GC: Women can have penises and men can have vaginas?

submitted by Fastandthecurious from self.GCdebatesQT

There are gay women that say they are "into penises, but not into men, so trans women work", and gay men that say they are "into vaginas, but not into women, so trans men work".

They separate genitals from "man" and "woman". With that, the only conclusion is, "men can have vaginas, and women can have penises".

What do you think is wrong with that sort of statement?

What's wrong with "women can have penises, testes, sperm, etc, and men can have vaginas, uteruses, ovaries, eggs, etc"?

Why would the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female" be reduced to sex organs and gametes? Why can't they be separated from each other?

all 22 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

For goodness sake, you already know the answer!!! Stop asking the same question over and over again! Find another question to ask for once.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don’t understand why you post things like this here, but you’re completely different on the LGB sub?

It seems like you post like qt here but like gc on the other sub. It’s… interesting.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

deliberately shitposting here with weak , devils advocate style arguments where they act like they’re incapable of reading but in their comment history there’s perfectly sensible statements.

What is the purpose I wonder? Do you think op gains something by pretending to be an idiot here?

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

I like playing "devil's advocate", and share the common TQ claims for them to be debunked. It's a good mental exercise.

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

Fair enough, lol

Your responses in the other sub were really interesting and iirc I agreed with you a lot there but I was confused by your tone here.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

🙄

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

There are gay women that say they are "into penises, but not into men, so trans women work"

Evidently not gay then.

gay men that say they are "into vaginas, but not into women, so trans men work".

Another example of someone not being gay. Your argument builds on the opinion of supposed gay people yet you don't mention anyone who is actually gay, just people who are attracted to the opposite sex.

What's wrong with "women can have penises, testes, sperm, etc,

Everything.

Why would the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female" be reduced to sex organs and gametes?

They have never been reduced to that, the very definition you criticize clearly states that men and women are adult humans of a certain sex, aka also adult and human, not just floating sex organs, and the human factor is very encompassing, the exact opposite of reductive. Being adult and human is just not the distinguishing factor between between men and women, as both are adult and human. The distinguishing factor being reduced to sex organs and gametes is good thing though from an anti-reductivness perspective, had we declared the distinguishing factor to be anything else than that then that would have truly reduced men and women to a set of stereotypes. Imagine if we had declared the very encompassing human trait to be the distinguishing factor, then either men or woman would have to be seen as inhuman for that to be the distinction between them.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

You really offered some great responses. Thanks for the discussion!

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

It's not like anyone bothered offering great responses. Why would I bother?

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

You keep asking the same question, so what can we say that we haven't said before? Just give up already.

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

A few people did but okay lol

Looks like you’re responding now. I was just making a joke.

[–]soundsituationpurrgender 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

u/strictly did, particularly in their last paragraph

[–]FlanJam 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Its just a really weird way of using "man" and "woman". Most people don't use it like that. If I told my neighbors "women can have penises", they'd look at me like a crazy person.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Not just weird, literally entirely wrong. Might as well call herself a horse whisperer while she feeds birds.

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

For as long as we have had written history man has meant adult human male and woman has meant adult human female. In just about every language you can think of they will have words for the adult of the male and female sex.. Redefining well established words with 1000s of years of history without a damn good reason is ridiculous.

How about you make up a word for people who have extra special gender feels. Some people are blurble gender. Some people are blarble gender. There you go those new words are entirely separate from a person's sex, have fun. The words woman and man are already taken. They're perfectly acceptable words with solid no nonsense definitions.

[–]levoyageur718293 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Let us assume that there is a person who exists in this world, who has given birth or is obviously capable of it, who asserts: "I am a gay woman, meaning I am only into women, I am into penises but not into men, so I would consider a trans-woman as a potential partner."

Now let us assume that there is a person who exists in this world, who has given birth or is obviously capable of it, who asserts: "I am a gay woman, meaning I am only into women, I am only into people whose genitals are similar to my own, so I would not consider a trans-woman as a potential partner."

Is it really helpful to use the same word as an umbrella-term to cover both of their sexual and intimate desires? What extra information or utility does that provide?

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

No. Don’t be daft.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If it' s ok for them to use that kind of language, why isn' t it ok for us to not use it?

They dissociate man/woman from male/female, we don' t: why is it that we must find their use ok and comply, but they are totally free to butcher whatever language they want without even being criticized for it?

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

It’s all about obedience but they call it human decency. What a world where human decency is being an obedient little woman who doesn’t say no.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

What do you think is wrong with that sort of statement?

I've never heard it.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

u/MarkTwainiac

What are your responses to my questions? You often give some of the best responses, so I'll look forward to them.

In case you don't know what my questions are: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/848j/gc_women_can_have_penises_and_men_can_have_vaginas/

Women can have penises and men can have vaginas?

There are gay women that say they are "into penises, but not into men, so trans women work", and gay men that say they are "into vaginas, but not into women, so trans men work".

They separate genitals from "man" and "woman". With that, the only conclusion is, "men can have vaginas, and women can have penises".

What do you think is wrong with that sort of statement?

What's wrong with "women can have penises, testes, sperm, etc, and men can have vaginas, uteruses, ovaries, eggs, etc"?

Why would the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female" be reduced to sex organs and gametes? Why can't they be separated from each other?

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

I'll pass.

The rapid erosion of women's hard-won rights & what little respect we managed to obtain in the Western world over the past 100 years isn't a joke to me the way it seems to be for you. Same goes for lesbian & gay rights.

I have a hunch it's easy for you to lark about repeatedly challenging others to engage in pointless mental gymnastics over these issues because you came of age after the major battles for women's rights & gay rights had already been won. And because growing up, you weren't denied basic information about your own sexed body the way girls & women were through history.

But thanks for invitation.