Sadly no. I’m leftist, but also not willing to abandon science because it feels nice. Right wingers are right on this like a broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Or that Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is wrong or bad. Pick your favorite analogy
Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.
Nobody’s body is a blank slate. Just because one developmental pathway didn’t turn out as expected doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to determine sex. Their bodies are still organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes, hence binary.
organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes
This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in the binary?
That means that that kind of organization has a goal?
That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.
I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?
To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.
You’re asking questions that are great, but are philosophical and go beyond this topic. Narrowly, the human body could be said to have a goal of reproducing in the same way a falling rock has a goal of reaching the ground. It’s clear how the physics play out, but there’s nothing that turns that “is” into an “ought”
So, just how you can’t say that a rock on an even platform has failed to fall, I don’t think you can say that an intersex individual has failed to produce gametes. Since neither had intention. Therefore I feel like your binary definition is extraphysical. Given that, I think you’d understand why I wouldn’t accept such a religious adjacent idea.
I wish this were for fun. Unfortunately, you’re being anti-science
Nah, you’re just taking crap because of your political indoctrination. We can read your post history.
Stupid enough to be hoodwinked into supporting right wingers is often stupid enough to refuse to understand even when people explain.
Sadly no. I’m leftist, but also not willing to abandon science because it feels nice. Right wingers are right on this like a broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Or that Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is wrong or bad. Pick your favorite analogy
Lol. Leftist like “Dems are evil, don’t ever let them win” or leftist like “Trump is a fascist cunt who should have been kept from power”
Being anti trans is classic hater territory, which is why it attracts right wingers.
As in the latter. Trump is a fascist cunt who should have been kept from power.
I don’t expect you to believe it, but realizing that biology is real doesn’t mean being anti-trans.
And yet here you are, trolling users up and down a trans supportive thread.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Hateful is as hateful does.
Bully is as bullying does.
Why do you think being trans supportive means denying basic science? That’s awfully transphobic of you
Says the one spending all day spouting anti trans talking points up and down a trans supportive thread.
Sorry, I’m not the one saying that being trans supportive is at odds with scientific consensus. You’re the one spouting off transphobia here
Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.
Nobody’s body is a blank slate. Just because one developmental pathway didn’t turn out as expected doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to determine sex. Their bodies are still organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes, hence binary.
This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in the binary? That means that that kind of organization has a goal?
That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.
I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?
To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.
You’re asking questions that are great, but are philosophical and go beyond this topic. Narrowly, the human body could be said to have a goal of reproducing in the same way a falling rock has a goal of reaching the ground. It’s clear how the physics play out, but there’s nothing that turns that “is” into an “ought”
So, just how you can’t say that a rock on an even platform has failed to fall, I don’t think you can say that an intersex individual has failed to produce gametes. Since neither had intention. Therefore I feel like your binary definition is extraphysical. Given that, I think you’d understand why I wouldn’t accept such a religious adjacent idea.