all 52 comments

[–]SnowAssMan 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

1) A prerequisite to getting a hysterectomy is having a uterus. Infertility & castration are not the same as sexlessness. There are organisms that produce neuter offspring that are neither male nor female. Humans are not one such an organism. Corpses can't reproduce either, so how come forensic scientists can still sex even skeletal remains?

Here is the GC view i.e. the scientific view on how female is defined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

Are trans-womxyn male?:

Gonadal sex? ✓ male

Chromosomal sex? ✓ male

Hormonal sex? ✓ male

Anatomical sex? ✓ male

Conclusion: trans-womxyn are 100% male, 0% female. Where was the confusion?

2) Every dad was male, every mum was female.

3) Otherkin et al are more like goths, sub-cultures, not gender identities. If I send you a link to a fan website about people who take Dungeons & Dragons too seriously, is that somehow evidence that wanting to be a cosplay character literally turns you into the actual character? No? Then your links are a waste of time.

Gender identity is a real thing, it's just the opposite of what the trans movement says it is. For instance, a trans-woman's gender identity is 'man'. Socialisation is the mechanism that produces a person's gender identity. Trans people wouldn't need to train themselves to walk & talk like the opposite sex if their gender identity was incongruous to begin with. There is only 1 of 2 gendered socialisations that babies & children receive. Activists want to re-name self-ID 'gender identity' & erase what gender identity really refers to.

Feminist analysis is academia, the trans movement's binary ideology is activism, non-binary & otherkin etc. are teen sub-cultures. They all use the word 'gender', but they are 3 completely different things.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Question 3 ... Why do you think people don't have gender identities?

I know other people said they think it’s real- I don’t. I think gender identity was a term offered to de stigmatize being trans and to get around acknowledging a mental condition. Gender identity doesn’t really make sense. I can elaborate but it would take a long time so I’ll ask this, and if you respond I’ll elaborate: what is the definition of gender identity? And of gender on its own?

“I believe people have gender identities.”

I believe that there are people who genuinely believe that they have gender identity. But when they describe it, it just sounds like stereotypes and dysphoria and or other mental conditions.

“People identify as a man, a woman, other animals, other things.”

What is an animal’s gender? And unless you think all women love pink and dresses and barbies and all men love beer and trucks and footballs, I don’t think it makes sense to accept someone saying “I feel uncomfortable in my body and also happen to be drawn to stereotypically fe/male things, therefore I understand what it is to be the gender that I’m not and have never been treated or seen as”. It sounds very regressive, sexist, and frankly narcissistic to me.

“That's why there is beegender, catgender, robogender, so many genders”

Gender is not about how you see yourself, gender is societal/cultural. I don’t think people choose or identify into a gender in reality, I think we are born out sex and gender is the societal expectations and pressures placed on us for no reason other than our sex. I don’t think humans gender animals/non humans. I can’t even imagine how we would. We may associate some animals with either gender (some people associate cats with females/femininity and dogs with males/masculinity for example). But that’s not about the animal itself and the animal doesn’t object or accept any gendered associations placed on it.

All of that to say, unless someone identifies as a bee and can function as one, like literally can live in a hive amongst them and sting someone I don’t really get how I’m supposed to take beegender seriously. That’s not say that humans who don’t function typically don’t have a sex/gender- society still places expectations on them (many of which have nothing to do with their actual sex), but what I’m saying is just that, if someone identifies with and as a bee, they don’t need validation from humans, they gotta get it from the bees somehow.

Someone can feel they aren’t human, doesn’t make them not a human. Even the fact that they can and do think so much about their identity is a very human specific thing to do.

Eta- as for non binary, I think the concept of it makes no sense and it just reinforces exactly what it claims to reject. And as I said before- gender isn’t about identity, it’s societal, someone can identify as non binary, society has no use for the concept and will still place gendered expectations on a non binary person based on their sex. Even if we accept they have no gender.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

some people associate cats with females/femininity and dogs with males/masculinity for example

I've read article about this at one point. It was pretty sexist, but in general idea was that "cats are on their own and don't need extra care, cats have their own free will and do not listen what they are said - that is why men will be angry on them, often beat them, while women will like them, as this means less things to care about in their lives where they are already caring about everyone else", and that "dogs are very easily trained, always listening to the owner, doing what owner said and rarely having their own free personality like cats do, so men are liking them, as men like when all what they say is unquestioningly fulfilled". I know a lot of women, who are hating cats and having a lot of dogs, and a lot of men who only have cats (I have cats personally). However, that article is very well showing "gender expectations" of men and women and why animals are associated with men or women.

[–]grixitperson 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

We never said gender identity does exist, we only say that it is meaningless. As for sex, you seem to be confused. It is not about whether or not you produce gametes now, it is about which gametes was your body supposed to end up producing. Whether something happens to stop you developing that far, or whther you lose that capacity later is not part of the definition.

Over all, yours post is poorly conceived. Please rewrite it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is not about whether or not you produce gametes now, it is about which gametes was your body supposed to end up producing.

Also, what determines sex is which type of gamete - egg or sperm - a body develops in utero to have the potential capacity to produce - or mature and release - at some point over the course of (later) life.

The potential capacity to produce ova or sperm doesn't have to be realized for it to count and for a person to have a sex. Sometimes the capacity isn't ever realized for various reasons, such as DSDs and many other conditions and situations, but that doesn't mean a person doesn't have a sex. Everyone has a sex coz even those whose potential capacity to produce gametes is never realized still began life in utero with the potential capacity to do so at a later point in life.

Similarly, people don't have to have the capacity to actively produce - or, in the case of human females, to mature and release - gametes in every phase of life for all of us to have a sex. Nor do we only have a sex in the moments we are producing or releasing gametes, either.

I've used the the terms "mature and release" gametes rather than just "produce" gametes when speaking of human females coz the fact is, we are born with all our gametes already; all our eggs are extant inside us when we are still in utero. With puberty, human females obtain the ability to mature and release our gametes. Female humans normally mature and release our eggs one by one - though on occasion, perhaps two or three at once - on a cyclical basis that usually occurs monthly known as ovulation.

It's only male humans who have the capacity to produce/create male gametes anew and in vast numbers during their lifetimes.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

“Question 1 ... If a man or a woman is defined by genitalia and gametes, then how come little boys are not sexless before puberty because they have no gametes?”

Well, first I’d like to just point out that children have genitalia, and I don’t think being too young to produce gametes means that their bodies aren’t sexed, it just means theyre still developing as humans.... so I’m not sure why they’d be sexless before puberty, particularly when the genitalia they were born with let’s us all know specifically which puberty they’ll experience. As for the gametes, unless someone is intersex, the genitalia someone is born with (regardless of what they may do with or to it later in life), the gametes, the chromosomes- all inform us of sex.

Question for you:

Why do you think tras push for puberty blockers, and some adolescents who think they may be trans want them, if children don’t have a sex?

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, female children already have all their gametes already inside their ovaries. Female humans do not actually create/produce new gametes during our lifetimes; we are born with our gametes already intact. From puberty/menarche on, we mature our gametes and release them, usually one by one though sometimes several at once, on a cyclical basis.

It's only males who develop the capacity to produce/create gametes during their lifetimes once puberty hits.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Question 2.

“Because of trans people and IVF, procreation can happen without a man and a woman?”

Lol if you believe TWAW/TMAM, then they’re basically saying: a man (male) and a woman (female) can procreate. A transman (female) and a man/transwoman (male) can procreate. Or a transwoman (male) and a woman/transman (female) can procreate. No matter how you slice it, the male is producing the sperm and the female is gestating. So it still comes down to sex. It will always come back to sex.

“So everyone is sexless because IVF exists and procreation can happen without a man and a woman?”

Still need all the same ingredients whether it’s ivf or the old fashioned way. So it can happen without intercourse, but not without sex. Ivf wouldn’t be possible if we were sexless. We wouldn’t even be here.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Lets not forget that you still need to know into whom to put fertilized egg by IVF. You can't just put it in any human. So you need to know sex of the person, and only one of two sexes is able to gestate from IVF, and this is including infertile women or some intersex conditions, in which woman for one or other reason do not have their own eggs - their organism is still developed to support eggs and childbirth, so IVF is possible. While you can't take "sexless" boy or man after loosing his genitals and make them gestate a child through IVF - their body still not supports this, even thought it became "sexless" by OP's logic.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great points, thank you!

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also, Mez infertile does not necessarily mean a persons has no gametes. Lots of infertile people have or can make plenty of eggs or sperm, it's just that for for various reasons their eggs and sperm aren't "viable," meaning capable of conception. For some people with infertility, the issue isn't with the eggs or sperm themselves, it's with the fluids that are necessary for sperm to travel towards an egg and for conception to occur - the components of seminal fluid made by the prostate and other glands in the case of males, and cervical mucosa in the case of females.

With current assisted reproductive technology and methods, some people's eggs and sperm that can't accomplish conception on their own via the old-fashioned route (PIV coitus) can be made to work for procreation purposes.

[–]divingrightintowork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah my understanding is people often say infertile when they actually mean sterile.

IE an infertile woman as a woman who has tried to get pregnant for a year without success I believe, but many of these women actually are capable of getting pregnant through normal means.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Answer was about ones who do not have ova, as it was in question of "being sexless for lacking eggs or sperm".

[–]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We don't believe that people do not feel gender identities. We believe gender itself is a social construct. It's something created by society, and it's something that causes harm to all of us.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(Accidentally sent it, so here’s the rest)

“If a man or a woman has this complete surgery where they remove the entirety of genitalia, and I mean all genitalia, nothing is left there, do they become sexless after surgery?”

No.

“And if they don't become sexless after surgery, why don't they become sexless? I thought genitalia and gametes determine sex, so when there is no genitalia or gametes, there is no sex?”

It’s pretty easy to determine their sex still... but also, whoever has removed their genitals already developed with them. Wouldn’t they have to remove their chromosomes? Their brain? Kidney? Why not? There are differences that are sex based, so in order to be sexless they’d have to remove everything that could indicate sex, right? Then I guess I’d concede but they’d be dead so doesn’t sound worth it to me lol

“Saying sex is defined by genitalia and gametes would exclude a cix man or cis woman that removes the whole genitalia in surgery.”

I don’t know that you argued this effectively

“And since sex is about procreation, “

Is it? Or does it explain how procreation is possible?

“does it mean men and women that don't have kids are sexless?“

Why would it? Their bodies (presumably) still function typically (and in ways that are specific to their sex) they still can reproduce, or at some age could, barring any medical complications/conditions (which would also be sex specific).

If a dog gets spayed is she no longer female? If she never has puppies?

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If a man or a woman has this complete surgery where they remove the entirety of genitalia, and I mean all genitalia, nothing is left there, do they become sexless after surgery?

And if they don't become sexless after surgery, why don't they become sexless? I thought genitalia and gametes determine sex, so when there is no genitalia or gametes, there is no sex? Saying sex is defined by genitalia and gametes would exclude a cix man or cis woman that removes the whole genitalia in surgery.

You need to use proper terminology that is "inclusive" of both sexes. Gametes come from gonads and gonads are not necessarily the same as genitals.

In humans, only the male gonads (the testes) are part of the genitals. Female gonads (the ovaries) are internal organs inside the abdomen; they are not part of the female genitals.

A woman could have her genitals and vagina entirely removed - her uterus too - and still retain her ovaries.

You question whether sex exists, but the way you frame your views and arguments seems sexist and male supremacist. You seem to think that males are the default humans, that male anatomy constitutes "the norm" for the human species.

I dunno what country you're in, but if it's the US or somewhere in the Middle East, I suggest you visit a hospital ward or rehab facility for men who've lost their lower bodies or had horrific groin injuries due to bomb blasts and combat and ask them your questions. They'll be thrilled, I'm sure, to hear that in your view they no longer are men, but have been rendered entirely sexless.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Question 2 ... This comment: https://imgur.com/9SSf5lR Imgur

because of trans people (and IVF) you don't even need a man and a woman to make babies.

Because of trans people and IVF, procreation can happen without a man and a woman? So everyone is sexless because IVF exists and procreation can happen without a man and a woman?

This is an idiotic claim. IVF means fertilization of ova by sperm in a petri dish, test tube or some other lab apparatus outside the female body. But it still involves ova + sperm. The ova has to come from a post-pubescent female body, and the sperm has to come from a post-pubescent male body.

Anyone who makes this claim is just showing how ignorant they are about how conception occurs, and what is involved in assisted reproductive technologies and methods.

Also, it's not true that trans people prove that

you don't even need a man and a woman to make babies.

Please show us an example of a single trans person who was conceived by a process other than sperm + ova, and who was gestated outside a female body rather than inside their mother's uterus.

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Question 1 - this seems rather silly to me, you can't say boys aren't male because they haven't fully developed yet. They have xy chromosomes and will develop into adult males unless something goes wrong.

If someone has all of their genitalia and reproductive system removed, they would still be whatever sex they were previously, just missing a few organs. Someone that has had their spleen removed is still human, despite the fact that most humans have spleens.

I think this is a failure of basic logic, of the all x are y but not all y are x variety. I think a book on logic would help, I had a class on logic and the text we used was called "A practical study of Argument" and I recommend it, especially if you continually lose arguments on the internet.

After reading quite a few of these questions I think what trips people up in the cases of intersex disorders the line gets very fuzzy and it seems like many trans individuals or trans rights activists are not so good with nuance. The vast majority, like 99.99% chromosomes determine sex and the rest are essentially special cases that are not really worth worrying about. The fact that there are sry positive xx males doesn't really mean anything, because they are very very very rare. As a biologist it kind of bothers me that tras and the like are only interested in chromosomal abberrations as a gotcha in a debate, because the human development process can take a genome that otherwise would not be able to develop and makes an entire human instead, its an amazing process that can go wrong in many ways and yet you have sometimes severe chromosomal disruptions and you still get a person, thats amazing. And instead of wanting to learn about development and how that happens you just yell XX MALES at people on the internet.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Someone that has had their spleen removed is still human, despite the fact that most humans have spleens.

If human is born with only one leg, or lose one or both legs in an accident - it does not mean that humans are not bipedal.

As a biologist it kind of bothers me that tras and the like are only interested in chromosomal abberrations as a gotcha in a debate

It bothers me because it has no reasoning too, but people with DSD are struggling because of it and dragged into discussion with no reasons at all. Misinformation is spread about them because of that as well.

It has no reasoning with one simple reason: even if 3rd sex exist, it still not justifies change of sex from one to another.

[–]emptiedriver 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You can see that people have so many gender identities, they feel they are...

We used to just call that "personality". No one is saying it doesn't exist to have various feelings and preferences. The point is just that it has nothing to do with the category of sex, which is a basic biological fact of our species. Everyone who is born has a male parent and a female parent. Everyone who is born has a body which will either be able to be a male parent or a female parent when they mature (except for the occasional disability or mutation but that is still usually based on one or the other reproductive system, not some third option).

Is it "just" based on procreation? YES. That's what sex is: sexual reproduction. If you don't care about sexual reproduction, great, that's not the point. You still have a body which is capable of one or the other sides of the continuance of our species. That comes with certain specific distinctions that make a category and have created a history. Which body you have is which sex you are.

[–]kwallio 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So much of the gender crap just seems like a subculture to me. Instead of being goth or punk or whatever they've decided to do..this.

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So out of curiosity, if I have I don't know let's just say a 1990 Honda Accord in my driveway, would you say it wasn't a car if I had the engine taken out of it?

What would you say it was? What would you call it? Why why not?

Could I just put the drive box of my tesla in it to make my Honda work? Why why not?

After all, they're both cars, why can't I just put the drivetrain of my Tesla into my Honda?

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So out of curiosity, if I have I don't know let's just say a 1990 Honda Accord in my driveway, would you say it wasn't a car if I had the engine taken out of it?

What would you say it was? What would you call it? Why why not?

In case you haven't seen it, here is Peachy Yogurt's brilliant "bicycle analogy" video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNIHdWyUsEY