GC: Women can have penises and men can have vaginas?

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:42:30+00:00

What are your responses to my questions? You often give some of the best responses, so I'll look forward to them.

In case you don't know what my questions are: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/848j/gc_women_can_have_penises_and_men_can_have_vaginas/

Women can have penises and men can have vaginas?

There are gay women that say they are "into penises, but not into men, so trans women work", and gay men that say they are "into vaginas, but not into women, so trans men work".

They separate genitals from "man" and "woman". With that, the only conclusion is, "men can have vaginas, and women can have penises".

What do you think is wrong with that sort of statement?

What's wrong with "women can have penises, testes, sperm, etc, and men can have vaginas, uteruses, ovaries, eggs, etc"?

Why would the words "man" and "woman", "male" and "female" be reduced to sex organs and gametes? Why can't they be separated from each other?

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:37:44+00:00

Not saying there are no differences between sperm and egg ... all I'm saying is the differences exist because only sperm and egg can fuse and create a zygote. If it were the case that two sperm or two eggs could fuse and create a zygote too, then it would mean the differences between sperm and egg are arbitrary and could as easily occur between two eggs or two sperm.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:36:18+00:00

No, I'm not saying the different methods become the same. I'm saying sperm and egg are different because they are the only ones that can fuse and create a zygote. If it were the case that two sperm or two eggs could fuse and create a zygote too, then it would mean the differences between an egg and a sperm are arbitrary and could as easily occur between two sperm or two eggs.

Comparing sperm and egg, to man-made things like roads, and motorcycles isn't a good comparison. Whatever differences exist between motorcycles, cars, roads, etc are man-made and could as easily exist between two roads, two motorcycles, two cars, or whatever.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:31:48+00:00

Next time, don't comment your bull*hit in a post that's for GCs only, m'kay? Good (:

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:18:34+00:00

Aww, TQ+ not wanting to date GCs is like trash taking itself out without GCs lifting a finger. Sounds good.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:13:04+00:00

I like playing "devil's advocate", and share the common TQ claims for them to be debunked. It's a good mental exercise.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-13T16:07:53+00:00

It's not like anyone bothered offering great responses. Why would I bother?

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-11T22:57:53+00:00

Only someone incapable of thinking logically cherry picks. And you cherry pick. That doesn't look good ...

You don't want to be called "homosexual" because you think "being gay is more than genital interaction", but then want to be called a "lesbian" or a "woman" eventhough the word "woman" only has to do with genitals, and the word "lesbian" which is a "gay woman" only has to do with genitals.

You also want to be called a "human" eventhough being a human has to do with a bunch of genes. Why care about "being reduced to genitals", when you don't mind being called a "human" and being reduced to a bunch of genes?

Even if you were to call yourself a "person", you'd reduce yourself to nothing but your "consciousness".

Everything from "human" to "person" is "reductive uwu".

I'm simply pointing out whatever you say makes absolutely no sense. Zero. Noone is obliged to take your "issue with the word homosexual" seriously, when the hypocrisy is apparent in your thinking.

People who respect me as a person will understand that. People who don't are irrelevant.

Respect is earned. You don't consider why someone would not respect you for cherry picking and acting like the word "homosexual" is something "wrong" that "shouldn't be used". You haven't done anything to earn that respect. And I wouldn't blame anyone that doesn't respect you with that homophobic attitude.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-09T23:16:24+00:00

Not really.

1) A woman is "an adult human female"

2) Female is "an organism with female genitals and/or eggs"

Conclusion: Woman is "an organism with female genitals and/or eggs".

"Woman" isn't something separate from the genitals. It doesn't include personality, what color or food you like, etc, etc.

I know you like playing with words because you think there's more to "woman" than there is, but there isn't. I'm saying this as a woman.

If you have an issue with "reducing people to things like genitals", which is what TQs say, then you should have an issue with the word "woman". You'd have to say "I'm not a woman, because there's more to me than my genitals. I'm a person, not a woman, just like I'm not a homosexual".

I noticed you used "homosexual" in "homosexual sex".

GLAAD says you shouldn't do that because it's "offensive": https://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.

Preferred: "relationship," "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.

Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided. These constructions are frequently used by anti-gay extremists to denigrate gay people, couples and relationships.

As a rule, try to avoid labeling an activity, emotion or relationship gay, lesbian, or bisexual unless you would call the same activity, emotion or relationship "straight" if engaged in by someone of another orientation. In most cases, your readers, viewers or listeners will be able to discern people's sexes and/or orientations through the names of the parties involved, your depictions of their relationships, and your use of pronouns.

If you agree with GLAAD in "homosexual being offensive and clinical", then you should agree with the other claims as well instead of cherry picking (:

Fastandthecurious · 2021-07-09T22:51:06+00:00

Why is your name "clitoris" then? I'm sure if to you, "homosexual is bad because being gay is more than genital interaction", being a "woman" is more than a genital like clitoris. If "homosexual" is "clinical", then why wouldn't "clitoris" be? If "homosexual" shouldn't be used, then "clitoris" shouldn't be either because it's "reducing complex people to their genitals". "whY aRe YoU rEdUcInG wOmEn tO GenItAls" :/

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T09:52:58+00:00

"Sperm" and "egg" are categories we give two cells because they are the only ones that can create a zygote. If it were the case that two "sperm" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, then the "differences" between a "sperm" and "egg" would be arbitrary and could exist between two "sperm" or two "eggs", because two "sperm" or two "egg" could do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do.

And that would also mean there is no "male" or "female" if it was discovered two "sperm" or two "eggs" could create a zygote.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T09:44:54+00:00

Roller coasters and roads aren't a good analogy.

"Sperm" and "egg", "male" and "female" are a thing because they are the only ones that can create a zygote. If it were the case that two "sperm" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, then the so-called "differences" between an "egg" and "sperm" would be arbitrary and could easily exist between two "sperm" or two "eggs" because they can do the exact same thing as "sperm" and "egg" do.

Therefore there would be no "male" or "female" either, as the "differences" between them could easily exist between two "females" or two "males".

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T00:47:37+00:00

And yet you’re running with this as if its this groundbreaking discovery that changes how we should understand sex?

The trans right activists use it as if it should change how people understand sex. I was curious what they spam in their tumblr posts.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T00:32:40+00:00

FYI, here is the actual paper described in Forbes, not a writeup in a secondary, non-scientific source. But note, this is a paper whose findings have not been replicated: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0670

I read half of it, and reached this part:

Bee K was female and diploid throughout, but lacked any maternal nuclear genetic material. We propose that K was created by a fusion of two sperm nuclei, resulting in an androgenic diploid bee. This is the first report of an individual created by the fusion of two sperm in any Hymenopteran. K was able to develop to the adult stage, showing that a bi-paternal bee is viable ... The viability of K suggests that there are no impediments to the development of a bi-paternal female honeybee, as has previously been shown for bi-maternal

If the result was not replicated, does that mean the claims in the paper are not supported by anything, and the bee might not actually be from two sperms, contrary to what the people who wrote the paper propose?

What about the "bi-maternal" part? Does that mean contrary to what these people propose, these bees might not be from two eggs or two sperms?

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T00:21:10+00:00

Breed like what? They said "in theory". Just because there was one example of a bee from two "male" bees doesn't mean "bees breed like that". In bees, it's always the "female queen" that breeds. Not two "males". And they don't actually know the bee was from two "males". They assumed.

I'm just saying if it's the case that two "males" can make a zygote, though very rare, then it means there is no such thing as "male" or "female" in bees, therefore no such thing as "egg" or "sperm" in bees, and therefore no such thing as "male" or "female", "egg" or "sperm" universally.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T00:18:20+00:00

And that means there is no "male" or "female" in those bee species in which "males" are haploid because two "sperm" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do, and that means there is no difference between a "sperm" and "egg" ...

??

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-30T00:16:04+00:00

And yet you don't bother answering the stupid questions. Maybe because they are not stupid ...

And why do you care about "minimum karma". It's not like I'm making you look at my stupid questions. You could always ignore the "blank accounts with stupid questions". You must have better things to do.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T23:58:31+00:00

They weren’t separated just because sperm and egg. Female and male bodies are so obviously different ...

These "differences" are the result of "sperm" and "egg" coming together to form a zygote though. Once upon a time, there were no organisms that had vaginas or penises. Gametes started forming and differentiating. Limbs, and genitals didn't pop out of nowhere on their own.

even if two males and two females can reproduce together- there’s still two sexes. It’s ridiculous that you’re pretending this isn’t the case.

You think it's ridiculous because you think "female" and "male" are separate from gametes ... they aren't. If "sperm" and "egg" weren't the only things capable of creating a zygote, then there would be no "differences" between "males" and "females".

That two "sperm" or two "eggs" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do though makes this blurry. It goes to show whatever "difference" exists between a "male" and "female" is arbitrary, and could easily occur between two "females" or two "males", because two "eggs" or two "sperms" can do the same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do.

Which would mean that their spectrum is worthless and irrelevant to the rest of us. If they want to measure transness on a spectrum go for it, but they’d still be the sex they were born on any other spectrum when compared to the rest of the world’s population- which was my point. There’s no way to make transwomen women with females and transmen men with males. It can only be done if we isolate them. Because there’s the common denominator of biology/chromosomes, even if we accepted a spectrum that accounts for intersex conditions. It only makes sense to measure sex based on what connects the most people. And inevitably it’s gonna come down to those pesky chromosomes.

They want most people to change everything for them. Why do they call most people "cis"? They make most people use a language that validates their "gender identity", whatever it is. They make them think they have a "gender identity" too, and then they claimed "sex is a spectrum" and "actually, sex doesn't exist at all, it's man-made and a social construct".

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T23:27:54+00:00

it’s kind of why the sexes were separated to begin with.

They were separated that way because only a "sperm" and an "egg" can make a zygote. But if two "sperm" or two "eggs" can make a zygote too, then the differences between a "male" and a "female" that we see are arbitrary. The differences could as easily exist between "males" themselves, or "females" themselves because two "eggs" or two "sperms" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and an "egg" do.

These words are in quotes, not because "sperm" and "egg", "male" and "female" are different, but because otherwise noone would understand what I'm saying.

If you’re basing this spectrum on zygotes and chromosomes etc then trans people are the sex they were born. It doesn’t work both ways. You’d need two spectrums, and trans people wouldn’t be the sex they wish to be in at least one by default. You can’t measure sex in a way that satisfies trans people, accounts for intersex conditions, and acknowledges the other almost 100% of the population that is neither trans nor intersex.

Yeah. If it's based on chromosomes, even if sex were a spectrum, noone would be able to change their sex. The thing is they don't base the spectrum on chromosomes. They base it on secondary sex characteristics, and genitalia. If a woman takes hormones, then in the "sex spectrum", this is not "just a woman" but "a bit of a woman, a bit of a man" due to having some secondary sex characteristics associated with males as well.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T22:56:00+00:00

It might have looked like I mentioned two different things, but the reason there is a "male" or "female" is because only these two can come together and create a zygote. That's what they call sexual reproduction. Now that it's clear two sperm or two eggs can create a zygote too, it goes to show there isn't a difference between an "egg" or a "sperm", because two "sperms" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, and so there isn't a "male" or a "female".

That’s what I don’t get about this insistance on a spectrum. It does nobody any favors. You fit where you’re born on the spectrum, and cosmetics or feelings won’t change that. So what does the existence of a spectrum as opposed to a binary accomplish? “Transwoman” would still be a euphemism for man, and TW would still be male (same but opposite for transmen). Like what is gained from us accepting a spectrum?

If sex were a spectrum, then it would mean if a woman takes hormones or undergoes surgery, she, or they, would stop being fully a woman and enter the spectrum in which they are a bit of a woman and a bit of a man.

That's what they want to tell others with "sex is a spectrum". With "sex is a spectrum" there's also "sex can change" after it. By changing certain characteristics, they believe they can become less of a woman, more of a man for example.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T22:29:18+00:00

Humans are not bees. But the bee shows sex being a binary is not universal across animals. It means there is no actual difference between a male and a female because two eggs or two sperms can make a zygote too, and male and female are social constructs that only work for humans, not other animals.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T22:19:40+00:00

Okay. I admit that's a good point.

Fastandthecurious · 2021-06-29T22:15:26+00:00

In the post, this article claims a honey bee was made by two males and no females: https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/11/28/a-honeybee-with-two-fathers-and-no-mother/#740bc6f84405

Genetic analysis revealed that nine of the 11 gynandromorphs had either two or three fathers. Astonishingly, one gynandromorph -- the seemingly normal female control -- actually had two fathers and no mother -- an event that could only have resulted from sperm fusion.

“The female bee that had two fathers created by the fusion of two sperms is the first reported in haplodiploids and is an interesting phenomena considering that attempts to fuse two sperm in mammalians have not [been] found to be possible,” Ms. Aamidor elaborated in email.

This study begins to expand our limited understanding of the truly unusual ways that sexual animals can fuse their genomes.

Two sperms come together to create a zygote, which means there is no difference between a sperm and an egg. Two sperms can fertilize each other. Two eggs can fertilize each other. There isn't a difference between a male and a female.

Fastandthecurious