So here’s a question. When is a consenting adult not a woman? What if he is born with a penis, acts masculine as can be, has XY chromosomes, and is strictly hetero (dates 'never had a penis women exclusively)?
A man that looks and acts like a man, makes zero attempt at femming it up…But just wants to be called a woman.
Here’s a better question: why does it matter?
I demonstrated that gender cannot be reduced to the presence/absence of either a penis or a y chromosome. Genotype can be reduced to one’s genes, and phenotype to one’s physical makeup. But neither genotype nor phenotype is a synonym for gender.
Eyes have a number of functions. But be forewarned not to stumble into a teleological trap with this line of argument.
Are humans a species with sight as one of their senses?
Are humans a bipedal animal?
You mean, by definition?
Oops. Meant to edit. Oh well. Again.
Unless you’re about to put forth a very disturbing argument, it would appear bipedality is not a defining characteristic of humans.
So you are saying humans are not bi-pedal animals? Because I found an exception? A medical condition? To be clear?
Eye, c’mon man…
Humans, birds and (occasionally) apes walk bipedally. Humans, birds, many lizards and (at their highest speeds) cockroaches run bipedally. Kangaroos, some rodents and many birds hop bipedally, and jerboas and crows use a skipping gait. This paper deals only with walking and running bipeds.
You’ve been using jokey trap lines lately. You should have seen this coming lol
Noun. defining characteristic (plural defining characteristics) A property held by all members of a class of object that is so distinctive that it is sufficient to determine membership in that class. A property that defines that which possesses it
Shall I continue with authoritative/reliable mainstream references? Or do exceptions rule?
Best post so far in this thread. Shame it’s been passed by. Have you listened to Joe Rogan interviewing ‘Kermit’?
So you’re saying that, by definition, all humans are bipeds, except for the ones that aren’t. Do I have that right?
Nope. I am (I’m) saying empirical science says Humans ARE bipedal animals. The abnormalities, medical conditions, and so on do not change this. The exception doesn’t change the rule.
I’m not sure what is being signified by CAPITALIZING the word are. Can you unpack it for me? I don’t want to presume.
Edit: Or, you could save us all some time and simply define the terms male and female vis a vis states of gender. (I’ve been asking this of you for a while now.)
I don’t have to define male and female. They’re the reproductive sexes. XY, gametes, sexual characteristics. So on.
You do if you wish to put forth an argument concerning maleness and femaleness.
Yet another term you’ve thrown out, but refused to define.
Further, you will note I asked you to define male and female “vis a vis states of gender,” not with regard to ‘reproductive sex’ (whatever that means).