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 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.