TRA: "i SleEp wIth MEn WiTH VaGINAS and wOMen wiTh pENises" (face censored due to possible "no-doxxing" rule, if there is any)

AllInOne · 2021-09-30T04:02:19+00:00

Hermaphrodites are both male and female, hence the name hermaphrodite. Male and female are terms that refer to people and other animals, because people are animals. Humans, as animals, have too much in common with other species. It is not possible for humans to be the only specie with male and female when we are genetically alike.

The claim that "humans are the only specie with male and female" supports TRAs and their "male and female are man-made social constructs". You single humans out.

I don't believe in a "god", whoever on earth that "He" with the capital H is.

Even if that article were correct, most species, frogs included, have male and female. It just gets messy in rare cases.

Thank you for contributing nothing to the conversation.

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T18:27:45+00:00

Thanks for the analogy! So from what I understand given your analogy, the potential to produce eggs makes a baby calf female and the potential to produce sperm makes a baby calf male, did I get it correctly?

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T18:06:28+00:00

Yes, which is why I asked;

I get girls are born with all the eggs they will ever have, but boys are a different story right? Pre-pubescent boys don't produce sperm and don't have sperm so how are they boys/males?

AllInOne · 2021-09-30T10:43:29+00:00

We are, however, not these creatures and are capable of more complicated physiological processes and (at least as far as we know) higher cognitive abilities

We are not those creatures. My point was we share the same genes with the unicellular organisms, as well as the multicellular organisms, that we evolved from. We are very similar. It's a given that other species would have the same basics such as sex, male and female.

Most multicellular organisms "reproduce" sexually, like humans do. We're not special in the sex department, that's all.

Do you not appreciate the replies that you get, so you just start the process over again in a different sub?

It's not that I don't appreciate them. I saved the responses I got from before: https://imgur.com/e4sJOmW

I just want more responses, more attention from those who don't agree with the "trans" hogwash? But people post a lot on a daily basis. My post ends up being buried underneath them. I thought by reposting this, I would get more responses.

AllInOne · 2021-09-30T09:21:05+00:00

Humans may be the ones "naming" these things. Doesn't mean these things themselves wouldn't exist without humans.

Species can have "unique" traits, but the majority of our traits are similar, which includes the basics such as sperm and egg, male and female, also known as sex.

Most species "reproduce" sexually, which means they have sex, male and female. No "redifinition" is happening here. You're the one redefining male and female to fit some "humans are the only specie with male and female" agenda.

You're acting like humans are special, when we are very similar to other animals. See for instance, the fish gill arches. In fish, the arches become part of the gill apparatus. And in humans, it's the same gill arches we inherited from fish that become the bones of our lower jaw, middle ear, and voice box.

When most of our body parts are similar to each other, of course other species would have something as basic as sex, male and female.

Where did we get our sex, male and female, from? Other animals, which had male and female before us. Human sex didn't appear out of nowhere. It was a trait inherited by other species in evolutionary history.

And every specie has cells that function similarly. You should study this more.

Put your bible down and get out of your bubble. You have your head too far up your own ego. You're not special. And no "daddy" is watching you when you're sleeping.

AllInOne · 2020-07-17T23:35:26+00:00

Nope, the celibate nuns don't care about their vaginal health I guess. I don't really care about the state of my vaginal health either which is why I don't care if it's health deteriorates. etc. It's health is going to deteriorate as years pass by no matter what I do anyway until I end up having my funeral which then means either worms are going to feed on my vagina or I'm going to be turned into ashes so it doesn't matter if the vagina is lost, or its health deteriorates because it's going to happen anyway. But even if a woman cares, she can just take a dildo and push it in her vagina, it will have the same effects as a penis has and there's even one more benefit which is; less chance of getting diseases. This is why masturbation only was always encouraged when pandemics started, because there's less chance of getting diseases when a woman uses a toy in the vagina instead of a penis

AllInOne · 2020-07-17T18:53:52+00:00

Hmm, all I'm saying is pushing anything like a toy in the vagina has the same benefits. You will have to clean all the bullshit out when he cums in you too, one of the other benefits of only pushing a dildo up the vagina is you don't have to clean anything afterwards except for the dildo that was used. Yes it may be a use it or lose it situation, but that means one should first care about losing that vagina to even care about the "benefits" that come with pushing something in it. Surely celibate nuns don't care about the "benefits" so they are more than willing to lose the vagina and do other things instead.

AllInOne · 2020-07-17T17:37:03+00:00

or through masturbation report fewer symptoms of atrophic vaginitis and have less evidence of tissue atrophy

So simple masturbation does the exact same thing PIV does, I'm sure penis doesn't do any magic in the vagina so pushing any other object like a dildo in the vagina has the same effect as the penis. Masturbation and pushing a dildo up the vagina also helps maintain a healthy vaginal epithelium (the cells lining the vaginal walls), increases vaginal elasticity, improves lubrication in response to sexual arousal and helps keep the vagina more acidic, providing some protection against infection by having increased blood flow to the vagina when a dildo is inside it.

The "benefits" come even without the penis, and also simple masturbation and playing with dildos bring one more benefit; less chance of getting the diseases one would get if penis was in the vagina ... so, PIV doesn't really do anything after all

AllInOne · 2020-07-17T16:04:29+00:00

Yes, but the TQs go from "a trans man has a male brain in the female body and a trans woman has a female brain in the male body" to "a trans man is a female in the wrong body so surgeries should be done to change the body to fit the male brain", etc, to that I don't know what to say and how to argue against it. Do you know how to do that?

Also, how to argue again this; "a brain is a sex organ like the penis, vagina, etc so the brain determines sex"

AllInOne · 2020-07-17T11:33:16+00:00

Their hatred of trans-women seems in large part an extension of their hatred of men.

Exactly, I totally agree with this. It's good to see people like you speaking the truth. I'm GC, I'm female and I'm saying this. Most GCs only ever criticize TIMs, they say "don't invade spaces of women" only because they say "men are stronger than women" but when a TIF invades spaces of men they are like, "meh, good, it doesn't matter because she's not a threat to men and men can defend themselves". Their whole argument rests on their hatred of men, that "women are weak and men are strong, most men are aggressive rapists and they shouldn't be in women's spaces but if a woman goes in men's spaces it's fine because women are sweet and weak and pose no threat to the brute men"

Like, no. Invasion of space is invasion of space. A TIF has no right to invade the spaces of men, just as a TIM has no right to invade the spaces of women. It doesn't matter that "a TIF poses no threat to men", if a woman is a master of martial arts and a TIM that's weaker and smaller than her comes invades her space, do these people say "meh, it's fine, the TIM poses no threat to the woman"? I'm sure they don't

AllInOne · 2020-07-16T19:56:37+00:00

What do you mean by "it's not how the words are used out in the wider world"? I thought male and female only refer to sex out in the wider world too? And if 'woman' and 'man' describe "gender", what do you mean by 'woman' and 'man'? Can you define "gender" and what "woman" and "man" mean to you?

Edit: Ah well, you deleted your account so I'm responding to nothing

Are there any GC here that can tell me what this TQ means by "woman" and "man" describing "gender"?

AllInOne · 2020-07-16T14:40:08+00:00

Natal female people who call themselves "trans men" are not "trans men", they are just deluded females who believe they are men, so they should be called female, just what they are. The point of GC is that there is no such thing as a "trans man" or a "trans woman" or a "trans" anything as sex can not change (sex can not change after birth at the very least if we go with the statement that males started out as females in utero)

AllInOne · 2020-07-15T12:05:35+00:00

The word trans comes from transition, which means change, what the word "trans man" means is "woman changed to man" or "female changed to male". Did Buck Angel change sex? Did Buck Angel go from female to male by taking hormones, etc? I would say no, so she can not be a "trans man". She's a female who thinks she's a man. But if all males started out as females in utero, that means all males changed sex from female to male during development, which would mean all males are "trans men". That would mean sex can change during development, but not after birth, so no matter what Buck Angel does, she can not go from female to male since that change can only happen before birth. All of these things depends on the statemtnt that "males start out as females, female is the default phenotype or sex", if that statement is wrong then everything shatters and sex can not change before birth either so males are not females that transitioned to male in utero, they would just be males from the beginning

AllInOne · 2020-07-15T10:20:59+00:00

Transition means change, what I meant by "trans man" in "if it were true that female is the default phenotype or the default sex then all males would be trans men" was that if it were true that all males started out as females during their embryonic development, then that means sex changed, females became males, and there was a transition from female to male in utero -- a change of sex from female to male for all males -- so all males would be trans men as in there was a literal change of sex happening in there for them. If sex can not change, then there is no such a thing as a "trans man" or a "trans woman", because one can not change from female to male or from male to female, but if males started out as females in utero, then that means all males transitioned/changed sex from female to male in utero and all males would be trans men

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T23:27:25+00:00

I think you're right, I asked this question here but will be sure to ask questions like these in GCdebatesQT saidit later on, the GCdebatesQT saidit is very quiet and I don't get much answers in there for now, I'm hoping it gets more traction like the GCdebatesQT subreddit we had before

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T23:20:53+00:00

I agree with you, it seems since English is not Wittig's first language she chose the word sex instead of sex roles or stereotypes which has led to confusion and didn't get the essays proofread for clarity. What I meant is if we take the second interpretation (which is the one I see being used in the analysis and summaries of Wuttig's essays), it will lead to the conclusion that the entirety of Wittig's arguments fall apart. As you pointed out, if she meant sex does not exist, she can not talk about oppression of women because what is a "woman"? If she can not talk about sex, she herself can not talk about being a woman let alone being a lesbian, and so her essays would be complete nonsense. But if we look at the first interpretation, which is she forgot to say sex roles instead of sex and actually meant sex roles are a social construct while understanding sex itself exists, then her essays are not nonsense and actually make sense in some parts.

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T18:07:24+00:00

I see the added part about The Category of Sex now. What do you make of this part specifically? Again, emphasis added by me.

I understand your interpretation actually, about what I make of "there is no sex, there is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses", I think the way the sentence is structured leads to confusion. Either she means there are no sex roles (that the roles men and women are expected to have are socially constructed), while not denying sex (male or female) exists itself, or she means sex (male or female) does not exist, and that oppression creates sex instead of oppression being something that is caused by the sexes.

I think if she really meant stereotypes or roles by the word sex, she should have said "there is no such thing as sex roles" as in stereotypes associated with male or female are social constructs instead of saying "there is no sex" followed after saying the categories of "male or female" are created for political and economic reasons which all lead to most readers being confused interpreting her to mean "sex as in male or female does not exist"

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T17:56:29+00:00

Ah I see, if she means sex roles by sex, why does she say in The Category of Sex that;

male/female are the categories which serve to conceal the fact that social differences always belong to an economic, political, ideological order

And why don't authors just write sex roles instead of sex? Adding "roles" after sex really stops readers from being confused. When she said in her The Category of Sex that "there is no sex, it is the oppression that creates sex and not the contrary", I think it's expected most people reading get confused thinking she says sex doesn't exist and it's oppression that creates sex, if she said "there is no such thing as sex roles, for it's the oppression that creates sex roles ...", it would be so much more clear

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T17:40:27+00:00

Thank you for the links, they're very useful!

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T17:39:35+00:00

Every analysis of Monique Wittig I have read concludes that she says "sex is imaginary and is a social construct", I don't know if there's much depth in this, for example, this;

Once the class “men” disappears, “women” as a class will disappear as well ... For “woman” does not exist for us: it is only an imaginary formation, while “women” is the product of a social relationship.

What could this mean besides "woman as a category is imaginary and doesn't exist"?

Wittig in her essay The Category of Sex also refers to natural differences between men and women as the ideology of sexual difference. She said sex doesn't actually exist and this ideology exists to justify the exploitation of women. She says;

the ideology of sexual difference functions as censorship in our culture by masking, on the ground of nature, the social opposition between men and women. Masculine/feminine, male/female are the categories which serve to conceal the fact that social differences always belong to an economic, political, ideological order. Every system of domination establishes divisions at the material and economic level. Furthermore, the divisions are abstracted and turned into concepts by the masters… for there is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is the oppression that creates sex and not the contrary.

AllInOne · 2020-07-14T10:15:12+00:00

Yep, I did participate in GCdebatesQT subs back when it wasn't banned, I think your name is very familiar which made me question if I saw you in the GC subreddits before. My handle is not the same as the name I had on reddit, mine was muffin_mysterious

Sorry for the delay in response, I went out and had to write my essays so I didn't come back to saidit for a few hours

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T23:48:36+00:00

Of course they are born with DNA, the DNA doesn't just magically appear once someone turns 10 or 11 year old.

(Btw, hello again friend, I remember you from the GC saidit, also I think your name is familiar because I have seen it on the GC subreddits that unfortunately got banned. It's good to see familiar people)

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T23:16:39+00:00

Thank you for your response, I think people actually believe this "female is the default sex" thing, look at how seriously they talk about it and please let me know what you think; https://www.quora.com/Why-is-female-the-Default-sex-of-humans/answer/Jeff-Collins-6/comment/110139698

Copy pasting that comment;

"No that's quite a radical change that scientist proposed by wrongly accepting subsequent gene activation processes in such “sox9″ which are genes not located on the sex chromosomes at all to begin with. Of course feminisation will have certain “specialised” differentiating processes too.

However, the main point is there's NO “female equivalent” of “sry gene” that specifically produces “anti-Mullerian factor to stop female sex differentiation which otherwise would located on the X chromosome. In fact, one of X in females is deactivated. Besides, why would Nature want to needlessly create TWO specialised sexes, when one is sufficient as only the male is needed to have a specified reproductive function as seen today. Moreover, if a species were to revert back to asexual breeding like the whip tail lizards or have asexual breeding as an alternative reproductive option such as parthenogenesis which is seen among female Komodo dragon, then it's important one sex remains the “default sex” per se, and undeniably evolutionary wise females maintain this role.

So this new view among scientist is somewhat an illogical one."

They think their "female is the default sex" thing is logical and scientists saying otherwise are being "illogical".

And look at this other comment; https://www.quora.com/Why-is-female-the-Default-sex-of-humans/answer/Jamie-Kincaid-5

Copy pasting this other comment;

I still think its true that humans develop as female initially in the womb, regardless of what anyone says. Males and female are more anatomically similar than most people like to think. Take it from me, I’m a transgender man and I’ve studied this stuff for years. I can’t think of any other reason I was born trans unless my gender was converted from female to male.. Why would I “choose” to be transgender? I can tell you now it is not a choice, and if it was, I would still be female. Anyhow, I don’t understand how people can say humans don’t start off as female, for me there is just too much evidence and hints. The testicles and ovaries are made from the same group of cells and tissue, they share the same properties, they are just developed differently.

And this; https://www.quora.com/Why-is-female-the-Default-sex-of-humans/answer/Jeff-Collins-6/comment/39448319

Well males and female are more similar than most people think or like to think. I think its true that humans develop as female by default. How could people be born with both reproductive organs otherwise? You’re sort of right, but I still think humans develop as female. The SRY gene needs testosterone to activate it. Its possible to make ovaries act as if a SRY gene was present, by gene manipulation. Sex is complicated yes, so I think humans have a default blueprint

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T22:47:11+00:00

I thought these questions should be asked in this sub because the point of GC is 1) sex can not change, 2) there are 2 sexes. But a lot of people say "female is the default sex and the default phenotype and males start our as females as embryos", which completely contradicts those 2 points of GC, because 1) if males were once females in utero then that means all males are trans men (females who became males), 2) sex can change and 3) if all humans start out as female and if all humans are female then there is only 1 sex instead of 2 sexes ...

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T22:43:02+00:00

But that would mean all males are actually trans men because they were once females in utero that became males after development ...

AllInOne · 2020-07-13T18:16:31+00:00

Is it possible to give an analogy for this so I can understand better? I can understand better with analogies, but only if you have the time to do that of course. Btw I remember your name from either GC guys or GCdebatesQT subreddit, I'm happy to see familiar people here!

AllInOne