Coming From Gender Critical

submitted by [deleted] from self.Introductions

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

But how are you defining female?

[–]Sun_bear 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

But I mean not all women or girls can or want to bear offspring.

[–]Sun_bear 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (30 children)

So?

Women: the humans who have ovum

Men: the humans who have sperm

There's nothing about being able to have children or wanting to have children in that definition.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

But not all women produce eggs, right?

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (27 children)

99.9999% do

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

At least 1.6% of the population is intersex, according to Google at least. So I'd guess that about 1%-2% of non-transgendered people who identify as women have some condition where they can't produce eggs.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The 1% of intersex people are male or female, they aren't in the spectrum.

How does 1% of intersex people invalidate the two genders male and female?

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So all intersex people produce either eggs or sperm? I'm not sure that's true.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Intersex is a genetic defect

[–]goodbyeplanet 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

  1. look into statistical significance for defining groups.

  2. if someone has the external genitalia of a female upon birth, they will be subject to the patriarchy from day one, because it is assumed they will reproduce.

  3. intersex people have their own problems, and are not a shield for queer theory.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Aren't trans women subjected to things like sexual violence and discrimination too? Isn't that part of patriarchy?

What's queer theory?

[–]goodbyeplanet 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Any violence and discrimination they recieve we conceptualize as discrimination against gender non-conformity, not against women. It's done by other men. It's a men problem, not a women problem.

Further, let me quickly infodump common newbie questions for ya.

  1. How do they drown out women? TIMs (trans-identified men) are socialized as men from childhood, resulting in a specific set of aggressive male behaviours in the % of them that entered trans through sissy porn (as contrasted to the % who were gay or gender nonconforming men and bullied into it). They are a very vocal part of cancel culture and tend to be overrepresented in internet spaces. There's a bit to be said about autism and the "nazi to trans pipeline", but that's the gist of it.

  2. Are they women? TRAs (trans rights activists) think being a woman is defined by comforming to a restricted set of gendered behaviours, and if you exhibit those behaviours you are part of that group (this is our concern with queer theory, but if you want to find out more about QT it's on google). In contrast, a lot of radfems are for abolishing gender, that's why they like saying we're 'transmen in denial'. We believe a vast majority of gendered research is biased by the culture, and women should be allowed to behave however suits them (with debate regarding behaviours that harm themselves or other women). Therefore, "woman" is defined by sex only.

  3. Why are they a problem in the bigger sense? The danger of TIMs is that they take opportunities, political positions, and grants away from natal women, and detract from women's issues such as sex slavery, reproductive coersion, femicide, and global misogyny. We believe natal women are forced into a system of abuse due to their biology, and it is not possible to identify in or out of that system.

Hope this helps.

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

Women don't "produce" eggs, they're born with all the ovum they'll ever have.

[–]FurfyFurtyFur 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Please keep in mind also that Sun_bear's definition of female is consistent across the animal and plant kingdoms. We don't know what gender Mendel's pea plants identified as, but we do know what sex they were.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I'm not sure about plants, but aren't there animals that are hermaphrodites and other animals that can switch sex?

[–]FurfyFurtyFur 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Hermaphrodites/intersex are usually sterile, having disorders of sexual development. (The birth of one-legged humans ought not change humans being defined as bipedal.) Yes, there are some plants and lower-order animals that can change sex. (Ask a cannabis grower about male plants and hermaphrodites.) Again, it doesn't mean that a state of fixed-sex doesn't exist in higher plants & animals or that changing one's appearance can actually change one's sex.

Hormones of all kinds are 'interpreted' differently by the body depending upon gene encoding, which is different in men vs women. Testosterone is changed in female bodies to estradiol, a form of estrogen. Only excess amounts masculinize a female, and in fact, DHEA is the more masculinizing hormone. Excess amounts of masculinizing hormones have negative metabolic and reproductive side effects - high incidences of type 2 diabetes and PCOS. Meanwhile, hormones do not change a woman's sex, only her appearance.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I remember hearing about a guy who had, like, six kids who turned out to have a uterus.

Also, aren't there some frogs that can change sex? I'm not sure what makes a species higher or lower, but if by higher you mean more complex, a frog is pretty complex compared to hermaphrodite/intersex worms.

The birth of one-legged humans ought not change humans being defined as bipedal.

But nobody is saying you have to have two legs to be human. OP, though, is saying that you have to produce eggs to be a woman.

[–]goodbyeplanet 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Outliers are omitted from statistical analysis, as without a trend present it is erraneous to attempt to use them to define the majority population.

A frog is not a mammal. Mammals are a category defined by the relative complexity of their reproductive systems.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How rare does something have to be before it's considered an outlier?

Also, nobody mentioned anything about mammals until you just now.

[–]goodbyeplanet 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Pardon my laziness, but to save time I Ctrl + Fed "outlier" and couldn't find anything.

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

I'm not going to give you a lecture on the use of statistics in data analysis, although any stats 101 book will have that information. You can google what an outlier is. I'm sure there's a khan academy video describing this.

EDIT: generally it's the idea that a point of data that is radically different from the trend seen in the rest of the data is going to shift the results in a way that does not fairly represent the mean and variance of the data. As such, if this point is very rare in the sample, it is safe to disregard it. In order to be statistically significant scientifically, enough points have to be different in order to show directionality in the data, to prove that this is a trend.

In the case of intersex people, the population size suggests they are not a new form of human reproduction (sex), but people who have a rare genetic disorder.

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

of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs

OP didn't say women have to, they said CAN

Perhaps OP should have been more precise, and said that female humans are identified by a cluster of some vague number of a certain set of endogenously-produced primary sex characteristics — including vagina, ovaries, womb, fallopian tubes, and XX chromosomes — all of this is sufficient for femaleness, though no particular characteristic is necessary or essential.

I remember hearing about a guy who had, like, six kids who turned out to have a uterus.

Again, usually sterile.

Your 'gotcha' questions are tedious.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In your opinion (obviously recognizing that you and OP may differ) would a trans woman with a vagina be a female?

Same question re uterus transplants (which I don't think have been done on trans women before, but may in the future.)

EDIT: Not a gotcha question, dude. (Wasn't even a question.) I'm just pointing out that there are guys ("cis" guys) with uteri.

[–]FurfyFurtyFur 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It is indeed a gotcha question because I have already answered that women have ENDOGENOUS, PRIMARY sex characteristics, and listed them. If you are unaware as to what the terms Endogenous and Primary mean, please pull out your dictionary.

I have also pointed out that the exception does not disprove the rule. Quit being disingenuous.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Again, it’s not a gotcha question because it’s not a question.

What is your source for that definition of “woman” or “female”?

And why not change the definition so that there are no exceptions? “ the exception does not disprove the rule” and pointing to the sterility of some of them is just hand waving away intersex people. It’s a non sequiter.

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

Well, it's no question that you're wrong. Sources - go find a few college level biology books in your local used book store, you can read all about it.

Intersex conditions are disorders of sexual development and do not disprove that there are two sexes. It's not a non-sequitur (this means "does not follow" - I don't think you've used it correctly) or an absurdity, because disorders do exist.

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

Can humans?

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends on how you define sex.

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

We do know: peas have perfect flowers - a botanical term meaning having male and female parts in each flower.