GC: Sex is a spectrum, perhaps even a social construct, and people are more than what's between their legs so we shouldn't reduce them to their genitals?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Radish 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When we define sex as genitals and gametes, we're reducing people to their genitals and gametes.

I don't see how this follows? If you are defining sex as genitals and gametes, you are defining sex as genitals and gametes, not people. If you're saying that it necessarily follows that you're defining people as genitals and gametes, that would mean you believe that sex is the only thing there is to people.

Science is very complex and interesting. It does not remove the fact that humans are sexually dimorphic, whatever else they may be. It does not change thousands of years of oppression that half the human population lives with just for having one set of gametes and genitals and not the other.

Maybe many men have uteruses and can get "pregnant", and many women have testes and penises, but they didn't know because the government and the "scientists" don't reveal it to the public, to hold onto the "sex is binary and not a spectrum" "propaganda"?

And nobody noticed this somehow? It's something that only "The Government" and scientists know, but they go to the trouble of hiding it and putting out propaganda because . . .reasons?

Abnormalities of sexual development do not mean that sex does not exist, or that sex is not used, both currently and throughout all recorded history, to justify the oppression of women.

tldr; Identifying sex is not the same as reducing a person to only their sex.