I mean, I could link to anatomy and physiology about the reproductive realities of our species., eye. The two types of individuals that have propagated our species.
Eye, why do this to us? Males, females. The sexes that form our reproductive unit. This is like birds and bees stuff. Organss, xy, gametes. Exceptions don’t change rule… blah blah. Man, I’m sorry, but I’m running out of steam. I’ll be honest, I feel like the idea is to obfuscate until things just become absurd. Any and all consenting adults of any state of dress, name, genitalia status, sexuality, can be women That’s why I said that Zecarlo had the only reasonable argument (that I still disagree with); Don’t rock the boat, bon’t stir up emotional responses (I still disagree). We pretty much all know what the reality outside of feeling (subjective)s. Objectively… This is reflected in the marriage/dating question. Powerlifting question. First woman President question (oh how the fecal matter would hit the fan).
I feel like everyone is trying too hard to avoid simply saying “yeah, not really woman. Objectively. But don’t rock the boat.” Hey, I gave Z credit for coming close if not outright saying it.
Oh, I am wondering why do I have to positively affirm that a he is a woman. Can’t I proclaim atransiest or agttransiest status? Thanks, but I don’t believe you’re a woman? Or, I don’t know that you actually feel like a woman.
I mean, they could mistakenly think they feel like a woman, and not actually feel what a woman does.
I doubt Tiger man actually feels like a Tiger. Perhaps he thinks he does.
I have a passing familiarity with it, so the link won’t be necessary. But you’re continuing to talk about ‘reproductive sex’ when I’ve been at pains several times now to point out that the discussion concerns gender. However, if it will let us move on, I will happily stipulate your definitions of male and female vis a vis reproductive sex.
OK, now that that’s behind us, will you please define male and female with respect to gender?
Out of curiosity, do you believe any person is allowed to claim womanhood? Like a hetero man that dresses, talks, and acts in a way that you conclude (my rules) he is definitely male, urinates in the urinal next to you (but you didn’t actually look, now worries).
I mean, if “womanhood” is everything, than it isn’t anything. It has no definition at all. So why would I agree with someone that they feel “like a woman.?”
The problem is, they–“those two types”–are simply not up to the task of accounting for the myriad ways in which humans manifest gender and/or sexuality. For example, they cannot account for homosexuality, intersexuality or transgenderism. And you don’t get to simply wave away the inconvenient facts in order to save your preferred theory.
I think what you mean is, am I willing to accept any and all claims of female gender as incontestably legitimate. No.
Birth organs. Eggs or sperm, which do your gonads make?. Males (sperm, y, penis, yada) are he, him, and you get the idea. Females are she, her, and you get the idea. See, I used only two words with the traditional meaning. They were always up to the task.
And you’re using these terms as the scientific field uses them with respect to the animal kingdom. And exceptions in nature wouldn’t blow up the rule of using these terms - as in, if scientists discovered a squirrel in the wild that didn’t have specifically male or female sex characteristics because of a genetic anomaly, the scientific community wouldn’t suddenly reexamine usage of male/female with respect to squirrels - they would find a category for the anomaly and the male/female distinction would remain the same, because those labels didn’t suddenly lose meaning because of an exception to the rule. There’s nothing controversial about this - it’s common sense.
Not everyone has definitive external sex organs. Similarly, not everyone has gonads, and re those that do have them, they don’t all have gonads that function in the manner you describe. Further, of those who do possess gonads that function exactly as you describe, many have no desire whatsoever to use their so-called ‘reproductive’ organs to reproduce.
Like I said–inadequate.
(Cue Sloth waving away the counterfactuals in 3, 2, 1…)
Until/unless the number and degree of anomalies grew large enough, at which time scientists would realize the orthodox model was inadequate, and it would be thrown out in favor of one able to account for the ‘anomalies.’. Straight out of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Yeah, thinking of nature vs nurture as if they are two distinct counterpoints is simplistic, particularly since they often interact in ways that are complex and intertwined. Most of your characteristics are likely a result of complex interactions between genes and environmental factors. You may have inherited certain genes, but lifestyle and environmental factors may determine if the genes are expressed.
For example, there are known genetic variants linked to aggression, but people who were abused as children AND have inherited these genetic variants are more likely to become violent criminals.
Two identical twins may both have a breast cancer gene. One gets breast cancer, maybe because something in her environment caused the gene to be expressed. The other twin makes lifestyle choices that have a preventative effect so she never manifests the disease.
Maternal stress during the prenatal period may determine if certain genes are expressed.
Also here. The molecular biology stuff is difficult, but if you look at some of the examples in Psychology and Psychiatry it’s more accessible for most of us.