all 55 comments

[–]HouseplantMaybe women who are afraid of men should stay home? #feminist 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lurk around, read literally just one thing from gc, before asking stupid repeat questions I am begging you

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

No lmao

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Could you give longer answers please?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I could but I see a few longer answers you’ve yet to engage with so I’ll give you some time to catch up with all of those first. :)

[–]FlanJam 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think those sciencey questions are best suited for biologists. GC would probably have more to say about the social implications of that technology (if it existed), but the science part should be left to scientists.

That there might be neopenises that look, feel and function exactly like natural penises? Or neovaginas that look, feel and function exactly like natural vaginas?

QT believes we've already achieved this. Apparently even a gynecologist can't tell the difference lol.

Is there a reason why a neopenis that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural penises can not be considered a real penis? Or a neovagina that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural vaginas can not be considered a real vagina? Despite doing the same things? Wouldn't a laboratory meat that tastes, looks, feels and functions exactly like natural meat be considered real meat?

If we go by dictionary definitions, something's "realness" depends on whether it is natural or artificial. Neo-genitals and laboratory meat are man-made, they are artificial. So they are not "real" by definition. They could appear and function identically to the real thing, but the fact they are artificially produced is what makes them, well, artificial.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (14 children)

Not really. An artificial diamond is still a diamond. Artificial just means produced by humans, it doesn’t mean it isn’t “real”.

[–]FlanJam 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Real literally means 'not artificial'. So if its artificial, its not real.

According to Merriam Webster:

: not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

A meaning that has become associated with the word, but artificial’s primary meaning is made by humans. Things made by humans can be real members of a category of things that occur in nature. Artificial insemination is for instance is not fake insemination.

[–]FlanJam 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't quite understand what you're saying, perhaps you could clarify or rephrase.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Is artificial insemination “real” insemination? Obviously it is. Ergo artificial primarily means “made by humans” even if it has a secondary association of being “not real” in some instances.

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

I think you're using "real" differently from how the dictionary uses it.

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

But artificial insemination doesn't mean that it's not real insemination, LOL. It means insemination that is done in a way that is not the natural way insemination most commonly occurs. Artificial in this sense really means human-assisted insemination.

Also, AI is not done using a synthetic ersatz sperm or egg made by humans in an artificial way. The eggs & sperm in AI still have to be genuine gametes made by ovaries & testes.

[–]bopomofodojo 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Try selling that artificial diamond as a gemstone and see how far you get...

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

That doesn’t make it not a diamond

Also 20-30% less per karat is a price I’m seeing

[–]bopomofodojo 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

You're right, it doesn't. It's still a diamond. An artificial diamond, since those are considered "lower quality" for gemstone purposes. Thus, for this purpose there is a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" that matters. Carat for carat, you get more for a "natural" diamond and thus the distinction is useful. Simply saying" but they're all diamonds" ignores this classification scheme, just as ignoring whether a body part is artificially constructed or not matters. But this is an academic distinction anyways since we're at best decades away from pseudo-genetalia that are actually identical to their natural counterparts, and the vast majority of trans people seem to have no interest in actually going through with radical body-altering surgery. But even then, the distinction would exist between "born" and "made" elements, no matter how subtle. Human-made is still human-made - even in diamonds it's possible to tell (man-made diamonds are "too perfect").

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (4 children)

All categories are subjective contructs

[–]HouseplantMaybe women who are afraid of men should stay home? #feminist 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So that means when I call transwomen men I’m not wrong? It’s a subjective construct so I can’t see how it could be wrong.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Its an opinion so correct and incorrect don’t enter into it

[–]HouseplantMaybe women who are afraid of men should stay home? #feminist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So transwomen are males who are women by their own opinion? Is being a woman really a matter of opinion?

Why the huge stink and language policing and TWAW chanting when we don’t share the opinions of transgender people and refer to them by sex like everyone else?

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

Then I am not really sure what you are going on about. If categories are all subjective constructs, then why are you complaining about our definitions and fighting against them? We subjectively (🙄) consider artificial diamonds/meat not real or at least so completely different from the "natural" thing that they can never be used as a perfect replacement. Our definitions are simply doing what they are supposed to do, which is being "subjective".

[–]kwallio 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Please read a book, any book.

[–]worried19 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't predict the future. Who knows what could be possible in 200 years? I don't think it's relevant to the debate as it is exists today. Biological sex is real, there are only two sexes, and that's how it will be for all our lifetimes.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Does that mean one day there might be ways to change a human's sex with the use of crispr and genetic engineering in laboratory, before or after a zygote is produced? That "male pregnancy" might be possible? That there might be neopenises that look, feel and function exactly like natural penises? Or neovaginas that look, feel and function exactly like natural vaginas?

Maybe in a very distant future it will be possible, I have no clue what progress will bring. But it' s not going to be possible within our lifetimes, so I don' t see why we should waste time on it now. Leave it to the people who will live when/if that becomes a real possibility.

Is there a reason why a neopenis that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural penises can not be considered a real penis? Or a neovagina that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural vaginas can not be considered a real vagina? Despite doing the same things?

If it' s created in a laboratory by humans instead of naturally occurring, then it will always be an artificial replacement, even if it does exactly the same things that a real penis/vagina does.

But as my first paragraph says, this is not what is happening right now given that neither "neopenises" nor "neovaginas" function/look like the real thing.

Wouldn't a laboratory meat that tastes, looks, feels and functions exactly like natural meat be considered real meat?

No, it would be laboratory-made meat. Even if it manages to do everything real meat does, it would still be an artificial approximation. A good one perhaps, but an approximation nonetheless.

Long story short: if one day we will manage to actually change sex (unlikely, but let' s say it will be done), the people who will do it will still be people who were born one way and then changed. If that is going to actually happen, there will probably be different standards when it comes to categorize people based on sex.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 9 fun1 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 9 fun -  (16 children)

No meat grown in a lab would still be meat even of its artificially created. Artificial just means made by humans

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

“Artificial just means made by humans”

Oh you and your half truths lol

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

You said it wouldn’t be real meat, but it would be considered meat.

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

I actually said nothing about the meat and only pointed out that you ignored most of the meaning of artificial to try to pretend that manufactured/man made meat would be the same.

It wouldn’t be.

Because one would be man made.

That would be the difference. One would be artificial. One would not be.

When you went to the store to buy meat, the man made meat would be labeled as such. Because it wouldn’t be the same as real meat.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

It would absolutely be real meat

https://sentientmedia.org/lab-grown-meat/

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

Every single article I just read, including the one you linked, references the fact that there is dispute about whether or not this will legally be allowed to be classified as “real” meat or not lol

Also- even if it is considered “real”- they would still label this meat and traditionally obtained meat separately. Other articles discuss the differences in taste and texture as well as the differences in “cleanliness” between the two.

This lab meat is admittedly much closer to the real deal it’s emulating than the neo genitals that trans people have constructed. But the differences are still there and they will never quite be the same.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, and? That' s what I said, that it would be artificial meat made in a laboratory, so different in its origin from the natural thing. There would still be a difference, that difference could be very small if the result is incredibly similar to the natural thing, but it' s never going to be completely the same, because they way it is born as is different.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

You didn’t say natural meat you said “real” meat. Meat grown in a lab would still be real meat.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Cool, point still stands, the origin is different so it will never be the same as "natural" meat. There will always be a distinction and they will never be the same, and there will always be the need to point out the origin of the thing so that people can choose whether to consume the natural product or the artificial one.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Nah natural is subjective. Are humans not a part of nature?

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

What?

[–]questioningtw 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No....it wouldn't, it would be LIKE meat, but it would not be real meat.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

It would definitely be real meat

https://sentientmedia.org/lab-grown-meat/

[–]HouseplantMaybe women who are afraid of men should stay home? #feminist 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How come everything we think is subjective but you can authoritatively state this is real meat? Why does subjectivity get thrown out for your opinions?

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

My viewpoint is also subjective

[–]HouseplantMaybe women who are afraid of men should stay home? #feminist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yet you say twaw and expect us to follow, you regularly call us bigots, and make absurd claims about the sex matrix and present them as fact

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

oh. well, I stand corrected!

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

What about changing sex with the use of technology and engineering?

Maybe, and if/when that day comes I am willing to consider former males who produce ova and not sperm as having changed their sex and I would see them man-made females and vice versa for former females. Worth noting that I wouldn’t consider this achieved through the organ donation of the sex organs of a deceased female/male as that would be the deceased female/male producing the ova/sperm, not the male/female using the deceased female’s/male’s sex organs.

Is there a reason why a neopenis that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural penises can not be considered a real penis? Or a neovagina that looks, feels, and functions exactly like natural vaginas can not be considered a real vagina?

If it’s made of vagina cells, has all the functions of a vagina and is made of the person’s own genetic material (not the vagina of a deceased female) then I would consider the neovagina a real man-made vagina. As a lesbian it wouldn’t make me interested in sexually interacting with that man-made vagina though. A male in the future could perhaps with futuristic technology become a man-made female but a male could never become a natural female (a female with a female origin) as history is unchangeable. I would define attraction to man-made females as female attraction but at that stage we would probably create a new system for categorizing sexuality as many monosexuals tend to care about the origin too.

Some trans people seem to think origin shouldn’t matter in hypotheticals like these but humans tend care about origins overall. Most vegetarians wouldn’t eat man-made carrots made from genetically engineered meat of slaughtered cows, most wouldn't pay the same price for a copy of a Rembrandt painting copy as for a Rembrandt painting original, most would be more excited about a love letter written by a crush than the same letter written by someone we don’t care about it. We care about the origin/history as we care about the story behind, someone who artificially made themselves female has another story than someone who was just born that with a female body without intention. So in short I would consider a man-made female as being female, but I wouldn’t consider man-made females as the same as natural females.

At the moment no trans person is even close to having changed sex though, we hear about pregnant "trans men", but never of pregnant "trans women", we hear of "trans women" impregnating but never of "trans men" impregnating, female partners of "trans women" are told to use birth control and "trans men" are told the same if they have male partners.

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

The genetically modified mosquitos were already released. Interestingly, they were "engineered" for the males to carry a protein that kills the females.

CRISPR is already being used in the way you mention. I don't care about the "realness" of what is engineered in a laboratory. I care that we stop this insane hubris. And stop torturing mice.

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

Wouldn't a laboratory meat that tastes, looks, feels and functions exactly like natural meat be considered real meat?

Would a vegan eat lab meat? Depends on their reasons for being vegan, I guess. Someone who was only concerned with preventing the suffering of animals might be willing, someone who had, say, health reasons, or just didn't like meat might not. I suspect there'd be a range of opinions on lab genitals as well, no matter how indistinguishable they become.

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

People flying is impossible. However planes can make us travel through the air.

As of right now men can't get pregnant, and their are two sexes. it will be this way for a long time, and who knows if we will even survive long nough for mad scientists to try to make these things happen. Yes, i sad mad scientists, I am tired of technology that is just making us less human.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

Are there any GCs here than can answer my questions?

[–]Penultimate_Penance 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

https://www.ted.com/talks/paula_johnson_his_and_hers_health_care?fbclid=IwAR0a_CAL2PpcZtUehHUBRzfHXB3fUrJBUxoC2zNxDCu9DkkGt2Ysc3v2JzU

Take a look at that video. You would have to change every single cell in their body to change a person's sex. Assuming we could even do that in the future, what are the odds of them surviving the process? It is extremely unlikely we will ever be able to change a person's sex with technology if not impossible.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

So a person with the capacity to father children but with XX chromosomes and no SRY gene arent male? (Real medical situation that has occurred)

[–]Penultimate_Penance 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If they have the capacity to father children they are male. Extremely rare edge cases aren't a concern of mine. I'll leave all of that to the scientists and the doctors.

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

And edge cases do not invalidate trends or majorities jfc.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

You’ll ignore the cases that don’t fit your model?

[–]Penultimate_Penance 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"If they have the capacity to father children they are male." Already solved the edge case. Reading comprehension is a thing. I recommend you try it. Your point isn't as effective as you think it is.

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

So then people who lack the capacity to produce gametes are sexless?

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

Oh no, not that old saw again. Your silly contention has been refuted time & time again on this sub. Just go back & read previous threads.

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

Dear Lord, if you don't understand the English language, biology and the why we categorize things like sex the way we do there is nothing I can do to help you or enlighten you. You are starting with a conclusion and scrabbling for any crumb that may support that conclusion. The burden of proof is on you. Cite legitimate sources and give damn good reasons for reaching the conclusions you are reaching. Otherwise your arguments as usual will continue to be utterly unconvincing.

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

You can't change your sex and humans have two sexes and are sexually dimorphic.