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 -  (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.

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

I literally conceded to OP hours before you involved yourself that its not wrong to call it a disorder of sexual development. What I’ve been saying this whole time, is that I use the phrase “intersex condition” rather than disorder, Because 1. It’s commonly used here, it’s pretty much what we always say when discussing intersex people here, and 2. I agree with what another poster is saying about dsd. People know what I mean when I say intersex condition- there has never been any confusion, and if anybody “wiped the floor” with me, it’d be the OP because I acknowledged that they were correct-again, well before you came along- but that most people use the word “condition” when discussing this subject, at least from my experience. It’s funny tho, that you’re the one who seems to be pressed about this, but you say I “soiled my diapers”, even tho I care less about this discussion now than I did before. You’ve never actually said why it’s wrong to use the term “intersex condition”, even if it’s a disorder it’s a condition. So... yeah I guess bye lol

Eta- Twaniac even gave you examples of instances where an intersex individual’s genitals do function, so you’re not even as “right” as you’re claiming to be. Seems to me that Twaniac is wiping the floor with you, and since you can’t offer a rebuttal to them, you’re coming at me.

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

You were wrong and you got the floor wiped with you. You soiled your diapers because of it? idc. Bye.

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.

You keep saying that someone "wiped the floor with" Sloane. I had to look up this phrase to see that it means "defeat someone easily and completely in a game, argument or contest."

Can you point out in which posts this crushing defeat supposedly occurred, please? My guess is, the posts in which Sloane was quickly and thoroughly thrashed using the strength of argument and clever wit might have been deleted. Coz there's no evidence of anything like that here.

[–]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.