GC: What are the definitions of male and female? How would intersex people fit into binary sex? And is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people?

submitted by Tea_Or_Coffee from self.GCdebatesQT

The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce. Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.

... These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people. If sex is defined as reproduction, or the capability to reproduce, are childfree people sexless?

Are they not male or female?

What about gay people and lesbians? If someone has gay sex, are they disordered? Bodies are meant for being attracted to the opposite sex, and doing things with the opposite sex, are gay people disordered? Is gay sex a disorder?

Is anyone that does not go doing things with the opposite sex disordered for going against their purpose and what they are meant for which is doing it with the opposite sex and reproduction?

What about someone that can not produce any gametes, and has surgically removed their genitalia and gonads? The definition of male or female that is based on reproduction excludes these groups.

And intersex people seem to have a spectrum of genitalia.

How do they fit into the binary sex? How would you place them into the category of male and female when their chromosomes, genitalia and gonads are ambiguous?

Is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people? Is saying someone has a disorder discriminatory towards them?

What else should we call them besides disorder if it's discriminatory? And if it' not discriminatory, why do you think it's not discriminatory?

all 71 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (47 children)

“The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce.”

Nope.

“Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.”

Nope.

“Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.”

Nope.

“... These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people.”

These are your definitions, not GC or the dictionary’s.

“If sex is defined as reproduction,”

It’s not

“ or the capability to reproduce,”

Also not

“are childfree people sexless?”

No gc person has ever said this. In the history of ever.

“Are they not male or female?”

Depends on the kid, but yes children have a sex. That’s why qt wants to put so many confused kids on blockers. Edit- misread, but yeah adults who have not had children still have a sex as well

“What about gay people and lesbians?”

They also have a sex. That’s how they find out they’re gay. Also, gay people have kids all the time. Many have biological children.

”If someone has gay sex, are they disordered?”

Nah. Just gay or bi. Or experimenting perhaps.

“Bodies are meant for being attracted to the opposite sex,”

Nope.

“and doing things with the opposite sex, are gay people disordered?”

Wut?

“Is gay sex a disorder?”

No it’s just gay sex.

“Is anyone that does not go doing things with the opposite sex disordered for going against their purpose and what they are meant for which is doing it with the opposite sex and reproduction?”

What the eff are you talking about?

“What about someone that can not produce any gametes, and has surgically removed their genitalia and gonads?”

If they had genitals to remove (and if they... exist), they have a sex (even intersex people’s sex can be determined)

“The definition of male or female that is based on reproduction excludes these groups.”

I’m not sure you actually know the definitions of male and female tbh

“And intersex people seem to have a spectrum of genitalia.”

The sex of intersex people can be determined relatively easily.

“How do they fit into the binary sex?”

“Inter” doesn’t mean they don’t have a sex... seriously look up the meaning of intersex because you seem to not get what it means

“How would you place them into the category of male and female when their chromosomes, genitalia and gonads are ambiguous?”

I wouldn’t. A qualified professional would.

“Is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people?”

I can’t speak for intersex people but I don’t know many gc people who call them disordered. I’d consider them medical anomalies.

“Is saying someone has a disorder discriminatory towards them?”

Not if they actually have a disorder. Using their disorder against them or to exclude them would be.

“What else should we call them besides disorder if it's discriminatory?”

I don’t know anyone but you who’s called them disordered...

“And if it' not discriminatory, why do you think it's not discriminatory?”

Can’t really answer since as I said, you’re the only person I’ve seen call intersex individuals disordered. I think you should look up the meaning of the following words: male, female, intersex, and disorder. You should also consider looking up what gc people believe.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

“If sex is defined as reproduction,”

It’s not

Then what is it defined as? If gametes, then gametes are for reproduction, so it would mean sex is defined as reproduction or the capability to reproduce?

“Is anyone that does not go doing things with the opposite sex disordered for going against their purpose and what they are meant for which is doing it with the opposite sex and reproduction?”

What the eff are you talking about?

Gametes, gonads, and genitals are meant for reproduction, their purpose is to reproduce, and if someone does not reproduce, or use those organs and gametes for reproduction, then they are going against the purpose of these organs and gametes, or what they are meant for. Would they be considered a disorder then? That's what I mean.

I can’t speak for intersex people but I don’t know many gc people who call them disordered. I’d consider them medical anomalies.

Aren't anormalies disorders? I thought GCs called intersex a disorder because something goes wrong with the sexual development ...

Not if they actually have a disorder. Using their disorder against them or to exclude them would be.

Then there is no issue with calling intersex a disorder?

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, not all anomalies are disorders! David Bowie's eyeballs were anomalous in color, but his particular condition is not a disorder.

Then there is no issue with calling intersex a disorder?

There is a problem with referring to DSDs as "a disorder." Coz DSDs are actually a constellation of 40 (or thereabouts) very different conditions, each one of which is entirely unique.

These conditions have been variously called disorders of sex development and differences of sex development, or DSDs for short. Some people prefer calling them VSCs, which is short for such terms as variations in sex characteristics or variable sex conditions.

Many people avoid the term "intersex" because it misleadingly suggests that people with DSDs/VSCs are in between the two sexes, or a combination of the two. This is not true. They are all either male or female.

Not all DSDs are disorders. Many people with DSDs are very healthy people whose DSDs do not require any medical treatment. Olympians Caster Semenya, Margaret Wambui and Francine Niyonsaba, for example, are extremely healthy human beings - they just have male-specific DSDs that caused their male genitals not to develop typically in utero and thus to look atypical for males when they were born.

Similarly, there are many different kinds of medical conditions and diseases that impair function in some way and require medical treatment and therefore are considered disorders, but they're not disabilities - medically, legally or colloquially.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Doesn't the word disorder of sexual development mean intersex conditions are disorders? Just specifically, of sexual development?

What do you think of cases where someone has an underdeveloped uterus, and a penis, or complete female genitalia and underdeveloped testes, or penis? Would those be disorders?

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

Not gonna engage with those descriptions, the last two of which don't exist. If you want to discuss a DSD, you need to name the specific condition.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

“Then what is it defined as? If gametes, then gametes are for reproduction, so it would mean sex is defined as reproduction or the capability to reproduce?“

Being born of the sex that (insert dictionary definition of male that we recite ad naseum) or (insert dictionary definition of female). It literally just means you were born with a body that (assuming you function typically) will eventually be capable of contributing to the reproductive process in one of two specific ways. It doesn’t mean you have to. It doesn’t mean if for some reason you don’t or can’t you’re any less the sex you were born. It doesn’t mean if you have a gender identity or dysphoria that you switch sexes. It just means you’re born either male or female, and can (presumably) either impregnate or get pregnant.

Eta: it also doesn’t refer to any specific sexuality. So idk where you got the idea that gay people are disordered, homophobe.

“Aren't anormalies disorders?”

No. They’re anomalies. It’s a whole different word with a whole different meaning.

“I thought GCs called intersex a disorder because something goes wrong with the sexual development ...”

You thought wrong.

“Then there is no issue with calling intersex a disorder?“

Again can’t speak for intersex people but I’d say, yeah, there’s an issue, since they don’t necessarily have a disorder, but I guess you can call anyone what you want to call them whether you’re correct or not.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

You thought wrong.

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

I suppose you can call it a disorder of sexual development. I’m saying most people don’t. I’m saying you’re the only person I’ve see phrase it this way. Most people refer to it as intersex condition(s), not disorder(s). It’s one of those things where a term can be, at it’s base, technically correct, but not really a term most people use. But i think it could also depend on the specific intersex condition. As I said, I’m not intersex, so I won’t speak for them. But I do think it’s odd that you’re so focused on this one part of what I said, when I addressed your whole post.

Also- there’s nothing “wrong” with their chromosomes or their genitals.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Uuuh, yes, it absolutely is a disorder of physical development. In what universe is having a faultily developed reproductive system not a disorder of sexual development? This shouldn't even be controversial.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Uhhh yes I literally said I just choose to use different wording, and it wasn’t that deep.

but also- see what Twaniac said, it’s not as simple as saying it’s a disorder.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

GC trying to be PC and then tripping over themselves because of it is pathetic. Call it what it is instead of chickening out the second it doesn't sound "nice enough" to some group of people, and then letting all kinds of bullshit slip by just so someone's feewings wouldn't get huwt.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Like I (and someone else) said- it’s not as simple as saying being intersex is automatically a disorder. So I choose not to call all intersex people disordered without knowing specifically what condition they have. The phrase “intersex condition” is incredibly commonly used in this discussion. It’s odd to me that you seem to have an issue with this. I didn’t say that it doesn’t sound nice enough, I said it’s not always accurate. You harping on this after I’ve already said it’s not even that deep to me and is as simple as me choosing to use different wording is just absurd and I’m not wasting any more time on this. I said what I said and will continue to use phrasing that I choose to use. What’s pathetic is going back and forth over this. There’s nothing wrong or even “PC” with saying intersex condition, rather than calling it a disorder. Pretty sure my comment history both here and on the old sub would indicate that I’m the last person who cares about the language I use hurting someone’s feelings.

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Having body parts that do not function due to disordered physical development cannot possibly not be a disorder, just as a condition characterised by extreme anxiety over something normal cannot be considered not a mental disorder. No amount of pc bs can change this.

It’s odd to me that you seem to have an issue with this.

I have an issue with people lying to make someone feel better when that lie gets abused to muddle actual science needed to properly define things.

I didn’t say that it doesn’t sound nice enough, I said it’s not always accurate.

And you provided no evidence for it other than "it wasn't that deep" and "different wording". "Different wording" is what got us to calling men women just because they changed their pronouns.

What’s pathetic is going back and forth over this

Then stop squirming around the issue after having it explained why you're wrong, and whining about how it's "not supposed to be deep"? If rationalising what you say is too difficult for you, then don't bother coming to a debate sub, instead of hiding behind "idc lulz" once you realise your point fell apart.

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

Also, Sloane, even when a person does have a disorder, it's a big leap from that fact to calling them "disordered." I have a very serious immune disorder that very much affects and limits my life, but I am hardly "disordered" as a human being in either body or mind. My house at the moment, however, could definitely be said to be disordered, LOL.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

GC trying to be PC and then tripping over themselves because of it is pathetic. Call it what it is instead of chickening out the second it doesn't sound "nice enough" to some group of people, and then letting all kinds of bullshit slip by just so someone's feewings wouldn't get huwt.

This isn't about being PC or trying not to hurt people's feelings. It's about using precise language consistent with the facts. Not all physical anomalies or the approximately 40 specific conditions known as DSDs/VSCs, or to use antiquated terminology, as "intersex," are disorders.

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

Right, and having dysphoria isn't a mental illness, despite it being defined by extreme anxiety over something perfectly normal.

Having sexual organs that do not function because they literally physically failed to develop properly cannot possibly not be a developmental disorder. What the fuck is science coming to?

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

Depends what you mean by "faultily developed."

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As in, not capable of serving the reproductive function for which the entire organ exists in the first place because it literally didn't physically develop properly.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

There are intersex people with underdeveloped uteruses, and penises. How is that not something wrong with their genitals?

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

I don’t consider someone with a condition (or disorder) as having something “wrong” with them. They have a medical condition. It’s really not that deep to waste time going back and forth- I just choose different phrasing.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are talking about males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome. There is nothing wrong with the genitals of males with PMDS. Please stop spreading lies.

Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome is a disorder of sexual development that affects males. Males with this disorder have normal male reproductive organs, though they also have a uterus and fallopian tubes, which are female reproductive organs. The uterus and fallopian tubes are derived from a structure called the Müllerian duct during development of the fetus. The Müllerian duct usually breaks down during early development in males, but it is retained in those with persistent Müllerian duct syndrome.

Affected individuals have the normal chromosomes of a male (46,XY) and normal external male genitalia.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They have underdeveloped female genitalia such as uterus, etc, why wouldn't that be considered as something wrong with their genitals? Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus? I fail to understand why you don't want them to be called a disorder, do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes, or for a male to have underdeveloped female genitalia and there's nothing wrong with those cases?

[–]MarkTwainiac 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They have underdeveloped female genitalia such as uterus, etc, why wouldn't that be considered as something wrong with their genitals? Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus? I fail to understand why you don't want them to be called a disorder, do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes, or for a male to have underdeveloped female genitalia and there's nothing wrong with those cases?

Most people use the term genitals consistent with the way Oxford dictionary defines the word:

a person or animal's external organs of reproduction

And as Merriam-Webster does:

the sexual or reproductive organs located on the outside of the body

And as Cambridge dicitonary does

the outer sexual organs, especially the penis or vulva

The uterus is not on the outside of the body. Most women do not think of, or call, our uteri - or our Fallopian tubes, ovaries - genitals. Most women who use the anatomically correct terms also don't call our vaginas genitals, either. Most of us consider the female genitals to be the vulva - labia, clitoris, urethra and vaginal opening.

Again, males with PMDS do not have anything wrong with their male genitals. They have vestiges of organs from the internal female reproductive tract coz of a DSD, but their DSD does not affect the function of their male genitals.

Is it right for a male to have female genitalia such as a uterus?

I don't see where "right" comes into is. Some people are born with extra toes or fingers, or with body parts missing, or with body parts that look deformed and/or don't function properly. But that's not an matter of morality.

do you think it's normal for a female to have underdeveloped testes

No, it's not normal for females to have any kind of testes. But which specific condition are you referring to here? Meaning, what is the name? I can't tell from the way you are describing it. I think you are mixing up different conditions and talking about one that doesn't actually exist.

The views you are expressing make me really hope you don't have children.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they? And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, etc are not female organs but organs that both male and female can have?

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

Not all DSDs involve atypical sex chromosomes, though most involve a genetic mutation of some kind. Many people have genetic mutations that can cause or contribute to disease and disorders - I know of several that I have personally - but not all people with these mutations develop disease or disorders. Oxford defines a disorder as

an illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions

But even some illnesses and conditions that once were considered disorders per this description are not seen that way today coz the treatments for them are simple and 100% effective.

For example, I have an inherited, presumably genetic condition called pernicious anemia, that if untreated leads invariably to death - a long, slow and painful death, and which prior to getting to the terminal stage causes people with PA to lose their minds. But with a monthly IM injection of vitamin B-12, which is cheap and easy to self-administer, pernicious anemia is 100% reversed/cured. So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

Now that genome sequencing is being done for more and more people, it's turning out that genetic mutations that are linked to disease and disorders, but are not always causative of them in every case, are more common than previously assumed:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/one-five-healthy-adults-may-carry-disease-related-genetic-mutations

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are?

You keep revealing that you actually know very little about DSDs. Not all DSDs affect the genitals. Many people with DSDs have typical-looking genitals and/or normally functioning gonads.

Please when you speak of these matters don't use language and framing that lump the two sexes together and make the mistake of assuming that what's true of human males is also true of human females. Only the male gonads, the testes, are considered part of the genitals. Human female gonads, the ovaries, are not external and thus not usually called genitals like the testes are. Whereas testes are between human males' legs, human ovaries are internal organs inside the abdomen at considerable distance from our crotch and genitals, eg our vulvas.

One of the most common conditions that in the past was labelled "intersex" or a DSD is micro-penis, which is a normally functioning male genital organ that is smaller than normal but which functions normally. Most micro-penises and normally developed and function fine; they're just small. Another condition traditionally considered "intersex" and a DSD is hypospadias, a congenital condition where the male urethra opens on the underside of the penis. This doesn't impair a male person's ability to urinate or ejaculate seminal fluid - it just looks odd. And it's easily corrected by surgery.

By far the single most common DSD is congenital adrenal hyperplasia, CAH, which I've read accounts for the majority of ALL DSDs (though I can't find the source at the moment). CAH comes in several different forms - and only the rarest form, known as classical CAH, which can be fatal if it involves salt-wasting, requires treatment and might affects genitals. Yet even classical CAH usually only affects the appearance of female genitals Most males with CAH have normal-looking and functioning genitals. The most common form of CAH is the mild form. Many persons with the mild form have no obvious symptoms.

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

A genetic disorder that would literally kill you because your body attacks cells that are needed for it to function is not a disorder because medicine can keep it at bay?

wat??

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

So most of us with pernicious anemia do not see it as a disorder, nor do our physicians.

A genetic disorder that would literally kill you because your body attacks cells that are needed for it to function is not a disorder because medicine can keep it at bay?

wat??

You don't seem to understand that medical science is constantly progressing, and as a result many conditions that once were fatal are now curable. When I was growing up in the 1960s, most cancers were fatal. Now most cancers are treatable and most people with various cancers will go into remission and be considered/declared "cured." In the 1980s, HIV usually progressed to AIDS and was a sure death sentence. Now with medication, HIV is considered a manageable condition with which a person can live in a state of good health for a normal lifespan.

When it was first discovered in the 1970s through the 1990s, severe combined immune deficiency, a form of primary immune deficiency affecting males aka "bubble boy disease," was invariably fatal - and boys with it had to lead very limited lives, as seen in the movie Bubble Boy. But since bone marrow transplants and mandatory testing for SCID at birth became standard, SCID is now caught very early - and if a BMT is given early in a child's life (by age 2), the donor bone marrow takes over and becomes the norm and the child is cured.

Also, re pernicious anemia, it's not "medicine" that keeps it at bay, it's vitamin B12. In much of the world, vitamin B12 for injection - and the needles for it - can be obtained without a doctor's prescription. It's very easy to self-administer the shots. Diagnosis of PA requires "medicine," but treating it does not. This is even more the case today than in the past, coz new oral formulations of B12 specifically for people without parietal cells are now available without prescription (you can get them on Amazon), so now the monthly shots aren't even necessary.

Also, there are lots of conditions, both genetic in origin or acquired or a bit of both, that potentially can be disabling which it's now possible to effectively eliminate once and for all by surgery. Like certain tumors of the eye orbit and certain gynecological conditions.

Without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy - a potentially fatal disease. Other diseases develop when people don't get sufficient vitamins, calories, nutrients and trace minerals. Do you think everyone should be thought to have nascent or "sleeper" disorders as a result?

Why does this bother you? Why is it important to you that the sorts of conditions under discussion all be labelled "disorders" and that everyone with such conditions be regarded as having something terribly "wrong" with us? What's it to you?

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So a disorder of the body that would kill you if untreated because your body cannot function normally is no longer considered a disorder just because medicine can keep it from killing you? Just...what??

Now most cancers are treatable and most people with various cancers will go into remission and be considered/declared "cured."

Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured". "Cured" means the problem is no longer there, as in, medical intervention is no longer required for you to function normally. Having a body with a fatal developmental issue that will literally kill you if not compensated for does not mean you are "cured" and that your body doesn't have the disorder anymore, wtf do you think you're taking those injections for if you're "cured"? jfc 🤦

Now with medication, HIV is considered a manageable condition with which a person can live in a state of good health for a normal lifespan.

Right, and now you've got gay men claiming it's acceptable to not tell their partners they have HIV because "it's managable with medicine".

Why does this bother you?

Because putting virtue signalling and feewings over actual physical human reality is how we got to where we are with trans issues in the first place.

Why is it important to you that the sorts of conditions under discussion all be labelled "disorders" and that everyone with such conditions be regarded as having something terribly "wrong" with us?

UUH you do have something wrong with you, your body is literally attacking its own cells that it needs to live because it thinks they're dangerous. THIS IS NOT NORMAL! This isn't some cute character quirk or a different eye colour, it's your body not being able to live without medical intervention because it cannot tell the difference between healthy and problematic cells the way a properly developed human body can. Just because medicine has found a way to deal with this does not suddenly make it disappear, just because medicine can make you feel fine enough to pretend it's not there does not mean it's actually gone. No wonder the trans ideology has gotten such a hold if medicine now subscribes to the "if I close my eyes it can't hurt me" school of though.

Without vitamin C, human beings will get scurvy - a potentially fatal disease. Other diseases develop when people don't get sufficient vitamins, calories, nutrients and trace minerals. Do you think everyone should be thought to have nascent or "sleeper" disorders as a result?

This is completely normal given human biology, because we lack the mechanisms to synthesise vitamin C on our own. That's completely different from an autoimmune disorder where your body has faulty development that makes it think it's coming under attack when it receives vitamin C. One is normal properly developed human anatomy, the other is a developmental issue that is severely affecting your life or quality of life without medical intervention.

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

No wonder the trans ideology has gotten such a hold if medicine now subscribes to the "if I close my eyes it can't hurt me" school of though.

Huh? Who is saying that? I sure never said anything of the kind. On the contrary, I have been pointing out that with proper treatment, certain physical conditions that once were disabling and a death sentence no longer are. Which is the opposite of arguing, as trans ideology does, that harmful medical interventions - hormone blockers, CSH, surgeries - which diminish physical health and destroy bodily functions should be available on demand for people with psychological problems who are in denial that their issues are mostly "all in their heads" and with society and culture, not with their their bodies.

Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured".

But nowadays a condition like PA doesn't require one to "spend a lifetime dealing" with it, LOL. In the case of PA in particular, it involves self-administering a shot of vitamin B12 once a month, or swallowing oral tablets of the new formulation once a day or once a week. From start to finish, administering B12 by injection takes about 90 seconds a month, 18 minutes a year. Yes, once a year I've gotta order B12 for injection online and put it in the fridge when it arrives. And I have to remember to keep needles on hand, though box of 100 needles lasts more than 8 years. Hardly onerous.

But even if dealing with PA took up a good chunk of my life and energy the way some medical conditions do (including others I've experienced myself), what's it to you? Why are you so determined to be the boss and final arbiter of how people with serious time-involving, life-limiting conditions view their problems and view themselves?

People with serious, legitimate medical conditions requiring tons of medical care have nothing in common with transgender people and the trans lobby. No one is arguing that people with cystic fibrosis, kidney disease requiring frequent dialysis, Parkinson's or any other serious physical illnesses must given whatever medical interventions they want on demand, including treatments that it's been been shown definitely or likely will do them - and society - more harm than good. No one is insisting that scientists should not allowed to research and objectively examine various physical diseases and conditions, or that the general public should not be allowed to discuss them. No one with serious physical conditions is trying to take away the civil rights of others, to get the whole world to deny reality and bend to their will, and demanding that people in good health all redefine themselves in relation to the particular diseases/conditions that small minorities of the population have.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL! This isn't some cute character quirk

Huh? No one who has suffered, or suffers, a serious physical illness or chronic health condition would define them as "cute" or as a "character quirk." For you to imagine and suggest they/we do is extremely offensive.

You seem to view human health in a very simplistic, immature way, dividing people into two black-and-white groups: those who are physically and genetically "normal" and those who are not. You also seem to think that being in 100% perfect health is the human norm. These views speak volumes. They suggest you have very limited "lived experience" and a narrow social circle.

Fact is, lots of people are born with, or develop, all sorts of medical conditions in the course of life, particularly as we age. Yet even so, these conditions don't necessarily dominate our self-perceptions or the way we experience life the way you appear to want them to. Even people who have deformities, disabilities and diseases that are a real cross to bear and very evident to other people - and which require tons of special accommodations and care - do not necessarily regard these aspects of themselves as their defining characteristics the way some outsiders might. Rather, for many people, these aspects of the self tend to fade into the background and become more like wallpaper.

The fact that this bothers you so much that you feel compelled to shout

THIS IS NOT NORMAL!

At people who have a more nuanced view than you makes you sound unhinged, and authoritarian to boot. But go ahead, keep shouting that people who view the very real physical conditions we/they have differently to the way you want us/them to are "denying reality" and are

NOT NORMAL!

Coz the more you holler out such compelling and well-reasoned arguments, the more those pesky, uppity NOT NORMAL people are bound to fall in line and do as you command. Soon enough they'll all surely agree that not seeing reality exactly as you do is the same as not seeing - or facing up to - reality at all.

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

I have been pointing out that with proper treatment, certain physical conditions that once were disabling and a death sentence no longer are

Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that the problem exists and that it is a result of faulty physical development. Having to spend a lifetime dealing with a disorder because you'd die a slow and painful death if you didn't does not count as "cured". "Cured" means the problem is no longer there, as in, medical intervention is no longer required for you to function normally. Having a body with a fatal developmental issue that will literally kill you if not compensated for does not mean you are "cured" and that your body doesn't have the disorder anymore, wtf do you think you're taking those injections for if you're "cured"? jfc 🤦

But nowadays a condition like PA doesn't require one to "spend a lifetime dealing" with it, LOL

Just because medicine has found a way to deal with this does not suddenly make it disappear, just because medicine can make you feel fine enough to pretend it's not there does not mean it's actually gone. Reality exists regardless of your feelings and wishful thinking.

the more those pesky, uppity NOT NORMAL people are bound to fall in line and do as you command

Your abnormal development is FATAL. It's not some cute character quirk like a different eye colour, it's something that will kill you if left untreated. I would tell you to get that through your thick skull, but you already know it, because you're taking your medicine on time so why this pity-inducing little game where you pretend like the thing that will literally kill you if untreated got magically whisked away by fairies?

that people in good health all redefine themselves in relation to the particular diseases/conditions that small minorities of the population have.

I like it when you try to form an argument because then I can rip it apart instead of just having to do the usual copy-pasting for people who pretend they get amnesia when someone wipes the floor with them.

I never said that people are divided into "all healthy" and "all disordered". Plenty of people have different kinds of disorders, some minor, some major, some major that don't interfere with anything, some minor that require surgeries or a lifetime on medicine. Most people with disorders have normal bodies in other ways, but a disorder affecting a specific part of their body. None of this changes the reality of what they are experiencing. Their feelings, their wishful thinking, how good they feel from treatment (unless it can be fixed for good, i.e. the disorder doesn't require any further intervention), whether they feel they're a five-headed hydra, it is 100% irrelevant.

Yet even so, these conditions don't necessarily dominate our self-perceptions or the way we experience life the way you appear to want them to.

You keep failing to understand that I don't give a damn if you "perceive" yourself as a five-headed hydra or an attack helicopter or Santa Claus. Your feelings are irrelevant to what is actually happening in reality

For you to imagine and suggest they/we do is extremely offensive.

Oh, great! So you're going to stop with this bullshit that people with life-threatening physical disorders have nothing wrong with them because you feel well after you take your shots and they should just stop defining themselves according to their disorder?

what's it to you? Why are you so determined to be the boss and final arbiter of how people with serious time-involving, life-limiting conditions view their problems and view themselves?

Because putting virtue signalling and feewings over actual physical human reality is how we got to where we are with trans issues in the first place. I am not going to entertain lying and delusional thinking for the sake of not huwting feewings of people who can't deal with the harsh reality of life.

It's kinda funny how I literally already answered most of your questions, but I guess the power of "If I close my eyes it can't hurt me" is just too hard to resist. I mean you've been using it so well as a crux of this entire argument.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I think the condition I meant is the Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome, where there's developed male genitalia and an underdeveloped uterus, vagina, etc. Would that not be considered a disorder?

For the definitions of male or female, when we ask what about someone that surgically removed their gonads, GCs argue they don't stop being male or female eventhough they don't produce gametes, just as someone doesn't stop being human if they amputate their leg.

But is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though? Are humans defined as a bipedal specie? If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human? They don't meet the definition of human, or the requirement of which is to have exactly two legs, two hands, and 5 fingers

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

For the definitions of male or female, when we ask what about someone that surgically removed their gonads, GCs argue they don't stop being male or female eventhough they don't produce gametes,

So you think girls before menarche and women after menopause are no longer female? I suggest you inform your mother and, if you have on, grandmother and all the other women you know over age 51 of this and see what they think. Or go over to a local nursing home, senior center, Hystersisters or a menopause forum and say that.

BTW, my own gonads were removed nearly 20 years ago. Since then, no one has ever suggested that I am not female - or that I am now without sex. Never, not once. My children have never thought to claim that they now have a mother who isn't female. If your mother is past menopause age, do you claim she is not female? Do you no longer refer to her, or consider her, your mother?

Basic concepts like the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions seem lost on you. As does what happens over the human lifespan. I suspect you are quite young. Is that the case?

If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human?

This is not just ignorant, it's heartlessly cruel and offensive. I dare you to go say that out loud to persons getting medical care at a VA hospital or a medical facility like the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC or the various Shriners Hospitals for Children in the US. Your views are beyond the pale. I am not engaging with you any further.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is not just ignorant, it's heartlessly cruel and offensive. I dare you to go say that out loud to persons getting medical care at a VA hospital or a medical facility like the Hospital for Special Surgery in NYC or the various Shriners Hospitals for Children in the US. Your views are beyond the pale. I am not engaging with you any further.

I'm trying to understand the position. It may be cruel, and that's why I look for justifications. 'Why is someone born without a leg, or someone that amputated a leg still a human despite not meeting the definition of human which is to be bipedal?'.

If I wanted to believe they are not human I wouldn't ask.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is generally true of any given species is not necessarily true of each and every individual member of that species at every point of each individual's life. Human beings as a species can be said to have two legs and arms, 10 toes and 10 fingers. This applies to 99+% of Homo sapiens. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside the norm for our species. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens. It does not mean they are not human any more, or never were.

As I've said elsewhere, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

I think you would greatly benefit by learning about the lives of people with severe disabilities. Starting with reading Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, all the people born with missing limbs due to the Thalidomide tragedy, and watching the Daniel Day- Lewis film My Left Foot, based on the real life story of Christy Brown.

You could easily have an accident tomorrow that causes you to lose a limb or an eye, or get sick and have to have your appendix or spleen removed. You really think you would then no longer be human?

Have you really never met a single person in your whole life who due to accidents, combat, blasts or surgery necessary coz of illness, dental wear & tear and/or aging doesn't have every single body part that the majority of humans have and which constitute the norm for our species? You don't know anyone who's had their tonsils or gallbladder out, or is missing teeth? You know no completely bald men? That's really hard to believe.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am not engaging with you any further.

Please don't leave. You said vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals and I have more questions left hanging :(

If vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are not genitals, then what are they? And in intersex cases where males have uteruses, fallopian tubes, ovaries, vaginas, etc, does it mean uterus, vagina, fallopian tubes, ovaries, etc are not female organs but organs that both male and female can have?

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You've been leaving literally every time you got your ass handed to you, only to return with amnesia later and ask the same question, and get your ass handed to you in the same way. I feel like you're the last person who should be saying this.

[–]MezozoicGaygay male 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why are you asking the very same (okay, this time it is more homophobic than usual) question without changes every few weeks and then ignoring all the answers?

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce. Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.

Like I said on the other thread you started, it's very clear you don't understand the difference between evolution of species and the sex, inclinations and behaviors of individual members of any given species. In every species - plant and animal - there are males and females that don't procreate for various reasons. Coz evolution.

You seem also not to understand that the definition of sex which boils down to which kind of gamete which developed, or was meant to develop, the potential capacity to produce/release at some later point in life is one that applies to all sexually-reproducing plants and animals, not just to mammals and other animals whose mode of sexual reproduction resembles mammalian reproduction. And that this definition has nothing to do with the wide variety of mechanisms by which male and female gametes - sperm and egg - meet up in various species, or where this happens and where/how offspring are gestated.

Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

No one with any grounding in basic biology, including no "GC" person, would ever say this! Coz reproduction for female plants and many, many different animal species does NOT involve the female being penetrated by males of their species. Similarly, the females of plants and many, many animal species do not conceive and gestate offspring within their bodies "give birth" the way mammals do. Birds, for example, lay eggs.

Similarly, no one with any knowledge of biology would claim

Males are biologically meant for penetrating, and inseminating females, and their bodies are organized around inseminating females.

Coz it's totally not true, LOL.

Please go read some biology textbooks and watch some nature videos. There's tons of material out there. And there's a reason the old-fashioned name for sex education is "the birds and the bees." Two kinds of animals that reproduce in ways entirely different to how humans and other mammals do. But which are still species that reproduce sexually and consist of males and females.

Trying to discuss the nuances of sex with someone so utterly in the dark about basic biology is like trying to teach ESL to someone who never learned to read and write in their own native language. Or like trying to discuss math with someone who never learned basic arithmetic such as the names of numbers and therefore doesn't how to count.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If sex is defined by gametes, doesn't that essentially mean sex is reproduction? Because gametes are for reproduction, and if sex is defined by gametes, then it follows sex is reproduction?

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

No. It means you’re (presumably, and upon reaching sexual maturity) capable of contributing to the reproductive process in one of two distinct ways. Not that you’re obligated to. Not that if you don’t or can’t you are sexless. Childless people, people who get srs or lose their genitals in one of the weird scenarios qt always asks us to imagine, post menopausal women, people who have yet to procreate but intend to, children- they all have a sex.

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

If sex is defined by gametes, doesn't that essentially mean sex is reproduction? Because gametes are for reproduction, and if sex is defined by gametes, then it follows sex is reproduction?

Yes, when speaking of all the plants and animals that reproduce sexually, sex does relate to and is based on reproduction - or rather, potential capacity for reproduction. In every sexually-reproducing species, there are two categories of organism - male and female - based on the kinds of gametes that early in gestation they develop the potential capacity to produce (or in some cases to mature and release) at some point later in life.

But no, it does NOT follow that "sex is reproduction." Sex classification - whether one is male or female - is based on whether one has developed the anatomy to produce, or to mature and release, either ova or sperm at some point later in life. Which is not the same as saying "sex = reproduction." Lots of individual members of various plant and animal species do not reproduce, but they still have a sex coz they can be classified as either male or female.

Again, your lack of understanding of biology and evolution in general keeps tripping you up and making it difficult to discuss this with you.

Every plant and animal species has evolved to reproduce itself to keep its own species in existence and evolving so that the species is best equipped to survive over the long arc of history. This is known as reproduction of the species or perpetuation of species. The instinct to perpetuate itself is built in to every species, and perpetuation of the species is every species' paramount drive. But that does not mean that every individual member of each species has the same drive to reproduce, or any drive to reproduce at all. Nor does it mean every individual member in any given species has the same exact capacity to reproduce or ends up reproducing. Homosexuality is a thing, as is a wide variety of forms of infertility - and these are factors that can affect quite a number of individuals within any species.

[–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

The typical GC argument is that sex is reproduction, that we are biologically meant to reproduce. Females are biologically meant for being penetrated, and being inseminated by males, and their bodies are organized around being penetrated by males and giving birth.

This just made my lesbian pussy recoil. I don't believe I was born to reproduce as a female. If every fertile female on Earth had babies, I think the human population would've faced extinction a long time ago.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I have a sample of a GC arguing that: https://imgur.com/FOtDLaw

And that was a few hours ago

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is true that female bodies develop in a way that (presumably- if functioning properly) prepares the body for the ability to carry a child and give birth. That’s kind of what puberty does. Our hips widen, we menstruate etc, because female humans are the only humans capable of giving birth- as a sex, not on an individual basis. We don’t have to get pregnant or give birth, some of us can’t, but every single person in the world who ever has has been a female. This person chose interesting wording, but I don’t think they’re saying what you think they’re saying.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

One of the issues in that post from Ovarit is the term "meant to," which I'd take issue with. There's a difference between "equipped to" and "meant to" - the former indicates a potential capacity, the latter indicates a purpose. I think evolution/nature equips us female humans with the possibility and potential for having children, but that does not mean it's our purpose.

But I am not gonna waste time arguing over something said on an entirely different forum here.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

That’s why I said they chose weird wording- but I think given what she says towards the end, that she’s not necessarily advocating for the idea that women have to give birth, to me it seems like poor phrasing but saying that females are the sex that have bodies capable of giving birth. Of course I don’t know her so I could be wrong, but I honestly think it’s possible it was just a poor choice of words.

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

Agreed.

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

... These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people. If sex is defined as reproduction, or the capability to reproduce, are childfree people sexless?

Are they not male or female?

What about gay people and lesbians? If someone has gay sex, are they disordered? Bodies are meant for being attracted to the opposite sex, and doing things with the opposite sex, are gay people disordered? Is gay sex a disorder?

The questions about persons who don't have children have been answered already. What I want to bring up is your homophobia.

First of all, you seem unaware that both lesbians and gay men can, and often do, have children.

Second, no one here would say gay sex is a disorder. Just like we would not say this of het sex that doesn't involve PIV, or of het PIV sex in which contraception is used. Not all sex acts do, or must, lead to reproduction or involve the possibility of procreation.

Third, pretty much every human being regardless of sexual orientation masturbates. Under no circumstance can masturbation ever lead to reproduction. But it's often the first kind of sex that many people, and for a good number of people who have sex with others in their lives, masturbation still will be the one kind of sex they have the most over the course of their lives by far.

[–]SilverSlippers 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why do people keep asking the same questions over and over? Seriously. Read the threads before asking. This is getting boring explaining the same thing to what feels like the same people over and over again.

Female = you have a body that developed around the ability to produce eggs. Even a developmental disorder or medical treatment means you never are able to produce a single egg, you are still female. Your body developed in utero to produce eggs.

Male = same thing with sperm.

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

I mean I wouldn't mind them asking the same question on which their very faulty ideology rests on, the problem is that they tuck tail and run the second it turns out there are easy answers to said questions. It's just utter unpreparedness for the fact that elementary biology has the answers to their "gotcha's" and instead of accepting it, they'd rather just pretend they didn't hear anything.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

These definitions of male and female do not include childfree people.

Uuuh, yes they do? Like they literally have the identical sexed bodies that anyone with children has. Do you think anyone who's childless magically turns into some asexual creature with no functioning genitalia and anyone with a child made their sex organs grow out through sheer willpower?

If sex is defined as reproduction, or the capability to reproduce, are childfree people sexless?

You...literally answered your own question. Childless people have the CAPABILITY to reproduce. Like you literally answered your question, and you're still not connecting the dots?

Ok, how about a test? Go find someone of the opposite sex, have penile-vaginal sex with them without protection, and then see what results from that and just how "special" your corporeal temple of genderfuckery truly is compared to people with children. Actually, don't do that, because science can tell you pretty consistently what's going to result from that and I promise you it's going to be far more predictable than "science" that bases sex on pronouns.

What about gay people and lesbians?

I would suggest the same experiment as above, and then also not to do it because of how predictable the results are going to be.

What about someone that can not produce any gametes, and has surgically removed their genitalia and gonads?

If a person amputates their legs, does that means they proved humans aren't bipedal? What if a person is born without legs? What if they're born with only one leg? If humans are defined by bipedalism, is a legless person a snake? Does this show human number of limbs is a spectrum? Does a person stop being human when they lie down and only become human when they're using their two legs? Does a person lying down lack legs, and are they consequently a new species?

Is calling the intersex condition a disorder (of sexual development) discriminatory towards intersex people?

Calling disorders of physical development disorders isn't discriminatory.

tl;dr - Developmental disorders, personal choice and destructive intervention on body parts does not change the realities of human biology and science has accounted for this ages ago.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If a person amputates their legs, does that means they proved humans aren't bipedal? What if a person is born without legs? What if they're born with only one leg? If humans are defined by bipedalism, is a legless person a snake? Does this show human number of limbs is a spectrum? Does a person stop being human when they lie down and only become human when they're using their two legs? Does a person lying down lack legs, and are they consequently a new species?

Is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though? Are humans defined as a bipedal specie? If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human? They don't meet the definition of human, or the requirement of which is to have exactly two legs, two hands, and 5 fingers

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

Is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though? Are humans defined as a bipedal specie? If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human? They don't meet the definition of human, or the requirement of which is to have exactly two legs, two hands, and 5 fingers

Please stop with your grotesque characterization of people with various disabilities as less than and other than human.

For the umpteenth time: what is generally true of any given species is not necessarily true of each and every individual member of that species at every point of life. Human beings as a species can be said to have two legs and arms, 10 toes and 10 fingers. This applies to 99+% of human beings. But there's a small number of some human beings who for one reason or another are outside this norms. However, that does not mean they are no longer members of the species Homo sapiens.

Again, you need to study up on classification and categorization. And on the difference between descriptive and prescriptive definitions.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Is a human defined by the number of legs, hands and fingers though?

Yes, one of our main characteristics is bipedalism, along with the anatomy of our hands. This specific development combined with our large brain size (which also has its own specific anatomy and function compared to other animals and also isn't rendered irrelevant by the existence of mentally challenged people) is the reason why you're able to use language, type on a keyboard and send messages over the internet to the other side of the world.

If a human is defined as an organism with two legs, two hands and 5 fingers, why wouldn't it be correct to say someone born without a leg, or someone who amputated a leg is not a human?

You seem to be avoiding the question. Again, why do you think scientists don't call legless humans snakes? What exactly do you think makes science not scratch its heads in confusion at snake-humans, or categorise any developmental disorder as new species? I want you to think long and hard about this and try to give me an answer that makes sense. I don't want to do it for you because I think this will be a good mental exercise for you.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You seem to be avoiding the question. Again, why do you think scientists don't call legless humans snakes? What exactly do you think makes science not scratch its heads in confusion at snake-humans, or categorise any developmental disorder as new species? I want you to think long and hard about this and try to give me an answer that makes sense. I don't want to do it for you because I think this will be a good mental exercise for you.

It'd be incorrect to call someone legless a snake, because snakes have a few differences in their dna. But if bipedalism is a requirement for being a human, I don't see how someone born without a leg or someone who amputated a leg can be called a human, when they do not have two legs and do not meet the definition of a human?

If they are still considered a human because of their dna, then a human is not defined as an organism with two legs, it's the certain dna they have that defines a human? Defining a human as a bipedal organism excludes those that are born without a leg or have amputated a leg

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It'd be incorrect to call someone legless a snake, because snakes have a few differences in their dna

So, a snake defined as anyone whose dna is "different"? All human beings have different dna's, otherwise we'd all be clones of each other. So by your logic, since both humans and snakes have differences in their DNAs, it is just as valid to call a human a snake as it is to call them a human.

it's the certain dna they have that defines a human?

See, I could do a few things now in line with trans ideology: 1. demand you provide exactly which parts of the DNA define a human, or else insist you admit humans can be snakes or that there is no measurable difference between the two. 2. Argue that, even if you provide this evidence, that even a single case of a human with DNA parts outside of that (whether as a result of a developmental disorder, or due to something like radiation) disproves that humans can in any way be defined by their DNA, and renders any differences between humans and snakes nonexistent. 3. Claim that, since DNA defines a human, things like human remains are not human if they lack DNA. Archeology is a farce, as human development cannot possibly be traced without DNA evidence.

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Scratches head

I see your point, what defines a human then? What is a human, a snake, a bear, a bacteria, or anything else. What defines them?

And how can we justify the categories when there is variation?

Say a human is defined as an organism with 2 legs, bipedalism is a requirement to be categorized as a human, and you have someone with human dna that has no legs, or amputated a leg (but what is human dna in the first place, when there are dna differences between humans themselves, what makes a human dna different from a snake, bear, bacteria, etc dna?). They are no longer bidepal, why would they still be considered human when they don't meet the definition of a human which is a bipedal organism?

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

Scratches head

There there, I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually if you just think hard enough pat pat

What is a human, a snake, a bear, a bacteria, or anything else. What defines them?

Do you want to start at the beginning? Do you have one of those baby books on animals with you that make animal sounds? Wanna try and tell me if there are any differences you notice in these categories?

Say a human is defined as an organism with 2 legs, bipedalism is a requirement to be categorized as a human, and you have someone with human dna that has no legs, or amputated a leg. They are no longer bidepal, why would they still be considered human when they don't meet the definition of a human which is a bipedal organism?

Look, you don't have to keep telling me why your own logic fails. I want you to think, using your own head for the first time in your life, and try to understand with this basic human cognition that evolution has provided you with why your own logic fails. You don't have to convince me that humans aren't snakes, I've passed kindergarten, what I want is for you to actually think about the logic you are employing, like actually think about the words you're putting down, until your own arguments fall apart before your eyes, not by someone else saying something, but because you've thought about them critically for the first time in your life. So forget about repeating that your own logic is dumb, I know that, what I want is for you to follow its trail until you understand why it's dumb.

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

So - what is the purpose of sex as a meaningful designator? As a protected class? As something we collect on the census? How would you remodel all of these things, and why / for what purpose? Would this also be global, local, etc?