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 →

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 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 -  (14 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 -  (13 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

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Enlightening as always! thanks, I did not know any of that. Smaller but greater capacity, and ... a lot of great info there. Thanks!

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But wait, is there a difference between "sexed organs" or differences between organs between the sexes, and sex organs? I think my kidneys thing, to set up my exercise in playwrighting, might still be valid.

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

Sexed means "having sexual characteristics" - which itself could lead to a discussion because a person like COMV would define a "sexual characteristic" is different to how I would define it.

Medicine (run by males) used to assume that only the reproductive organs that we call sex organs like the testes, ovaries, prostate, penis, vagina, uterus etc were sexed or had sexual characteristics. All the other organs they assumed were identical in the two sexes. But of course, all organs are made up of cells, and all the nucleated cells in our bodies (meaning all cells in our bodies except mature red blood cells, and one kind of cell in a part of the eye) contain sex chromosomes. Now that research is being done by scientists open to the idea that the sex of cells might lead to different characteristics in the organs that those cells make up, a vast number of differences are being found and proven to exist. It turns out that organs that outwardly look the same in the two sexes, and which perform the same tasks, are often different in innumerable ways and they go about performing the same tasks in different ways too.

Differences in placental cells of XY and XX zygotes have been found 5-6 days after fertilization, when the zygotes are implanting themselves in the uterine lining and the placenta is just starting to grow.

There's a big body of scientific research showing vast differences in the respiratory tracts and respiratory function of male and female humans. I've posted a lot of links before. I don't have time to pull them all out now, but they're in my posting history in convo with Fleurista especially. I know about these differences because of my interest in sports & sex differences that affect male and female sports performance, but even more because I had a brother and sister with cystic fibrosis - which is a disease that's been observed since it was first identified in the 1950s to affect boys & girls very differently from a very early age. The same exact disease caused by the same genetic mutation has a different trajectory in the two sexes, even in families where the children live in the same physical environment & have access to the same level of medical care, home care, nutrition, etc. This is turning out to be the case with a lot of inherited diseases, in fact.

[–]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.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Can they? How do they do that? And they are identical? Ohh, wait you said "with timely hormonal intervention". So, are the transwomen growing the breasts or is the "timely hormonal intervetion" doing it and the place the transwoman simply the place where that intervention occurs? The team of medical professionals and and the factory making the hormones that do the intervening seem to be the ones growing the "breasts".

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

From what I've read, the breasts that males who've been through the male puberty of adolescence grow later in life when taking estradiol do not develop the lobules, ducts and milk glands that in female people mature and develop during female puberty. In male puberty, the breast tissue does not get the same signals as breast tissue gets in female puberty, and my understanding is that male sex hormones in males during puberty causes permanent atrophy of the structures in the breasts related to lactation.

It's not clear what happens to males whose development has been blocked with GnRH agonists aka "puberty blockers" at an early Tanner stage like Jazz Jennings.

[–]circlingmyownvoid2[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The bodies grow then. As do Cais and Kleinfelters sufferers who you consider male.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only two cases have been reported where individuals with CAIS are said to have breastfed. In both cases, the women had to take heavy-duty exogenous drugs that could be harmful to newborns - an unnamed galactagouge in one case, FDA-banned domperidone in the other. In each case, the women were only said to have "partially breastfed for one month." No details were given in the reports about the nutritional contents of the secretions that issued from the breasts and whether the stuff was indeed milk. The aim in both cases appears to have been to provide the CAIS women - one of whom adopted, another of whom hired a surrogate to bear a child - with a sense of emotional bonding with the babies and an "authentic motherhood experience." The physical wellbeing of the babies seem to have been of secondary concern.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't know what I consider about anyone. If the bodies grew them, they'd grow them. The drugs grow them, the body is the plaything of the drugs in this case.

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

If you leave a bottle of estradiol on a desk it won’t grow breasts. That’s a thing bodies do.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How many ways are you wrong here? As many as possible. But you know that. You get a kick out of being wrong.

Growing breasts is a thing adult human female bodies do, not "bodies" in general. Without the drugs growing the breasts, no transwoman will experience them growing at all. That's not a thing their bodies do.

Also, Did you ask the bottle? How do you know? We may have a case of Schrodinger's Artificial Breast. You'll have to open the bottle and pour out the contents to look under a microscope to see if any breasts are growing there. I imagine that would ruin the contents so you'd have to kill the tissue to find out if it is there in the bottle growing. I'm just using QT-type reasoning here where objective reality is subservient to perception.