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 -  (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.