GC: Why shouldn't the definitions of "man", "woman", "male", and "female" be based on secondary sexual characteristics, thoughts, gender identity, legal documents/paper works, and behavior?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

[deleted]

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

  1. What is a female brain, other than a brain in a female body?

  2. Secondary sex characteristics are secondary for a reason.

  3. “Neovaginas” are nothing like vaginas. At all. And are literally just reconstructed penises. They do not look, feel or function similarly to vaginas and anyone who thinks this is lying to themselves or has no idea what a vagina looks like or even is.

  4. Neopenises are nothing like penises. At all. It’s made out of arm skin and vagina. They do not look, feel or function similarly to penises and anyone who thinks this is lying to themselves or has no idea what a penis looks like or even is.

“What do you think is wrong with the definitions of man, woman, male and female being based on the things I mentioned?”

It doesn’t make any sense, for starters. It’s also sexist as fuck.

“Why doesn't a man become less of a man and more of a woman when he takes hormones, removes his sex organs and is given a neovagina?”

Because he hasn’t changed sex at all. Because humans can’t change sex. Woman is a sexed term. Neovaginas are penises.

“Or why doesn't a woman become less of a woman and more of a man when she takes hormones, removes her sex organs and is given a neopenis?”

Same reason as the other question

“Or why don't they change sex completely from male to female or from female to male or become sexless after doing these things?”

Because humans don’t change sex nor do humans lose their sex.

“Why isn't the definition of sex based on secondary sex characteristics instead of primary ones?”

Look up what primary means.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Hello （´▽｀）

  1. I will share with you the definitions trans right activists have told me, when they say a woman has a male brain they mean her brain is structured like the brain of a man, or when they say a man has a female brain they mean his brain is structured like the brain of a woman.

  2. "Secondary sex characteristics are secondary for a reason.", only primary sex characteristics determine sex?

3 & 4. So when the skin or tissue of somewhere is reconstructed to look like some part of the body, it's not really that part? Does this mean when I take the tissue or skin of my arm or somewhere and reconstruct it to shape it into something akin to an ear, it's not a real ear either? It's just reconstructed arm tissue or skin? Why is that?

It’s also sexist as fuck.

Can you explain why it's sexist?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. Brain sex has been debunked. A while ago. If trans people are still presenting brain sex as an argument they are lying.

  2. Secondary characteristics are indicative. Primary are definitive, they stand on their own. There’s also chromosomes and gametes etc. No matter what a trans person artificially alters, every part of their body is still the sex they were born. They can’t change any of the things that determine sex. Even their kidneys and other organs are sexed. Their sex is unchanging and unavoidable.

  3. You literally said “to look like some part of the body”... vaginas are more than what a surgeon constructs out of penis skin. If you’re talking about skin grafts- that’s something typically done for severe burns/injuries. You can’t take skin from another body part and shape it into an ear and be able to hear out of it- you could possibly do a skin graft to heal a burn or wound by your ear, if that makes sense. But if that traumatic burn/injury left you deaf, a skin graft won’t give you back the ability to hear.

It’s sexist because you reduce women and men to external appearance- which would backfire for many trans people but also would be telling women and men who aren’t trans that they have to look a certain way to qualify for their sex. It’s like telling people that womanhood or manhood can be earned.

Or you’re defining it by “brain sex” which is both stupid and sexist because women and men don’t all behave in a specific stereotypical way based on their sex.

“There are some trans right activists that define "female" and "male" as sexes, while "woman" as someone that uses she/her pronouns, has a female brain, identifies as a woman, partakes in roles/acts that are associated with women in a culture (e.g. if in a culture, wearing dresses, being too emotional, wearing make up, and playing with barbie dolls are associated with girls/women, then boys/men partaking in these acts are socially girls/women while biologically male), etc, and "man" as someone that uses he/him pronouns, has a male brain, identifies as a man, partakes in roles/acts that are associated with men in a culture (e.g. if in a culture, wearing shirts/suits/ties/etc, being aggressive, not wearing make up, playing with trucks, etc are associated with boys/men, then girls/women partaking in these acts are socially boys/men while biologically female), etc“

This, the beginning of your post, is sexist as fuck.

Also- why should we redefine anything for less than 1% of the population?

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So when the skin or tissue of somewhere is reconstructed to look like some part of the body, it's not really that part?

No, it's not.

Does this mean when I take the tissue or skin of my arm or somewhere and reconstruct it to shape it into something akin to an ear, it's not a real ear either?

Correct. Outer ears are skin-covered cartilage. Skin is not cartilage.

It's just reconstructed arm tissue or skin?

Correct.

Why is that?

a) Skin isn't uniform. It differs in thickness and composition depending on its location on the body. And scrotal/penile skin categorically is not vaginal epithelia (which isn't even technically skin).

b) Skin is skin. It isn't cartilage, ligament, tendon, bone, muscle, fascia, or discreet internal organ tissue. It also isn't epithelia.

Bodies aren't Lego sets. You can't just move tissues around at will or swap out one tissue type for another. It doesn't work that way.

[–]BiologyIsReal 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We've gone through this already. Why do you keep asking the same questions and ignoring everything we say?

Your brain is a part of your body. Having an atypical brain doesn't make you the opposite sex. There are some men that are shorter than many women, but that doesn't mean these men are women either.

Convincing your goverment to change the sex markers on your documents doesn't make you the opposite sex. If, somehow, you convinced your goverment to change your birth date because you say you're 10 years younger, that wouldn't make you actually 10 years younger, either.

Sex is about reproduction. We're an anisogamic species, which means we reproduce through the production of specialized cells with half the DNA (gametes) of different size. Male individuals are the ones who produce small gametes (spermatozoon) and females are the ones who produce large gametes (ovum). Then, a spermatozoon and an ovum fuse to form the zygote, restoring this way the normal amount of DNA. Some species are hermaphrodites, which means they can produce both male and female gametes. Humans are not hermaphrodites, though. In humans, there are several genes involved in the process of sex determination, but one of the most important is the SRY gen. If this gen is present, then the embryo will develop testes. If not, then it’ll will develop ovaries. The hormones secreted by the testes drive the male differentiation pathway for the rest of the male reproductive organs. And the absence of these hormones drives the female differentiation pathway. As the SRY gen is located in the Y chromsome, XX individuals are females and XY individuals are males.

There are some people who have a disorder of sexual development (DSD), but they are rare and they are still either male or female, i.e. they don't produce a third type of gamete.

We don’t need to examine someone’s chromosomes or gametes to tell their sex. Secondary sex characteristics don’t define sex, but they are usually a good way to tell someone’s sex. We have evolved to be able to tell the sexes apart. If we weren’t able to say who kind of humans are able to get pregnant and what kind of humans can impregnate the former our continuity as species will be quite complicated.

Humans can't change their sex. Neither naturally nor with the help of medical technology. There is not such sex change. What "medical transition" can only do is to create a simulacrum of the opposite sex through exogenous hormones and cosmetic surgeries. However, every one of your cells keep having the same sex chromosomes you've since conception not matter how much exogenous hormones you take and not matter how many surgeries you undergone. Although hormones and surgeries may affect your fertility, you don't suddenly start producing the gametes of the opposite sex. BTW, both males and females have the same sex hormones. The difference lies in the concentration levels of them. Also, the hormonal profile of females is more complicated because it varies through our menstrual cycles and through our different life stages. Lastly, more often than not, we can tell your actual sex.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Why shouldn't the definitions of "man", "woman", "male", and "female" be based on secondary sexual characteristics, thoughts, gender identity, legal documents/paper works, and behavior?

Because it is useless separation like that. Separation based on sex is good and sufficient in everything - in healthcare, sports, safeguarding and so on. While if separation will be on something else - then there will be confusion in healthcare, as it is still sex-based, sports - as differences are still sex based, safeguarding - as statistics will be skewed and predators would get easy access to victims. And so on. So there no reason at all to have segregation based not on sex.

In most other cases sex or gender do not matter at all. And if they matter - it is called sexism.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Also- just looked at the tweets you linked.

Allie is just wrong lol

Reality is not what you make it. That’s the dumbest shit I’ve seen so far this month. Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, NOT an idealistic or notional idea of them.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Philosophy was a mistake and should never have been treated as a casual topic for all. Either you study it formally or accept you cannot be an authority or expert with valuable contributions to it.

[–]grixitperson 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Male and female are sexes, man and woman are people who have sexes. Why do you keep introducing these pointless arguments?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How many times are you gonna do this? Dumb questions that have been answered before and refusal to respond to people who answer you.

Get a new hobby.

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basing "male, female, man, woman" on cultural values or stereotypes rather than on biological or material reality means that a)there is no standard definition, ie, what "counts" as a man or woman will depend on personal opinion. Was David Bowie a man? What about all those men in previous centuries who wore wigs and high heels? What about all the ones in hollywood who wear make up all the time? Gay men? Effeminate men? Men who look like hairy lumberjacks but say they feel womanly? Who gets to decide what counts and how long does it count for if the style changes?

and more important, b), there is no definition for the material difference of the sexes, which is a biological reality that we should have a name for the way we have a name for the distinction of the sexes in literally every other species: bull, cow - rooster, hen - the human who can ejaculate, the human who has a uterus? And then they have medical issues and we can't differentiate at all even though obviously they are distinct? It's silliness. Biologically we are speaking of two separable categories. Yes, humans do not follow their instincts in the same way that animals do, but they still have animal capacities that we can't ignore. It's how we reproduce. Our personalities don't fit in categories nearly so neatly. It's like putting everyone into what star sign they are or something. No one's "gender identity" is quite so absolute. But your sex is just a bodily fact, like eye color or foot size. It doesn't have to tell you much, but it may tell you something, at least about how society treats you (as skin color or hair texture often does). Hide it, and you might have a slightly different story, but you won't have a different sex.

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

Why isn't the definition of sex based on secondary sex characteristics instead of primary ones?

Science and medicine.

Secondary sex characteristics arise from primary biological realities. They are "secondary" in the sense of appearance within the developmental timeline, not in the degree of importance or significance of sex in the individual body.

Primary biological realities apart from secondary sex characteristics, with or without the introduction of cross-sex hormones, are endogenously different on fundamental levels -- so much so that accurately sex-typing a patient is critical to the safe and effective practice of medicine.

If you allow that one can have medical intervention to change the appearance of secondary sex characteristics, you must allow that medicine operates according to certain rules. Those rules also apply to endogenous primary biological differences in men and women.

[–]NeedMoreCoffeeGC 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because male and female are based on the 2 sexes they are biologically verifiable in present time, all the past history of mankind and future of mankind

Gender identity is based on sexist stereotypes and sex behaviour which changes over the years. Blue used to be the girls colour and pink the boys. Women used to be hunter gatherers then they became housewives only to change again to having careers. Chubby used to be beautiful, then it was skinny. Men were the ones at a time wearing heels now its women. The ideal woman at one point would have been subdued, elegant, charming, selfless and natural beauty, a lot of transpeople are the very opposite of that.

Meanwhile through all those changes men are men and women are women. It's immutable.

On the genitals:

a neovagina goes not stretch, it does not cleanse itself, it does not lubricate itself because it's not the same tissue as an actual vagina. An actual vagina is a muscular canal lined with nerves and mucus membranes. A neo vagina is an inverted dick or if there is not enough tissue skin of an arm or leg that they had to apply electrolysis to too remove all the hair.

A neopenis does not go erect. It's the skin of an arm or a leg that they had to apply electrolysis to to permanently remove hair. It's a meat tube.

They do not look, feel, smell or function similarly.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

a neovagina goes not stretch, it does not cleanse itself, it does not lubricate itself because it's not the same tissue as an actual vagina. An actual vagina is a muscular canal lined with nerves and mucus membranes.

Moreover, the purpose of the human vagina is to fulfill many reproductive functions: to allow delivery of male semen as close as possible to the cervix so that some sperm cells can pass through the cervix and swim through the uterus into the Fallopian tubes in search of an egg to fertilized; to serve as the passageway for new human beings to be delivered into the world once they've developed in utero to a point when they can survive outside the womb; to serve as a passageway for the expulsion of the extra organ that women grow in pregnancy to sustain the embryo/fetus, the placenta; to allow for the excretion of blood & tissue from the lining of the uterus that gets sloughed off every month that pregnancy doesn't occur; to serve as passageway by which tissue, bodily fluids and fetal or embryonic remains are expelled from the uterus in the case of miscarriage, a very common event.

A neopenis does not go erect. It's the skin of an arm or a leg that they had to apply electrolysis to to permanently remove hair. It's a meat tube.

More to the point, because a neopenis cannot ejaculate, dribble or in any way discharge sperm or seminal fluid (or any of its components such as pre-cum, either), it cannot fulfill the fundamental reproductive function the penis evolved to perform: delivery of male gametes in/near the female reproductive tract for the purpose of fertilizing a female gamete (egg/ova). The surgically constructed sort of "meat tube" created in females for "gender transition" is not connected to testicles nor to any other organs that are part of the male reproductive tract such as the male seminal vesicles and prostate.

[–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How many times are you going to ask the same question? The answer hasn't changed.