipedalism is a requirement to be categorized as a human, and you have someone with human dna that has no legs, or amputated a leg. They are no longer bidepal, why would they still be considered human when they don't meet the definition of a human which is a bipedal organism?

Look, you don't have to keep telling me why your own logic fails. I want you to think, using your own head for the first time in your life, and try to understand with this basic human cognition that evolution has provided you with why your own logic fails. You don't have to convince me that humans aren't snakes, I've passed kindergarten, what I want is for you to actually think about the logic you are employing, like actually think about the words you're putting down, until your own arguments fall apart before your eyes, not by someone else saying something, but because you've thought about them critically for the first time in your life. So forget about repeating that your own logic is dumb, I know that, what I want is for you to follow its trail until you understand why it's dumb.