you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Of course we can perceive sex.

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

On this we agree. No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

[–]Chronicity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

Sex is what distinguishes variants of a species that have essential roles in sexual reproduction. Females are in the class that produce large gametes (ova) and males are members of the class that produces small gametes (sperm). Human bodies are organized differently depending on which sex class they are in, because female and male mammals play very different roles in reproduction. In addition to ova production, human females gestate and lactate. Human males produce sperm and insemminate. This makes human males and females quite different from one another morphologically, and this is apparent both internally and externally.

The question really isn’t “How do we perceive sex?” The better question is “Why wouldn’t we be able to perceive sex?” Sex is fundamental to life; none of us would be here if our ancestors couldn’t ascertain it by sight, smell, and sound. For most of our evolutionary history, early death was the rule not the exception. To offset high mortality rates, humanity evolved to reproduce as efficiently possible. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we were bumbling around not knowing which member of the species possesses the gametes that complement our own. Primary and secondary sex characteristics (genitalia, developed breasts, facial hair, musculature, etc) are extremely reliable cues as to who has what gametes. In other words, sex.

So why wouldn’t be able to perceive sex when its foundational to reproduction? Do you doubt other animals have this ability?Here’s a study that shows this ability has a neurological basis in mice.

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology. We have not been consulted on this “woman is a identity unlike height” way of thinking.

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

To add to your points: another reason humans are hard-wired to be able to tell the difference between adult and adolescent males and females - and to do so instantly without any conscious thought or effort - is because of how utterly dependent humans babies and children are on adults for their survival, and how unusually long the period of human development, helplessness and dependency lasts after birth.

Fact is, humans can tell the difference between men and women starting in early infancy, pretty much from the moment of birth. Babies naturally gravitate to women because instinctively they "know" women mean food, care and comfort.

It's telling that rubberdubberd00 is now acting all shocked and perplexed at the idea that human sex is something real that human beings can perceive, and perceive easily and quickly without any conscious thought. Coz two days ago s/he asserted that

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

LOL. So according to rubber, no one can perceive sex in humans, but most people have a good enough grasp of sex stereotypes and QT by the age of 2 to have "an idea of their gender identity" by then.

I've come to the conclusion that rubber is trolling. Because nobody can be this contradictory and disingenuous without it being intentional.

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

I agree it is a trollish thing to play dumb about. But it further underscores how contradictory trans identity is.

If sex isn’t perceptible, then why are we talking about trans people? It is as if there is a material difference between a transwoman and a woman who isn’t trans. Obviously the transwoman knows there is something about them that qualifies them as trans, or they wouldn’t be calling themselves trans. How have they perceived this thing about themselves? Could it be that they, just like every other human being on the planet, know that they are male? Of course they do.

So to turn around and act like we only guessing at this stuff is bullshit. But somehow they think the “no one really knows what sex anyone really is” helps the trans position.

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

I see rubber has backtracked and is now saying something totally the opposite of what she or he originally said:

When I said that people cannot perceive sex what I meant was that there is no way to reliably know the sex of a person that is 100% accurate in all scenarios.

So we're supposed to believe that when rubber typed out "people cannot perceive sex" at all ever, what s/he really was saying is that every once in a while a situation will occur where someone doesn't correctly discern another person's sex - perhaps because the person being perceived has gone to great lengths to disguise his or her sex, or the perceiver has impaired or dulled senses and cognition.