What are the true definitions of male and female that do not exclude people that have removed all of their genitals and/or can't produce sperm or egg? And why doesn't sex change when secondary sexual characteristics change?

submitted by EverydayIsSad from (self.GenderCritical)

[removed]
all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Omina_Sentenziosa 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

First of all, the definition is not "that produces ovas/sperm", it' s "belonging to the category that produces ovas/sperm". People who don' t produce ovas/sperm because of age, choice or illnesses are still in those categories because, without the age/choice/illness, they would produce them.

Secondly, Let' s assume for a second that the definition is indeed the one you provided: then it means that you need to produce ovas/sperm to be considered a wo/man. A male who grows female secondary sex characteristics still doesn' t produce ovas and as such isn' t a woman/female. A female who grows male secondary sex characteristics still doesn' t produce sperm and as such isn' t a man/male.

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

First of all, the definition is not "that produces ovas/sperm", it' s "belonging to the category that produces ovas/sperm". People who don' t produce ovas/sperm because of age, choice or illnesses are still in those categories because, without the age/choice/illness, they would produce them.

Yes, it the category is key. Also, I think the definition would be clearer the words "potential ability" and "at some points in time" were added: in sexually-reproducing species, males are the category of organisms with the potential ability to produce sperm at some points in time; females are the category of organisms with the potential ability to produce ova/eggs at some points in time.

When speaking of humans specifically - which is key, coz it's the definition of human sex that's the real bone(r) of contention with the genderist "it's all a blurry spectrum" crowd today - it would be even more accurate to say female and male are the "category with the potential ability to develop and produce mature ova/sperm."

This would take into account a) the complex chain of events involved in how male humans make sperm; and b) the centrally-important but often overlooked fact that female humans are actually born with all our eggs inside us, and thus we don't actually make new gametes during our lifetimes the way male humans do. In the follicular and ovulatory cycles of the human menstrual cycle, human females don't produce a new egg - rather, an already extant egg is developed and matured, then it's released.

IMO, the whole focus on which gamete an organism can/might "produce" that the standard definition of sex is based on shows a distinctly male bias. Which is no surprise, since biology like all the sciences is and always has been a male-dominated field, so it was males who came up with the standard wording and framing used to describe and define sex and sex differences in the first place.

But the fact is, the processes that go on inside the reproductive tracts of human males and females in order to make it possible for conception to occur are entirely different. In the follicular and ovulatory cycles of the human menstrual cycle, a female human doesn't actually produce a new egg - rather, an already extant egg that has always been inside the girl/woman develops and matures, then is released. Only after all this occurs is it possible for her egg to be fertilized by a sperm.

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

I agree with you, but I think my answer was already too "nuanced" for OP considering that they were seriously asking the dumb questions they were asking. I didn' t feel like wasting too much time on that to be honest, it was going to be useless. Just look at how they didn' t answer at the "if a woman is someone who produces ovas, how can a male who looks like a woman but doesn' t produce ovas be a woman?" question.

This thread, just like every single thread with the same topic, was posted because OP thought it was a smart gotcha, and no matter how reasonable and sane your arguments are, no matter how they prove that their gotcha was ridicoulous and that it failed, OP is probably bragging with their friends about how we are the ignorant ones for pointing out that their own "reasoning" doesn' t make sense.

I have really enjoyed your very informative comments in the Semenya thread, though. You' re great!

[–]MezozoicGay 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sub for debates: /s/GCdebatesQT/

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're confusing multiple, contradictory definitions of male/female. If your definition of female excludes people who don't produce ova, it will still not include people who alter their secondary sex characteristics. No one defines male or female as "having the secondary sex characteristics typically associated with males or females," so I don't know why you're asking about it as a 'gotcha'. If I dye my skin black and style my hair in a way usually associated with African Americans and I can pass for black 80-100% of the time, am I black?

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

If I get cosmetic surgery that doesn't mean I was born with those features. It's not genuine and I wouldn't pretend I was always that way.

[–]MezozoicGay 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

And it is just cosmetic change.

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

Say you have a poodle, but you have ita fur styled to look like a Rotweiler. Do you have a poodle or a Rotweiler now?

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

The definition of male is said to be an organism that produces sperm, and the definition of female is said to be an organism that produces egg, how come a human that has removed all of their genitals in surgery is still male or female then despite not being able to produce sperm or egg and not having any genitals?

That's not the correct definition of biological sex. This is:

In sexually-reproducing species, males are the category of organisms with the potential ability to produce sperm at some points in time; females are the category of organisms with the potential ability to produce ova/eggs at some points in time.

I said this in my longer post here, but I'm repeating it directly to you OP coz in case you say TL;DR.