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

Meta: Moderation and the rules

submitted by circlingmyownvoid2 from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

The guidance you linked is written for and specifically aimed at the "LGBTQ+ community" - not the general public.

The prostate screening info that health authorities in Canada have written for the general public says very clearly:

  • Prostate cancer is the 4th most common cancer in Canada
  • 1 in 9 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime
  • About 23,300 men will have been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2020
  • In men, prostate cancer is the #1 cancer
  • 99% of cases occur in men aged 50+

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/prostate-cancer.html

No one has an issue when the language you like is used in materials meant specifically for trans people and others who place primacy on gender identities and see human beings as an assemblage of disconnected body parts. You do you.

What women and many men have an issue with is the fact that the language you like is now being used when referring to female-specific matters of biology and health in materials meant for the general public. And this is being done only to matters affecting female people, not in the case of any matters affecting male people.

For example, just days before the Lancet called women & girls "bodies with vaginas" on its cover, it ran an article about "men with prostate cancer" and how prostate affects men in which men were never referred to as "bodies with prostates" or in any other dehumanizing way.

You take great offense when others mention your sex. Yet at the same time, you think it's perfectly fine to call girls & women demeaning terms that reduce us to one of our sex organs like "bodies with vaginas" and "people with a cervix." And when say that we find this insulting and dehumanizing, you say we are wrong. Pray tell, how is calling your mum a "body with a vagina" or "a birthing body" not the same as calling her a "cxnt," "hole," vessel, or "baby maker" ? How is it less insulting than calling her "a piece of ass" or "tits & ass"?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

Because it’s anatomical. It’s being used in the same sense as “people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms”. It’s not on a sexual sense.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Since when does anatomical preclude sexual? The anatomical parts you are choosing to call us female people by, and to reduce us to, are parts not of the human anatomy that you & I share; they are parts of the female reproductive anatomy that only one of can have: vagina, cervix, uterus. Those are anatomical parts that serve a host of functions in the way our species reproduces, which is sexually.

As for you claim that it's the same as saying

“people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms”. It’s not on a sexual sense.

No public health body, breast cancer org, oncologists, gynecologists or other physicians who treat breast cancer and those at greatest risk for it that I am aware of would ever say all "people with breasts" over a certain age should get mammograms. Because breasts are a universal human feature; men have breasts too.

But whilst a very small number of men do get breast cancer, most breast cancers occur in women - and in women breast cancer is a common problem. Hence, it's only women over a certain age for whom mammograms are recommended.

Women's breasts are inherently sexual organs because they serve a fundamental reproductive, procreative purpose: they provide human offspring from birth through the first six months of life or so with all the nutrients and immune benefits children of that age need not just to stay alive, but to thrive. How is that not an essential feature of the way our species perpetuates itself, through sexual reproduction?

Whereas the breasts are located far from the other female reproductive organs, they are considered accessory organs of the female reproductive system. The function of the breasts is to supply milk to an infant in a process called lactation.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/contemporaryhealthissues/chapter/breasts/

It takes some gall to call women insulting, dehumanizing names that reduce us to our sex organs, and then when we object , to to tell us our female sex organs are not sex organs at all! They're just "anatomical" - meaning not specific to one sex, so you can have them too.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

But whilst a very small number of men do get breast cancer, most breast cancers occur in women - and in women breast cancer is a common problem. Hence, it's only women over a certain age for whom mammograms are recommended.

The site I linked literally said trans women who have been on hormones for more than 5 years and are over 40 should get mammograms. You’ve just shown you didn’t even read it.

I also very much disagree that women’s breast are inherently sexual organs. The sexualization of breasts is a problem and it’s the main reason things like public breastfeeding has been objected to. Breasts aren’t inherently sexual.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The site I linked literally said trans women who have been on hormones for more than 5 years and are over 40 should get mammograms. You’ve just shown you didn’t even read it.

But that's not the line you quoted! The line you cited was "people with breasts over 40 should get mammograms." I know you think that males who have been on estrogen are the center of the world and the only people whose experience and wellbeing could possibly matter, but "trans women who have been on hormones for more than 5 years and are over 40" are not the same as "people with breasts over 40." Males on exogenous estrogen for more than 5 years are included in the phrase "a very small number of men do get breast cancer" that I used.

I also very much disagree that women’s breast are inherently sexual organs. The sexualization of breasts is a problem and it’s the main reason things like public breastfeeding has been objected to. Breasts aren’t inherently sexual.

Stop insisting that sexual means only what you and many boys and men think it means! You act like you and you alone are an authority on high who gets to define words the way you want to - all the world's dictionaries and everyone else on planet earth be damned. To people who understand, appreciate and respect human biology and the pivotal role that female people play in the perpetuation of the human species, the words sex and sexual don't have the limited meaning you and many others of your own sex give to these words.

And stop telling women who have given birth to children and breastfed that we don't know what we are talking about. You don't get to tell me and other women what our breasts are for and how we're allowed to conceptualize of their role in reproduction.

I don't care whether you disagree. You have no idea what it's like to have any female reproductive organs or to fulfill the female role in reproduction. Yet you want the last word in deciding how women should be described and defined, and how we should regard ourselves and our own reproductive organs. Many males tend to think of breasts as sex toys and "fun bags" - that's the male way of sexualizing them. Women do not regard our breasts like this. When we speak of them as part of our sexual anatomy as I have here, we are referring to their role in procreation. We are thinking of the vital role our breasts have played in keeping our children alive and in comforting them and emotionally nurturing them, not of the far less important role they've played in providing sexual pleasure whether to partners or own selves.

Imagine if women who don't find penises sexually appealing were spouting that penises aren't sex organs, they're just anatomy - and urinary anatomy at that. Wouldn't you think they have some nerve, and that they obviously don't know what they're talking about?

Where do you get off thinking you are the ultimate authority on female sex anatomy and the arbiter of the language we all should use in referring to such? How did you get filled with so much arrogance that you think it's your place to tell women how we should regard our own body parts and bodily functions?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

In modern-day life, breast milk isn't essential for babies to survive. But before infant formulas were developed and awareness of germ theory led to the invention of sterilization methods, pray tell exactly how human infants survived without breast milk?

The fact that that breast milk is not essential to the survival of human infants nowadays still doesn't change the fact that breasts are sexual organs that evolution has equipped women with in order to fulfill a reproductive purpose.

You don't seem to understand what "essential" means in categories. The fact that bicycles, canoes and trains are not essential methods of transportation doesn't mean they're not modes of transport. Ice cream and lima beans are not essential foods, but they're still food.

I look forward to finding out how prior to formula infants survived from the neonatal period until they could eat and digest solids without breast milk.

As for my other points and questions, how come you avoided addressing and answering them the way you typically avoid addressing and answering most points and questions directly put to you?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

They died, but that’s hit the case anymore and it still doesn’t make breasts a sexual organ.

I didn’t avoid anything. Ask a non rhetorical question without writing a novel if you want every single sentence addressed.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Breasts are sex organs and breast development is part of the normal maturity in women, the adult human female of our species, and thus they are unique to one of the two and only two sexes of our species. The kidneys on the other hand is an organ common to all humans and thus it is not a sex organ at all. Neither factory made formula nor a dialysis machine make their function non-essential.

It is more like the following dramatization:

"whoa, I'm an infant and I ain't got no breast milk anywhere to be found."

"Whoa, what a coincidence infant! I'm an adult and I ain't got not functioning kindeys anywhere to be found."

"OK adult, what are those things over there" I'm a talking infant but I still can't see very far."

"Good eye, infant, in spite of not being able to see very far! Those are a big pile of infant formula cans on top of a dialysis machine!"

"We're saved! Both of us! Yeah"

"Yes! We are! The essential services we both need have been sufficiently imitated by technology."

"OK, where's the can opener and the electrical outlet for your machine?"

"Oh no, we're doomed!"

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The kidneys on the other hand is an organ common to all humans and thus it is not a sex organ at all.

This is true, but you know that kidneys are sexed, right? Male and female kidneys of many species have been found to differ not just in size and shape (in humans, female ones are smaller relative to body size and more elongated), but in the way they function too.

Also, although female kidneys are smaller, they have greater capacity than male kidneys as well as the ability to develop additional capacity when needed in order to handle the much greater blood volume that occurs in women's bodies during pregnancy. The difference in kidney capacity is one of the many reasons that males would not be able to sustain a pregnancy even if it were possible to implant uteruses into males. (In the gross experiment in which a uterus with an embryo inside was placed in a male rat, the male rat had to be connected to the female rat so he could rely on her kidney function.)

The differences in male and female kidney function helps explain the marked differences between the way kidney disease manifests in humans of the two sexes. Whilst male and female humans are equally likely to develop kidney disease, males progress to renal failure much more quickly. There are also marked difference in how the two sexes respond to treatments for kidney disease and related ailments. And there are great disparities in kidney transplants too. Women make up the majority - about 63% - of living donors of kidneys, but girls and women in need of kidney transplants are much less likely to be transplant recipients.

Most of the research on the difference in kidney function has been done on rats, but apparently rat kidneys are similar enough to human kidneys that legitimate parallels can be drawn.

[Researchers] found marked differences between sexes in the expression of genes associated with hormonal regulation, kidney disease and the kidney’s critical physiological activities. For example, they noticed differences between the sexes in the genes that code for enzymes that regulate blood pressure. The differences were especially evident in the proximal tubule region of the nephron, which is the workhorse tissue for reabsorption of essential factors such as glucose and metal ions, and the detoxification of drugs.

“These results highlight the need for a better understanding of sexual diversity within the human kidney,” McMahon said. “We know there are similarities between mice and humans in susceptibility to acute kidney injury — males are at a distinct disadvantage — and that sex differences can potentially impact drug studies and damage by kidney toxins.”

Indeed, the National Institutes of Health have emphasized that research needs to account for differences between sexes. Sex affects risk for disease, treatment and how people respond to medications. In the past, scientists studied male physiology and applied findings to women, so studies such as the new USC research underscore the importance of biological differences.

“Profound differences distinguish the male and female kidney,” McMahon said. “The kidney is the body’s regulator of fluid balance, and since women bear offspring, there are likely critical differences required in the mother for the benefit of both mother and offspring.”

The findings can benefit human health by improving an understanding of genetic programs that may influence drug trials, drug toxicity and cellular reprogramming, he said.

https://news.usc.edu/162474/kidney-gender-differences-usc-stem-cell-research/

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.03.429526v1.full

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Trans women can grow breasts identical to natal women with timely hormonal intervention so in fact they aren’t.

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

First you said:

Breasts aren’t an essential part of reproduction. Infants can survive without breast milk.

Now when challenged on that you say that before there was infant formula

They died.

So now dying is the same as surviving?

And how does this prove your preposterous and misogynistic claim that infants' need of breast milk to survive the first 6-8 months of life for all of human evolution and history until very recently "still doesn't make breasts a sexual organ"?

In addition to insulting all women who have breastfed their/our own children, and all those who have breastfed or provided breast milk for other women's children too, your claim that human breasts are not sexual organs that fulfill a reproductive purpose is basically the same as saying that humans are not mammals.

Also, if human breasts are not sexual organs meant to play a key role in reproduction; the nourishment, immunity & survival of young offspring; and the perpetuation of the species Homo Sapiens, what's their purpose then?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

It's almost like you are saying some babies would need to survive in order to grow up and make factories, and baby formula, and cans, and refrigeration, and can openers, and baby bottles, and rubber baby bottle nipples, and a way to sanitize it all. Those things have been around longer than any of us have been alive. Check mate, MT. I normal am impressed by your logic and sound reasoning, but I think I found the flaw in your reasoning today. Or, am I missing something?

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There’s nothing contradictory there. We have rendered them nonessential to life.

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

  1. TW would be covered by small number of men to gc people

  2. Sexual as in biological sex, not sexy time sex

Breast are sexual/related to sex in that they have a function for females, hell some TW try to breastfeed. I’m literally breast feeding my newborn as I type. That’s what this means.