sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Thank you! I wish you well too and hope you have a happy holidays!

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Thank you! I wish you a happy and wonderful holiday too! 🥳

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Okay 😊

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or if you genuinely mean you feel sympathy for me for being in the dark about my biology and being depressed, but if you are being genuine then thank you 😊. I will try to get my hands on that book online, if I don't find it online, I will see if the library has it.

It's only in the perception/opinion of some males that there's such a thing as "a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina" and is a dead ringer for a "real vagina." A real vagina is a muscular, elastic, self-cleaning organ with its own unique flora and biochemistry and a remarkable ability to expand and contract in order to facilitate childbirth. Another fundamental function of the vagina is the passage of menses.

Where have you seen or heard of a "vagina that looks and feel like a real penis"?

I didn't know that about the vagina. I actually started hating my vagina because there's always this sharp pain when I'm on my period, I don't look forward to periods, the pain starts a week before the period (I have PMS) and I can barely walk the first 3 days when the bleeding starts. I don't want this to be graphic so I will stop there.

But yeah, it seems to not be that bad.

What about the penis? Do you know what differences there are between penis and neopenis, even if the neopenis really looks and feels like the real penis? 🤔

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I thought that's what you were arguing, because that's what gender essentialists or biological essentialists argue. But realized later you were not arguing that. It was a misunderstanding. And I apologize if it was of any inconvenience to you.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

My bad then. But how do you know they are actually depressed, disabled, or seriously ill? Do they post photos of themselves? I don't know. If they are depressed and disabled, but have the energy to write anything longer than two sentences, then more power to them. Today I listened to your and lovesloane's advice. I was trying not to be lazy and actually put effort and time in my post, I did well don't you think?

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. I did not say sex is bimodal, I said what tras get wrong is sex is not bimodal, it's "sexual dimorphism" that is bimodal, and they are confusing the two.

As long as "sexual dimorphism" does not mean "men are always tall, always don't have smooth skin, always have a low saturation of fat, always have larger bones, etc", or "women are always short, always have a wider pelvis, always have a low muscle density, always have a high saturation of fat, always have less body and facial hair, etc", and only means typically there are some characteristics we see in women or men, but that these characteristics are not essences of or innate to men or women and are shared between the two sexes, then that's true and fine.

What I meant is gender essentialists or biological essentialists take "sexual dimorphism" to mean men or women always look like xyz or abc, and that's not true.

So yeah. No disagreement here. :))

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

"Sexual dimorphism" doesn't mean when a man has boobs, smoother skin, shorter height, etc, he's "feminized" or "looks like a woman", or that when a woman has really small breast tissue, taller height, etc she is "masculinized" or "looks like a man". There's also an issue with "sexual dimorphism", it varies specie by specie, and is really low in humans, so ...

Human male and female appearances are perceived as different, although Homo sapiens has a low level of sexual dimorphism compared with many other species. The similarity in the sizes of male and female human beings is a good example of how nature often does not make clear divisions.

https://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio300b/sexdi.htm#:~:text=Human%20male%20and%20female%20appearances,does%20not%20make%20clear%20divisions.

What you call "sexual dimorphism" is humans' putting the two sexes in boxes that don't really fit them, just because they think it's easier for them to say "women look like xyz" or "men look like abc", nature doesn't care. You see why tras say "sex is bimodal"? Well, it's not sex that is bimodal, but the "sexual dimorphism" is what's bimodal. You see all these characteristics you think are only essences of women also exist in men, and all these characteristics you think are only essences of men also exist in women.

Gender essentialism doesn't just argue that psychologically women are softer, etc and men are brutes.

Gender essentialism takes into account "sexual dimorphism". Where do being more nurturing and being brutish come from? Psychology, which really means the brain, and the brain has evolved. Pretty sure brains didn't stay untouched and didn't stay the same between men and women in evolution, just like the other body parts did not stay untouched and the same. The differences between the body parts of men and women is called "sexual dimorphism". Brains are parts of the bodies. So the brain differences, which lead to the differences in psychology are a part of "sexual dimorphism" which then are what gender essentialism or biological essentialism argues are essences of men or women.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

"Gender essentialism" is also called biological essentialism, which is these "differences between the two sexes" you're talking about, differences that have nothing to do with genitalia.

Gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, is the belief that certain characteristics like body shape, height, and even masculinity, femininity, and simply personality are innate and natural essences of a woman or a man.

Biological essentialists say that men are tall, women are short, men have more body hair, women have less body hair, etc, and that if a man tries to induce these characteristics that are an essence of a woman in himself*, then he becomes more of a woman and less of a man.

You are not denouncing this gender essentialism, or biological essentialism, you are arguing for it

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I feel like we’re saying it’s odd to not have replied before

Okay! Makes sense, I'm doing this because you and MarkTwain told me to be more active. I have this habit of trying to fix something if someone else tells me it is an issue and I get convinced that it is in fact an issue.

And for why it's called secondary sex characteristics, I just think it confuses people. There are so many tqs on gendercynical saying secondary sex characteristics determine sex because they are called secondary sex characteristics, implying that though primary sex characteristics determine sex, secondary sex characteristics after the primary ones also determine sex for having the same name as primary sex characteristics.

But since they don't determine sex, it would be less confusing to just get rid of the primary vs secondary thing, and just say genitals are the sex characteristic which determine sex, and the breast tissue, height, facial and body hair, etc are just characteristics we see in both sexes.

That's just a suggestion I think will stop the tqs from being confused. Though I get why they are called secondary sex characteristics after you explaining it

GC: Do you think saying things like "a man looks like/passes as a woman" or "a woman looks like/passes as a man" will lead to any issues? And what issues will they lead to? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Hmm, no, GC take photos of tras having conversations on reddit, and then GC argue against the points tras brought up in their subs. At least, it was like that in the gc sub back when it was not banned on reddit. I'm just doing the same thing, bringing tra conversations to your attention. If you can't debunk what tras say anywhere, even if it's on reddit, then you've lost the argument.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Even if I didn't say anything before, I started saying something today, so there should be no issue.

If secondary sex characteristics do not determine sex, why are they even called secondary sex characteristics? The name says that yes primary sex characteristics determine sex, but there's also this second category of characteristics that also determine sex with the primary characteristics that are the genitals.

But let's say I concede, I surrender and we conclude the secondary sex characteristics do not determine sex. I think there should be no classification of primary vs secondary sex characteristics. They should say genitals determine sex, and that's it, everything else like different types of faces, breast tissue, bone structure, facial and body hair, etc are all the things we can see in both men and women, they can be seen in one sex more than the other but these are still shared characteristics, they are not sex characteristics. Just characteristics.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

When did I ask you to link any articles? I think you're confusing me with someone else. Please check the past interactions you had with the people here, even click on my username and go to my post history, because you and I only talked in my second post about that person with soft features.

Ah so now tqs are articulate and logical, very good at expressing themselves, where did the "tqs are delulus" go?

I said in my post that I don't see how only reproduction is the only thing determining sex, you said certain features that have nothing to do with genitals are associated with one sex, so the conclusion is these certain features also determine sex, because only one sex can have those features, just like only one sex has certain genitalia. Am I hard to understand?

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

This was my first comment on this sub: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/70fm/gc_thoughts_on_xenogenders_and_neopronouns_why/qmdu

Yes I get GC say the same things, isn't that every debate? I can guarantee you, if you talk to any tq they will say the same things "if sex is just reproduction, what about people that don't reproduce, are they sexless? What about people that have no gametes and genitals, are they sexless?"

All the discussions with tqs will be the same thing, should we have no debates then?

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I choose not to waste more effort explaining the same shit to someone who pretended to understand a few days ago and then backtracked for no clear reason.

When did I agree with GC that now you think I backfired? I was on the fence back in the first post too. You said I should be articulate in the debate sub, and put in time and effort to explain, but when I did all you've been giving back has been "males are males, females are females, I'm not going to waste time on you to explain to you anymore". You're ironic.

Fine, if you don't want to explain then don't. But don't go accusing me of not being articulate this time, because I was.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't really see most of the posters in this sub, or any other GC sub, being articulate, so ...

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I did put time and effort in to explain myself like the first post I made here, again, so can we stop talking about what I did a few days ago when now you don't see me doing that? Also, wow, all these people on social media are disabled and depressed but have so much energy to explain themselves, almost makes it look like they are lying about their depression and disability or they are just not as depressed and disabled as they claim

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Finding those comments were so much easier than trying to explain myself in a second language when those comments already did the job for me yep

I am defending my position, maybe you need to wash your eyes.

Most people are not GC, show me stats that most people are GC and then I will believe you.

As I said, dehumanization means objectification or seeing someone less than a human or whatever else you want to add to it, I'm an animal, consisted of a bunch of atoms. I am an object, and don't care about being "objectified" when I am clearly an object

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

When I was in transmed circles, few transmeds would tell me that only fully passing tw would be considered women. And that if a man identified as a woman, passed as a woman to some but not to others, then they would fall in the nonbinary or genderqueer category. That would mean even if a woman identified as a man but didn't pass as a man to everyone that sees them, and a man identified as a woman but didn't pass as a woman to everyone, it would be okay to "misgender" them and they would have to deal with it ...

Those are what I have been told. In the pregnant woman example, according to the tras, if she passes as a man, she would be a man, and the tras would say that's a male being pregnant, and counting that as male pregnancy. Have you see the news where trans right activists say "trans man got pregnant, first male pregnancy" or things similar? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/20/the-dad-who-gave-birth-pregnant-trans-freddy-mcconnell

Are you really on the fence? I thought you said you were on the fence but started being GC.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I'm female, just because I have a vagina doesn't mean I'm well-versed in or that familiar with female biology. Actually, before I got my first period in highschool, I thought periods meant some white thing would come out of me, and I was wrong.

Question: why would reconfigured organs not be the real thing? Let's say a neopenis is reconfigured arm skin, or vagina, and a neovagina is reconfigured penis, why would you say that a reconfigured arm skin, or vagina that looks and feels like a real penis is not a real penis? Or a reconfigured penis that looks and feels like a vagina not a real vagina?

And regarding the men and women who remove their genitals due to injury or other issues, why would they still be men or women when they have no genitals and no gametes? Aren't genitals and gametes the two things that determine sex according to GC? Why would one still remain the sex they were after the two determinants of sex are lost?

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

You edited your comment and I didn't see the longer text below the first few lines. Even if I am qt, and not on the fence like I consider myself to be, I came here because I am interested in being convinced by GC to change my position.

I get lazy sometimes due to the depression, and don't wish to write a whole essay to explain my reasoning, excuse me but I barely care about getting out of bed, don't see how you can expect me not to be lazy, so I linked posts from tqs that would do the job well enough and said the same things I would, which you didn't like. So I wrote an essay explaining myself like you wanted here. But you still don't like it.

I'm female and aware of trans women getting in women spaces and sports, but I don't really care about being "dehumanized". I'm an animal, not anything special, and don't believe I can be "dehumanized". The reason I came to be convinced of GC is because I feel there's something missing. I only know the tq arguments and don't understand GC, but wish to, but if tq wanted to debate me, they would win the argument and I would lose because I only know their line of thinking.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

It's looking not identifying, the post from before was about someone with really soft features, and others saying "he" is a cute woman. Since according to gender essentialism, certain features are innate to a man or a woman, anyone with features that are innate to women is a woman meaning "he" is not a "he" but a "she" even if not identifying as such due to having features associated with women.

GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

How are humans made?

What does that have to do with anything? You said there are features/characteristics that are associated with one sex, features that have nothing to do with genitalia, and that's gender essentialism. According to that, these same features/characteristics determine one's sex as they are innate to that sex.

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

Taken literally or seriously it leads to the extinction of all life on earth -- but hey, no biggie.

Well, I'm all for extinction of all "life" so it's not a biggie really. (no, I'm not joking. Saying this because most times people are like "are you joking" and I'm expecting that to pop up)

GC: Do you think saying things like "a man looks like/passes as a woman" or "a woman looks like/passes as a man" will lead to any issues? And what issues will they lead to? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm 18, don't know about the rest of the people that post. Just because it's a brand new account doesn't mean anything, so what if I do come from the gendercynical subreddit? They talk a lot about this saidit and the ovarit there, I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of new people would come to ask questions, I myself thought of giving this a try.

If you have an issue with the questions but can't answer them then maybe you need to rethink things. You can't go saying the questions I or others ask are idiotic and immature eventhough you have no answers to them and can't properly debunk them either.

GC: Do you think saying things like "a man looks like/passes as a woman" or "a woman looks like/passes as a man" will lead to any issues? And what issues will they lead to? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

This is a debate sub, and yet you're not putting any work in answering any questions either. Oh and I thought unlike tras, GCs were all for answering questions. Those were my questions. Either answer them or leave.

And I did post about my view before if you paid more attention: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/70fm/gc_thoughts_on_xenogenders_and_neopronouns_why/

I don't have to directly go scream that I'm on the fence about things, the questions would give it away or I wouldn't ask them in the first place.

GC: Do you think saying things like "a man looks like/passes as a woman" or "a woman looks like/passes as a man" will lead to any issues? And what issues will they lead to? by [deleted] in GCdebatesQT

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

Well I did post about my view before if you paid more attention: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/70fm/gc_thoughts_on_xenogenders_and_neopronouns_why/

I don't have to directly go scream that I'm on the fence about things, the questions would give it away or I wouldn't ask them in the first place.

If hair, and other features are sexed, you're saying a man that has less body and facial hair than other men, is shorter, has bobs (yes men have bobs, where are you from that you think only women have bobs?), etc looks like a woman? Lmfao, so a woman that has more body and facial hair than this man, is taller than this man, etc is less of a woman and looks like a man? Good joke. Are you here to prove to me GC don't know what they are taking about either?

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

You've been so nice, and all I did was being a bitch. Kind of feel guilty, you did your best to explain to me so thank you :')

GC: What are your thoughts on this pro-trans person's arguments? Can you tell me why their arguments are unsound and why you disagree with them?

by MissDimples to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't get it ... My brain just exploded after thinking too hard but thanks for still trying to explain to me :'(

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

Female typical brain means a typical female brain. You're saying the brains of women typically have certain characteristics and if the brain of a man happens to have these same characteristics, his brain is a typical female brain. But if you're against the idea of female brain and male brain, you should say instead the brain of a man that happens to have the characteristics you see in the brains of women is an atypical male brain. Not a typical female brain ...

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

In that case it makes no sense to say men have female typical brains or women have male typical brains. Let's say women are on average 5'4, and a man is 5'4, nobody is going to say this man has a female typical height. I don't know where you're from, but in my country noone has ever said a short man has a female typical height. They will just say he's short or he has an atypical male height and that's it. But never a female typical height. If your conclusion is there is no such thing as a female brain or a male brain because the characteristics overlap, then it makes no sense to say a man with characteristics of the brain you see in women has a female typical brain, you're associating these characteristics with females only and saying the brains of men can not have similar characteristics, and whenever the brains of men have these similar characteristics, they all of a sudden have typical female brains and not male brains, which means there is such a thing as a female brain or a male brain. It's a semantics game, female typical brain is female brain, it means typical female brain. You're contradicting yourself 🤨

Aaaaa this is why I hate english, english leads to a lot of confusion because we can't express ourselves well in this language and have to go around in circles.

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

Where is your evidence that persons with male bodies and XY chromosomes in every cell have brains that are female with XX chromosomes? In utero, brains don't develop separately from the rest of human bodies.

I have a question. Someone here said:

Additionally, homosexual males have female typical brains and homosexual females have male typical brains:

Analysis of Human Brain Structure Reveals that the Brain “Types” Typical of Males Are Also Typical of Females, and Vice Versa: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6204758/

There are other articles that say gay males have female brains and gay females have male brains: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-says-brains-of-gay/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2008/06/20/brains-of-gay-people-resemble-those-of-straight-people-of-opposite-sex/

They all mean gay males have female brains and gay females have male brains, gay males are just females or female brains in male bodies and gay females are just males or male brains in female bodies so, if that's the case then a female can have a male brain and a male can have a female brain and somehow the brains developed separately from the rest of the body? ...

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

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

Additionally, homosexual males have female typical brains and homosexual females have male typical brains:

Eh ... so gay males are psychologically females and gay females are psychologically males? If gay males have female brains and gay females have male brains, then it is possible for a female to have a male brain and for a male to have a female brain. It means gay males are just females or female brains in male bodies and gay females are just males or male brains in female bodies. So homophobes would be right, that gay women are just men on the inside and gay men are just women on the inside, and all gay people are just trans

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither? by MissDimples in GCdebatesQT

[–]MissDimples[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay men's brains have similarities to straight women's brains. Is this evidence that gay men are straight women?

I heard about this before, there are many trans people on twitter, discord and other places that told me this means gay men are straight women because their brains are similar in structure to brains of straight women. They think "gay men are attracted to men because gay men are psychologically straight women, they are not real men, gay men are just women in men's bodies" .... Thoughts? Are they right or wrong?

GC: Thoughts on xenogenders and neopronouns? Why should "male" and "female" not be defined to mean one's gender besides sex? And if gender identity is not a real thing, why do cis, trans, nonbinary, etc people exist who have an internal sense of whether they're male, female, both, or neither?

by MissDimples to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT