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

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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.