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 →

[–]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.