you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

As someone with a background in the life sciences, I can tell you biology and medicine literature do use the word sex to mean the biological category.

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

But everyone else hasn't got that background. What sort of biology books do you think regular people are reading, especially children & teens? Do you think "sex" ever gets a mention outside reproduction contexts? It's just not practical to insist everyone use more academic language when referring to everyday things in informal discussions.

Again, there aren't even any drawbacks to people exclusively understanding gender to mean male & female & sex to mean intercourse. Using this terminology wasn't the catalyst to the transgender craze, quite the reverse. Gender has been a synonym for sex from the very start, it's only recently that regular people are saying "sex & gender are not the same thing" & it's thanks to transgenderism. No idea why GC feminists went along with it.

Why relegate gender to pointlessly mean masculinity & femininity? It's not catching on. Why try to share the word "sex" with the far more popular & stigmatised concept of sexual intercourse? It's impractical & overly formal & easily censored from children. There are only drawbacks. It also legitimises transgenderism more, bc you're handing them "gender". It's called "gender critical feminism" & it's critical of transgenderism – thereby legitimising "gender" as meaning gender-swap desire + role-play. It's simply counter-productive.

On top of that, we've all heard men say that they are "biologically female", right? So what has holding onto "sex" got GC feminism? Relinquishing "gender" was just the first step to inching single-sex terms out of the conversion altogether. It's like one of those Native American treaties with the US, & feminists are playing the part of the Native Americans.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

understanding gender to mean male & female & sex to mean intercourse.

Please for the umpteenth time stop saying sex=intercourse, meaning penetration with a penis. Saying all sex involves penetration is a male-centric, penis-focused POV. It's homophobic particularly against lesbians, and ignores that even amongst heterosexuals and gay guys not all sex does or has to involve penetration!

[–]SnowAssMan 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You mean like oral? That's called 'oral sex'. It's not penis-focused or male-centric, it's reproduction-focused, just like the word itself is: sex. It's a type of reproduction: sexual reproduction. Male & female describe the reproductive roles within a species that reproduces sexually. You could broaden the definition of sex to include other forms of erotic activities, making it orgasm-focused, maybe. But wouldn't re-purposing the word that describes reproduction, to also refer to homosexual erotic activities itself be heteronormative?

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

Oral sex is still a kind of sex. Some oral sex is indeed penis-focused. Whereas you keep insisting that sex exclusively means PIV intercourse.

You are taking a very narrow view of what reproduction in higher organisms means and requires to be successful. Human sex has evolved to have many more purposes other than fertilization of ova by sperm. Such as pleasure, intimacy and pair-bonding.

The aim of reproduction is the perpetuation and continued adaptation of species. There's a lot more to the perpetuation of the species Homo sapiens than conception alone; conception is just the starting point. The ancillary functions that human sex has evolved to have - such as intimacy, pair bonding, the release of oxytocin in parties of both sexes, and up-close-and-personal familiarity with a body (or bodies) other than one's own - serve purposes that can help both individual organisms and the group survive. After all, the species Homo sapiens only remains in existence and keeps adapting when fertilized human eggs result in newborn babies, and babies live long enough to reproduce themselves and raise their own offspring to maturity.

Most human sex acts are actually not done for the purpose of conception. Indeed, conception is something that most people very much don't want to happen in the vast majority of sexual encounters that humans engage in. Which is why people who have sex with members of the opposite sex typically take measures to avoid conception. This is true even in most acts of PIV intercourse. Even amongst those who have or want children, most persons who engage in PIV sexual intercourse are not seeking for conception to occur each and every time. But having conception-free sex with another person still can serve ancillary functions - closeness, caring, pleasure, relaxation, emotional release, emotional intensity - that assist in the survival and perpetuation of the species and individuals involved.

[–]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Even pleasure-sex follows the reproductive model, even makeshift anal sex does. Even homosexuals form couples (instead of thrupples). So the word itself is heteronormative & the actions associated with it are heteronormative, but I shouldn't call it "intercourse" on account that that's heteronormative? Anyway, seeing as the term "homosexual intercourse" exists you can get off my back regarding my use of the word "intercourse" now, since apparently it's not exclusionary after all.

You over-estimate the role of the sire. Biological fathers play no role at all in parenting their biological offspring in the Mosuo tribe – one of the only matriarchies in existence. Perhaps mixing romance, sex & child-rearing together is only cultural, not natural.

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

Since when is the Mosuo tribe the model for most of humanity?

As for your comments about couples and thrupples, and how these supposedly relate to het and homosexuality, I don't understand. You seem to think that pair-bonding is inherently heteronormative, and that societies based on heterosexuality are never polygamous.

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

No, I'm saying the word "intercourse" isn't heteronormative, since the term "homosexual intercourse exists". I'm also saying that the nuclear family is a construct. Childrearing doesn't have to be done by either of the biological parents.