This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

all 98 comments

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bioessentialism: women like shoes, pink, make-up and gossip.

Biological reality: women are female.

You are confusing (and I refuse to believe you are not doing it on purpose) stereotypes with defining characteristics. What you are doing is the equivalent of saying that it' s bioessentialist to say that redhead people have red hair, what we are doing is saying that it' s bioessentialist to say that redhead people are all fiery and passional.

Having a dick or a vagina (or XY or XX chromosomes) is not a stereotype or bioessential, it' s what makes someone male and female.

Hope that helps.

PS: I am still waiting for a definition of gender that isn' t bioessentialist and that relies on objective and provable facts instead of feelings and social constructs.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Woman=adult human female does not infer any universal experience, nor does it refer to a feminine essence or soul that can become trapped in a wrong body as queer theory says it can.

Essentialism isn’t there.

Woman=adult human female is descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s an observation of physical reality. An adult human female is any adult human who’s body developed in such a way that without disease, disorder, injury, or medical interference, will release ova. It’s not contingent on actual ovulation.

Nobody body stops existing if it’s not being actively used. We’re bipedal when we’re sitting down just as much as when we’re walking.

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

My (rudimentary) understanding is that something is bio essentialist if it is wrongly attributed to biology/sex. So saying girls are innately less intelligent is bio essentialist because intelligence has nothing to do with one's sex. But saying girls have ovaries is NOT bio essentialist because females have ovaries by definition.

I do find it kinda ironic, for as much as QT complains about bio essentialism, they're the ones that usually put forth the female/male brain thing. That seems incredibly bio essentialist to me. Also the gender euphoria thing seems kinda bio essentialist, to say females should feel euphoric for performing feminine actions. As if we're somehow predisposed towards those actions.

If male and female is defined on the bases of sex organs and gametes, then why is a male still a male and not sexless or less of a male after removing all his sex organs? Why is a female still a female and not sexless or less of a female after removing all her sex organs?

A bicycle has two wheels, if we remove one does it become a unicycle? Of course not, we can still recognize it as a bicycle that is missing one wheel. Just because something isn't in its most textbook, typical, ideal form doesn't mean it isn't that thing. Not to get pretentious but there's the concept of a "platonic ideal", where we can imagine the ideal form of something. But those ideal forms never actually exist. For example, we can imagine an ideal apple in our imagination, perfectly red and round. Apples in real life might be less red, or kinda lopsided. No apple in real life can match the ideal apple in our heads, but we still recognize those apples.

[–]BiologyIsReal 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Why don't you ask QT how aren't terms like uterus haver, menstruators and other bioessentialists?

[–]worried19 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

You have made 4 separate threads under this user name without bothering to respond to comments on any of them. Why should we take the time to type out a response when we know it will be ignored?

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

I said the same thing to the same user under a different username and got a bunch of hostile questioning in return, this person will never answer any questions or respond to any comments except with a bunch of more inane comments.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (28 children)

How do you know they are "ignored"? Just because I didn't see a point in responding to the comments in previous threads that I read and agreed with doesn't mean they were unread and ignored. I take the time to make a detailed post and explain all my thoughts in it. That should be enough to get answers

[–]worried19 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

This is a debate sub. We're meant to engage with other users, not simply post long monologues and leave.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (18 children)

Well there's no other sub where I can post these long monologues to get answers. They always tell me to do that in GCdebatesQT.

[–]BiologyIsReal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If you agree with us, you could always debate with the QT side for once instead of keep asking us the same questions... Or you could write a blog...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (15 children)

GCs have proven to be as bad as TRAs. They believe a child or someone who removes their sex organs is desexed or sexless (not male and not female): https://imgur.com/0cxkT9u

It's perfectly reasonable to consider children essentially sexless. Girls and boys are not yet women and men. They're distinct but until puberty the distinction is minimal.

Even in cases where everything has been removed, the other system hasn't been implanted so the most you can claim is that they've been desexed (as people used to say about eunuchs).

https://imgur.com/MLP7lfI

I'm not sure what your problem is. When you take a cat or dog to the vet to be neutered the dog or cat is considered de-sexed? Why is the term not appropriate when you apply it to humans?

I'm fine with debating GCs for now.

[–]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First, one person is not all GC, you know? We're not a monolith. Second, pretty sure that user is thinking more about sex as sexual acts than sex as biological category. Third, as far as I know, desexed indeed means castrated.

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

Gc generally does not think this because it’s wrong.

Does one persons incorrect opinion really represent what gc actually thinks? Why is one wrong comment that doesn’t even reflect gc ideas enough for you to dismiss all gc?

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Are you some kind of pedophile? Why are you so obsessed with the sex organs of children? And whether GC people consider the child a sexed individual or not? If you remove your genitals you have de-sexed yourself, this is generally speaking common terminology.

You never answered my question BTW.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Fortunately they’re blocked for the next month.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

Are you dumb? I was a kid once. You're telling me I was a freaking sexless creature instead of a girl back then, and when I had crushes on other girls I was crushing on sexless creatures. It's insulting as fuck, so of course I would be obsessed with it.

I never answered your dumb questions because you like banning people. I got banned. But you don't realize banning is pointless. People can change IPs and create new accounts. Good job banning people like TRAs did to you lol. You're no better than them.

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

Who is "they," and why does their opinion about what is acceptable in this sub outweigh what the people here tell you?

[–]FlanJam 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think people would be more receptive if you even left small comments like "I never thought of that before" or "I agree, thanks for the response". Those may seem like pointless filler comments, but they let others know you're taking the time to listen and engage. Otherwise, it kinda feels like we're talking to a brick wall when we leave comments and there's no reciprocation.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

I'm trying to do as you suggest, and leave comments, and it looks really bad. GCs believe a child or someone who removes their sex organs is desexed or sexless (not male and not female): https://imgur.com/0cxkT9u

It's perfectly reasonable to consider children essentially sexless. Girls and boys are not yet women and men. They're distinct but until puberty the distinction is minimal.

Even in cases where everything has been removed, the other system hasn't been implanted so the most you can claim is that they've been desexed (as people used to say about eunuchs).

https://imgur.com/MLP7lfI

I'm not sure what your problem is. When you take a cat or dog to the vet to be neutered the dog or cat is considered de-sexed? Why is the term not appropriate when you apply it to humans?

[–]FlanJam 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Ahh, well leaving comments doesn't guarantee you'll get good responses lol. I was just talking about what worried19 said about feeling ignored.

[–]kwallio 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This person posted this question, got the responses they wanted (apparently to be screenshotted as a gotcha) and then deleted the topic. IDK what sort of responses they wanted from the original question - notice they never posted what they asked, which is this:

GC: Do you seriously believe children and people who remove their sex organs are sexless or desexed?

The whole (stupid) conversation is here:

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7y96/gc_do_you_seriously_believe_children_and_people/

[–]SnowAssMan 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (46 children)

"In the study of transsexualism, the essentialist idea of a feminine essence refers to the proposal that male-to-female transsexuals are females trapped in male bodies"

Our existence is due to, & dependant on the existence of sex. Congenital disorders & mutilations don't dispute that, in fact they prove it, by being congenital disorders & mutilations.

For instance, if two people are born, one with legs & one without legs, which one has a congenital disorder? Is being born with legs a congenital disorder? If not, then human beings must be bipeds, while those born without legs have a congenital disorder. If someone gets their legs surgically removed in order to alleviate their body integrity identity disorder that doesn't mean they haven't mutilated themselves.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 10 fun1 insightful - 9 fun2 insightful - 10 fun -  (45 children)

Neither. Disorders are social constructs

[–]BiologyIsReal 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Is COVID-19 a social construct, too? Are vaccines a social construct, too?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 9 fun1 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 9 fun -  (32 children)

I mean yeah, species are a social construct

[–]kwallio 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

THis is actually not true, indigenous tribes and scientists have compared notes regarding the numbers of types of plants and animals in a given area and come up with the same types. The species concept may have issues in certain edge cases but as a whole it has held up. Species are real.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (6 children)

No they aren’t, the species concept doesn’t hold up a clearly shown by the sorites paradox

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (23 children)

You're a social construct

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

Yep. Buddhism yo, the self is an illusion

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

Explain cancers then, please

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

What Bio Essentialism actually means:

"The belief that 'human nature', an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural 'essence' (rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture)."

Bio essentialism is referring to sexist stereotypes not biological reality. Believing that women inherently want to be mothers/are nurturing is Bio Essentialist. Knowing that women have female bodies is not. Sexist beliefs and stereotypes can be self fulfilling prophesies via nurture, which is why we should avoid prescribing certain character/propensities traits on people based on whether they are male or female.

The concept of Bio Essentialism has gone over a lot of trans activists heads, because they so desperately want to believe that a man can be a woman or a woman can be a man somehow. Attempting to redefine well established terms & concepts to fit your queer world view then expecting us to argue with your redefinition doesn't fly with me. Bio essentialism has nothing to do with how we define/determine sex. It has everything to with what we believe about people based on their sex aka cultural sexist stereotypes.

A transwoman saying "Now that I transitioned I am bad at math now" is bio essentialist. They believe being a woman means you must be bad at math. "Now that I transitioned I'm super emotional and I cry at the drop of hat." Also bio essentialist. A very large percentage of transwomen believe that women are inferior intellectually & emotionally. (I know this, because I've read and listened to transwomen. Their beliefs about womanhood prove they don't have the faintest idea of what being a woman is actually like and many of their beliefs are extremely insulting. It blows my mind that any woman would play along with this. After reading transwomen's writing my first thought was, oh hell no, same sexist bullshit different century. The religious fundies left a cultural & political power vacuum and this is the sexist nonsense that is filling the void.)

The entire concept of a "gender identity/gender soul" is bio essentialist. Trans activists are presuming that everyone has an innate sense of gender and if it doesn't match they must switch to the other side magically somehow. Crazy idea, but being a man doesn't mean you have to be aggressive or violent. You can be as feminine, kindhearted and flamboyant as you want while still being a man. Being a woman doesn't mean you are fated to be stupid, weak or hysterical you can be tough as nails, invent X-rays and calmly stand up for yourself. Transitioning is superfluous, shallow and unnecessary self harm if you don't believe in bio-essentialism.

That's where I'm coming from. I feel bad for trans identified people. They could have much more fulfilling & healthy lives if they accepted their bodies as they are and embraced being authentically themselves, the bio-essentialist stereotypes imposed by society be damned.

Gender nonconformity aka radical authenticity the stereotypes be damned is the solution. Not transitioning.

[–]grixitperson 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No. Not an innate quality, a defining characteristic.

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Bioessentialism, a shorthand for biological essentialism, is the idea that we are born with specific, immutable traits by virtue of our sex.

Can you define what "sex" is? We do not have to have specific traits by virtue of our sex in order to have a sex. Things like having XX chromosomes and a female reproductive system are not by virtue of being female. They are the reason someone is defined as female. They are the same as being female. It is an a=a situation.

You can say it is essentialist to suggest that just because someone is female, they will naturally want to wear dresses. But it does not make sense to claim it's essentialist to say that just because someone is female, they will be female. Wearing dresses is a flexible social role. Having a vagina is a material reality that defines the category. Not all cats are necessarily sweet and cuddly, but all cats are felines - which means they're 4-legged mammals of a certain type, etc. Certain characteristics are just part of the definition. It will usually be physical facts.

This also means not all women have female sex organs and release eggs. Not all men have male sex organs and release sperm

All humans have either male or female sexual reproductive systems (unless perhaps they have some kind of very rare disorder, but as I understand it even most "intersex" individuals have the basis of a male or female system, just with dysfunction).

Why aren't children sexless eventhough they can not release eggs or sperms?

It's perfectly reasonable to consider children essentially sexless. Girls and boys are not yet women and men. They're distinct but until puberty the distinction is minimal.

Sure someone who removes all their sex organs in a surgery once had sex organs, but now they don't, and they don't meet the definition of sex, which requires one to have certain organs and release gametes. So why aren't they considered sexless or less of a sex?

Even in cases where everything has been removed, the other system hasn't been implanted so the most you can claim is that they've been desexed (as people used to say about eunuchs). No one changes sex. Also, it's very difficult to remove everything and not healthy if it's not a last resort. Beyond that, sex is embedded even more deeply than that - the shape of the skeleton, the size of other organs, the space left behind if things are removed, would all give away which sex the body was altered from.

traditional patriarchal structures: “Men are stronger, less emotional and better suited to lead.” It persists today in the form of gender roles, gender-based exclusion, and transphobia... TERFs generalize the “universal experiences” of women, e.g. having a uterus or menstruating.

Do you see the difference? Once you start getting into adjectives and personality traits, likes and dislikes, capacities and preferences, those are things that can change with individuals and which tend to be grouped under stereotypes. But physical facts are easy to distinguish. Having a uterus is just fact. And it's part of the definition of female for mammals. If we want to change the definition of woman from its simple cow/bull, rooster/hen, man/woman version, then we need a new categorization that has some kind of meaning. What does woman mean if it doesn't mean "adult human female"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (13 children)

It's perfectly reasonable to consider children essentially sexless.

Lmfao what. So there is no such a thing as a girl or a boy, because the difference is minimal and they're essentially sexless? Who on earth upvoted you?? You sound uneducated.

the other system hasn't been implanted so the most you can claim is that they've been desexed (as people used to say about eunuchs). No one changes sex. Also, it's very difficult to remove everything and not healthy if it's not a last resort. Beyond that, sex is embedded even more deeply than that - the shape of the skeleton, the size of other organs, the space left behind if things are removed, would all give away which sex the body was altered from.

Then children are not sexless and it would be unreasonable to say children are sexless because sex is not just about gametes.

Just because morons in the past who thought earth is flat thought enuchs are sexless doesn't make it true.

If you think children are sexless, then women who are past their menopause are not women and are desexed and sexless too, which I call bullshit. Who are you and why are you in my thread?

Wait your username is familiar. You must be the same TRA from the GCdebatesQT on reddit who said kids and people who remove their sex organs are desexed or sexless. You are as annoying as ever.

[–]emptiedriver 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun -  (12 children)

Would you have sex with a child? A child has an immature reproductive system. They have the potential to become sexual creatures, but pre-puberty, their sex is not yet developed. Does that mean they are sexless? I don't really know, and the point is that it doesn't really matter. You can say they have a sex but it's nascent or you can say they don't have one yet, as clearly it's distinct from once it becomes an active system. I don't think it's terribly controversial to speak that way. But what you can't say is that they'll start as a boy and turn into a woman.

Of course there is such a thing as a girl or a boy - a girl will become a woman and a boy will become a man. What sex you have at some point in your life is inherent from conception. The haggling over exactly when lines are crossed to achieve sexed vs non-sexed seems like a red herring. The fundamental point is still, there is no shift from one sex to the other. The most you can claim, and I'm only offering it to make the point, is that some people could be defined as non-sexed if you like. Sure, call children pre-sexed, even say someone who has extreme surgery is neutered if you like, but you can never get to cross-sexed.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

Whot. You said it's reasonable that children have no sex. Girl means a female child. Boy means a male child. If children are essentially sexless, then there is no such a thing as a girl or a boy, because there is no such a thing as a male or female child.

It's not about an adult having sex with a child. Children have sex with each other all the time. They have crushes. And even masturbate. You're here telling me when a girl crushes on a girl (and both haven't reached puberty yet), it's actually a sexless creature crushing on another sexless creature.

And when a girl is molested, since there is no such a thing as a girl, because "it's reasonable that children have no sex, and are not male or female", or so you believe, police would have to record the incident as "sexless creature got molested".

You make GCs look bad. Or maybe GCs are this bad.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Why aren't children sexless even though they can not release eggs or sperms?

Sure someone who removes all their sex organs in a surgery once had sex organs, but now they don't, and they don't meet the definition of sex, which requires one to have certain organs and release gametes. So why aren't they considered sexless or less of a sex?"

FairyPrincess you're the one who brought up this ridiculous idea in the first place, then freak out when someone is being somewhat charitable to this nonsense saying they could see it that way in very specific circumstances figuratively but not literally. You're the one making sex out to be much more complicated than it actually is. Even asking these questions in the first place proves you don't know what you are talking about. Sex isn't some abstract philosophical quandary than can be postulated, redefined and undefined to death. It's an easily verifiable objective fact that we have understood for 1,000s of years. We just a have a deeper understanding of it through modern science now.

If you cut off a cat's tale it is still a cat. If you surgically install a dog tail on the cat it is still a freaking cat! Same thing applies to human sex. All the surgeries, hormones and roleplay in the world cannot turn a man into a woman. If you cut a man's dick off he is still a man. If you surgically install a poor imitation of a vagina on him he is still a man. He still has a male body. It is physically impossible to turn a male body into a female body. The most we can do with our current technology is make a poor imitation. Ted talk about how fundamental and all encompassing in every cell of your body sex differences are Binary sex denialism/obtuseness just makes the Query Theorists look foolish and ignorant.

You're taking things way too literally and being deliberately obtuse. If your only method of engaging with GC is deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what we are actually saying there is no point in discussing anything with you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The issue here is your tendency to take things people say on the internet at face value and in this case as the authoritative representation of what all "GC" believe. For example, when emptiedriver said

It's perfectly reasonable to consider children essentially sexless. Girls and boys are not yet women and men. They're distinct but until puberty the distinction is minimal.

You read every word in that post the most literal way possible & took it as the gospel truth. When, in fact, what emptie said is not actually, precisely true - something I suspect most readers understood, but which you chose not to.

Worse, you then rephrased what emptie said in a more extreme way, pretending what he or she really meant was

that children have no sex until puberty, there is no such a thing as a female or male child until puberty

And

there is no such a thing as a girl or a boy, because the difference is minimal and they're essentially sexless

Which I don't think is what emptie really meant after all.

For the record, as emptie has now clarified, human beings have a sex from the moment of conception. Moreover, there are many on the GC side like me who would respectfully disagree with emptie's initial contention that prior to the puberty of adolescence, the distinction between the two sexes in humans "is minimal."

Sex differences have been observed & recorded in human placental cells five days post fertilization, and in the metabolism of human zygotes fertilized in labs via IVF earlier than that. Human sex differences precede the development of gonads in utero.

Those of us who have had prenatal testing when pregnant know full well that many of the fetal abnormalities tested for are sex-linked. Same goes for a number of the conditions that babies in the US, most of Europe & many other places are routinely screened for through mandatory blood draws & genetic testing shortly after birth.

Once children are born, there are myriad physical differences in male & female human beings that are relevant medically and in terms of hygiene & safety from the get-go. The growth & development of infants is closely monitored & charted, but the charts are different because the normal ranges for boys' and girls' weight, length & head circumference are different. Moreover, the rate at which boys & girls grow and gain weight are different too.

More care needs to be taken when diapering female babies after bowel movements because the location of the female urethra unfortunately close to the anus makes girls highly susceptible to UTIs from fecal contamination. This is not an issue when diapering boys because the male urethra is inside the penis - and the little penises of boy babies are far from the anus. However, getting sprayed on definitely is an issue when diapering baby boys, but not girls.

Toilet training boys & girls is different. Teaching boys & girls how to cleanse & care for their "privates"is different too.

Many of the same genetic and childhood diseases manifest very differently in the two sexes, and have different trajectories, treatments & treatment protocols depending on whether a child is male or female. Many diseases that occur or become apparent in childhood are sex-specific. And diseases that occur at the same rates in both sexes still affect boys & girls very differently because of the many differences in male & female physiology. An excellent example is cystic fibrosis.

Female babies & children mount stronger immune responses to vaccines, and thus have more "side effects" than males.

Kids get tummy aches all the time. But when there's serious abdominal pain such that acute appendicitis is suspected, the assessment procedures & criteria are entirely different because the two sexes have different internal organs. For girls, even very little girls, the possibility of ovarian cysts, uterine problems as well as sex abuse, rape, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy & STDs have to be taken into account.

Because boys' gonads are external, very exposed & easy to injure, boys have to be taught to protect themselves in play & sports - and they need to be equipped with cups when they do contact sports. At the same time, girls of all ages are more susceptible to concussion than boys are, and need to be trained and equipped accordingly.

If a boy of any age tells his parents or teachers that there's blood in his underwear, the appropriate response is alarm & efforts to get him to a doctor pronto. If a girl of age 8 or above does the same, the appropriate response is further inquiry with a cool head and - most likely - showing her how to use sanpro.

Youth athletic records show that boys outperform girls in most sports long before the puberty of adolescence begins.

Read up on the physical development of males and females in utero, in infancy and in childhood, and you'll find that there are many, many important biological differences between boys & girls long before the puberty of adolescence kicks in. After all, the puberty of adolescence is actually the second puberty children go through. The first one, aka "the puberty of infancy," occurs from the end of the first month after birth into or through the six month.

The youngest girl on record to have given birth was 5 years old, 7 months at the time. It's a travesty to suggest that she was sexless.

Also, the puberty of adolescence typically occurs years before girls become women and boys become men. In girls, puberty is only considered precocious if it starts before age 8, in boys before age 9. Boys & girls don't become men & women until age 18.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

When, in fact, what emptie said is not actually, precisely true - something I suspect most readers understood, but which you chose not to.

But as you can see, that's exactly what empt meant: https://imgur.com/a/Xe87zYj

They think children have no sex, they are not male or female, because they do not have developed sex organs. And even if they have a sex, it's better to ignore it because there isn't any difference between male and female children ...

[–]emptiedriver 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

If children are essentially sexless, then there is no such a thing as a girl or a boy, because there is no such a thing as a male or female child.

I'm sorry I made this so ridiculously confusing for you. You asked why children aren't sexless and I said, sure, maybe they are since they haven't sexually developed yet. I shouldn't have indulged you. I think that in its strictest, most complete, fully functioning form, sex is evident in healthy adults. In children, unhealthy or other cases of abnormal, altered or degraded physical bodies, sex can be non-functioning or somehow incomplete. It is usually still recognizable. Fundamentally, it does not change to a different sex. Even if you argue that some people do not have a sex if they lose some parts or haven't developed them yet, so what? What difference does that make for trans people?

It's the difference between adult men and women that has caused women's oppression. That is why it does not matter to me whether girls and boys are sexed - they are physically comparable in size and strength, and do not deal with pregnancy and the division of labor issue, so it's largely bc girls will become women that they deal with expectations and different treatment. If we could ignore their sex as children, I can imagine it being a positive. The same cannot be said for adult women, because the physical realities need to be taken up communally.

or so you believe, police would have to record the incident as "sexless creature got molested".

What are you talking about? Do you think if people are not categorized by their sex they are no longer people? How do you even deal with non-binary or asexual people in the trans movement... Maybe the police could record it as "child got molested"? or "young human being"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's the difference between adult men and women that has caused women's oppression. That is why it does not matter to me whether girls and boys are sexed - they are physically comparable in size and strength, and do not deal with pregnancy and the division of labor issue, so it's largely bc girls will become women that they deal with expectations and different treatment. If we could ignore their sex as children, I can imagine it being a positive. The same cannot be said for adult women, because the physical realities need to be taken up communally.

I'm not sure this is the case. The division of labor occurs long before puberty. From a very early age in most cultures, little girls are expected to care for younger siblings & elderly relatives, and to take on various tasks in the household & on the farm - such as fetching water, gathering firewood, milling grain, preparing food - for the benefit of the family as a whole. Moreover, from an early age girls are taught to budge up & step aside to put male interests first. In many cultures, girls & women are only allowed to eat once all the males in the household have been fed.

Child marriage is a real issue for girls, one that affects female children much more than male children. In Iran, for example, the legal age of majority at which girls can be married off by their fathers is 8. By contrast, the age of majority for males is nearly 16.

Also, in many countries large numbers of female children under the age of 5 are killed through infanticide and abandonment. Not to mention through sex-selective abortion. Male children and fetuses do not suffer the same fate. At all.

it does not matter to me whether girls and boys are sexed - they are physically comparable in size and strength

I think if you knew more about the development of male & female children & the sports performance of boys & girls, you'd have a different view.

[–]emptiedriver 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

don't you think that's due to what is known to be in their future? I have always understood the treatment of girls to be due to the predestination of womanhood rather than the capacity of girls, and my understanding was that girls were fairly equal in sports until close to puberty when the differences became marked. Of course, I may be mistaken and I am not sure there are statistics. It's true that boys tend to be more active on the playground. Perhaps that is just more libfem hearsay I have picked up over the years...

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have always understood the treatment of girls to be due to the predestination of womanhood rather than the capacity of girls

I don't understand your reasoning. Pregnancy & childbirth complications are the major cause of death for girls in the "third world." Nearly 800,000 girls under 15 give birth each year.

Sex differences in physical ability that matter in (most) sports are apparent well before the puberty of adolescence. These differences become enormous and unmistakable during/after the puberty of adolescence, but they are there beforehand.

http://legacy.usatf.org/statistics/Event-Records/JuniorOlympicTF.aspx

During the puberty of adolescence, males obtain enormous advantages. For example, the average male heart becomes 25-38% larger & more powerful than the average female heart. But prior to the puberty of adolescence, male children have a left ventricle that is 8% larger & stronger than in female children. In sports, an area where performance is measured in hundredths, thousandths, and millionths of a second, an 8% advantage is major.

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I thought it was obvious I was talking about pre-pubescent children if I was suggesting we could speak about sexlessness. This is all so ridiculous, I should clearly never have entered this topic. It was just an abstract possibility.