If all cells can turn into sperm and egg, why doesn't that mean everyone is both men and women at the same time?

submitted by UwUUwU from self.GenderCriticalGuys

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]UwUUwU[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Only from an abstract, ivory-tower point of view

What does this mean? Gametes are what determines sex from a scientific view. English is not my first language so please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you sound like you're against GC? What are you doing in a GC subreddit if you're against GC?

What's with "GC considering something female" and "TRAs recognizing something as female" as though TRAs are "right"? It doesn't matter what TRAs "consider" or "recognize" as female because they base everything on "feelings"

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

you sound like you're against GC?

Not at all. Neither I nor a gametes-based point of view disagree with GC, in practice. There's just a theoretical niggle.

My point is that if MTFs found a way to transform their bodies to the extent that they do produce ova, that would not be enough to get them recognized as "truly women" by GC feminists. Hence, GC isn't actually using gametes as a philosophical basis.

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

"GC considering something female"

I just noticed something. I never said "considering" -- I used the verb "recognize" for both the GC view and the TRA view. Your impression that I used friendlier language for the TRA view must be a translation mistake.