all 28 comments

[–]JollyPurple 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If any QT members thinks there's more than one sex and can prove it, come collect your One Million Dollars...

So strange that no one has collected it. All those "doctors" on Twitter and in the transgender community and still there's not a single person? Do you guys just not need a million dollars? At least do it and give it to a genderist charity or something.

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

Completely irrelevant: Yay! JollyPuple is back!!!!!

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

I've missed you!!!! :) I got side tracked on radfem Twitter during the pandemic.

[–]worried19 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Welcome back. It's good to see you again.

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

You too! Don't know how "active" I'll be, but I just felt the urge to come back and see what everyone was up to.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are you also on Ovarit? Let me know if you'd like an invite code.

[–]JollyPurple 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wish I was on Ovarit. I've tried SO many times. Flappy, and many others have given me a code, but for some reason, whenever I start signing up, and I'll never get a verification email. I've tried so many emails. I have no idea why it doesn't work. :( So it's just Twitter and Saidit for me for now.

[–]worried19 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's so weird. Have you tried using a different email address? Ovarit has really picked up a lot and is very active. I seem to spend most of my time there these days.

[–]a_green_squidtransmed i guess? 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

The stork.


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

LOL I mean, I won't be surprised if some of those saying "sex is a spectrum" actually believe that.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ha, sometimes it almost feels like that's what QT believes.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]FlanJam 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I feel like the phrasing of "sex is a spectrum" is kinda misleading, from what I can tell QT is using 'sex' different from how the average person would use it. That being said, I don't think QT could argue human reproduction is a "spectrum".

[–]JollyPurple 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm debating this argument in a different post. But really, one of the main issues in the 'trans/QT community vs the world' is the lack of definitive definitions and meanings behind their ideology. No one has any idea what they mean by anything they say. And they change meanings of words constantly too. One moment it means this, another moment it means that. Just whatever wins for the community in that moment.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, exactly! They change words' meanings all the time without asking anyone about it, and then they get get mad when people use the "old" meanings. Even worse, they argue the "old" meanings never existed in the first place.

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

Yeah, QT doesn't seem to have consensus on what their ideology is. I've noticed that, depending on who you talk to, its not uncommon for one person to contradict another. I'm kinda curious how opposing QT views get along when there's so much disagreement.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They define sex as a group of sex characteristics which exist in a spectrum, therefore noone is fully male or female according to them.

I don't think QT could argue human reproduction is a "spectrum".

Not sure about that. I'm not expecting many answers here because I think most of them realize they can't explain human reproduction without the sex binary, but a few may try it.

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

Well, it'd be interesting to see what kind of crazy explanation they could come up with lol

[–]adungitit 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I mean so far every definition I've seen has either been "wurds can mean wutevur u want hon 😘" or "People born without arms prove that the number of arms in humans is a spectrum". Not exactly the kind of robust thinking that makes me think they wouldn't try to pass human reproduction off as a spectrum.

I don't think QT could argue human reproduction is a "spectrum".

Which is strange because if you can literally deny that a penis and a clitoris are different organs, why is some different facet of basic biology suddenly too difficult to deny? You'd think someone would've found a way to make this enormous hole in their logic at least somewhat consistent with their ideology. But then again, the typical response in that case seems to be either to start parroting "transwomen are women" ad nauseum, or to proclaim the person a bigot for "reducing people to their genitalia", so when even considering basic biology is bigoted, it's unsurprising that they're so unprepared for when the subject gets brought up.

I don't think QT could argue human reproduction is a "spectrum".

Well if some births result in stillbirths and some result in fatal deformities and some result in the baby never even forming etc. then clearly human reproduction IS a spectrum. And really, words don't mean anything anyways, so why can't human reproduction describe the number of teeth humans have instead?

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

Well if some births result in stillbirths and some result in fatal deformities and some result in the baby never even forming etc. then clearly human reproduction IS a spectrum

Yes, human conception can naturally lead to variety of results - from miscarriages to still births to live births with fatal deformities to live births of perfectly healthy offspring - that I guess could be said to occur across a spectrum. (BTW, about half of human eggs that get fertilized in girls/women's bodies naturally die early on - often before the woman knows she has conceived.)

However, human reproduction still can only occur when an egg is fertilized by a sperm, and then a long sequence of events take place over many months within a female human body. Human reproduction can't occur without a uterus, a cervix, a placenta, a female endocrine system, female kidneys, female immune function, female DNA and so on.

I know you know this. I'm just saying it for the lurkers.

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

that I guess could be said to occur across a spectrum.

Does it even count as a spectrum if the results are so unpredictable? You can have any of a huge variety of deformities, some related and some not, in any individual part of your body.

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

I was responding to your observation that

some births result in stillbirths and some result in fatal deformities

Which I took to mean fatal deformities that are apparent at birth and usually cause death soon afterwards. As when a child is born with some or many of their internal organs and structures on the outside rather than on the inside of their bodies. Which in the days before routine fetal scanning and genetic testing in utero used to happen a lot more than today.

I wasn't talking about fatal deformities that would/will lead to premature death at a later point, such as cystic fibrosis or severe combined (primary) immune deficiency and all the other fatal genetic conditions that are present at conception and birth but which usually or often result in death well after birth and the neonatal period.

I was working off your prior exasperated statement that

if some births result in stillbirths and some result in fatal deformities and some result in the baby never even forming etc. then clearly human reproduction IS a spectrum.

I wasn't saying my own view is that human reproduction really is a spectrum, nor was I making this out to be your actual view. Which I think I made pretty clear.

Continuing on with this theme, no most human fertilizations/conceptions do not really have results that are, as you say, "so unpredictable."

About half of the human eggs that get fertilized inside a female human body die within the first trimester, which is why women who learn they are pregnant before then have always been advised to keep news of the pregnancy largely private until the 12-week mark. Most of the other half of human eggs that get fertilized inside a female human will result in a pregnancy that results in a human fetus developed enough to survive outside the mother's body.

Yes, some human eggs fertilized within female bodies will result in second- and third-trimester miscarriages and stillbirths, and some babies born at term will have genetic conditions that will be fatal sooner or later. But still, the vast majority of eggs fertilized in a female human body that survive past the 12th week in utero won't end up in miscarriage, stillbirth or death in the moments or hours after birth. This means most human eggs that get fertilized either die early on or lead to live births and surviving infants - which is very binary.

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

I understand you were playing devil's advocate. My thought was that for something to count as a spectrum, it should be a gradient between two traits, rather than just any number of random traits affecting random body parts. However, that might just be my lack of understanding of the actual term "spectrum", perhaps it doesn't imply gradually going from one extreme to the other and is merely a synonym for "variability".

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

My dictionary says spectrum has both meanings.

But I wasn't playing devil's advocate, I was being annoyingly pedantic and literal - and was also taking the opportunity to shoehorn in some facts about human reproduction. Such as the high rate of fertilized human eggs that die early on. Coz many readers and some posters here appear to have very little understanding of such matters.

Moreover, coz in the era of cheap, widely-available early at-home pregnancy tests, today many women who in the past would not have had any idea that fertilization had occurred within them & that the fertilized egg died are now often aware of what's happened. For some women, particularly those desperately TTC, this knowledge can and often does cause distress & trauma. Many women nowadays consider themselves to have undergone miscarriages & pregnancy losses when in the past they wouldn't have known that fertilization occurred - and with that awareness often comes a host of issues.

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

Taxonomies are always subjective, but a sex spectrum model better describes the actual human biology that exists rather than the sex binary model that currently exists

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

You're dodging the question. If the "sex is a spectrum" model explain things better, then tell us how human reproduction works under this model.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

The unification of two gametes/cloning/the remote possibility of parthenogenesis. You don’t need to have a binary sex model for any of that though, anymore than you need a concept like “race” to explain differing rates of sickle cell anemia.

[–]BiologyIsReal[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did you read the OP? I specified to stick with humans and no tecnological aid. So, let's forget about cloning or parthenogenesis. So, please elaborate more about this union of two gametes. How many kinds of gametes are there? Who does produce each gamete? Does individuals who produce a certain kind of gamete share other commonalities? Can you tell what kind of gamete a person may produce? What kind of people give birth? What kind of people produces milk to feed the newborns?