We've always done this in one way or another. If "He is a feminine man" makes sense to you, you too instinctively see gender as something different to biological organs. It's annoying to discuss and attempt to define sharply tho so I tend not to get into it.
Just say that then. That, for you, sex is just about reproductive systems so you'll divide people that way. Meanwhile, the science will go on discovering that actually brains and hormones etc are sexed too and trans people have those more like the opposite sex to their genitals.
-
-
So trans women with intact male bodies can and do ‘father’ children; where does this reproductive reality fit in your view?
-
It's a reproductive reality?
-
Male and female are sexual reproductive categories. When the law refers to men and women this is what it means. You seem to be arguing for gender identity to be the legal definition resulting in ‘women’ ‘fathering’ children. It’s quite irrational.
-
OK. You think that and dismiss me then. I really can't be bothered to argue about it any more.
-
I’m not putting forward a theory; it’s an observation. How do you reconcile the two?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Only same-sex attracted trans ppl have been found to have brains somewhat more typical of the opp. sex in some respects. The majority of males identifying as women are not same-sex attracted and have typical male brains in those areas.
-
Really? Are you sure? I have seen no such distinction. Where is this?
-
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 … Granted there is only one study on non-homosexual MtFs, but it did show them to have regular male brains in regions where male and female brains differ. They did have some brain difference from other people, but not in regions where M and F brains differ.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That is a really weird and incoherent thing to say. Sex is by defintion about reproduction. You are removing an anchor and allowing the concept to drift off into an ocean of gobbledegook. That is why you can no longer define the central terms.
-
What might be a coherent thing to say is something like “some males have brains that are typically more likely to be found in females’. Male brains show a range of features. They are still male brains found in men. A man who could father a baby by impregnation with sperm.
-
If male and female isn’t defined by biology how can we even identify or discover what is a ‘male’ or ‘female’ brain?
-
Only by assertion. This is the central sexist, regressive idea at the heart of gender ideology. The rot. And it is incredible that ‘progressive’ people fall for it.
-
But perhaps- that group might not know that much science? We none of us know everything! My area is medicine- and therefore biology is central to what do- but I’d be lost in politics or economics!
-
I think all of us can demand clarity, coherence, evidence and rationality. We should not accept evasion, unnecessary reconditeness, fallacies and mere assertions.
-
No indeed- (though not sure what reconditeness is- must look it up) yes it’s strange- not accepting a straightforward understanding of biological sex (ie reproductive). Can’t really understand why at all-
-
I’ll use more straightforward language. It’s a fucking mystery to me too!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, I have pointed this out to say that people who say they are non-binary are probably more accurately describing their biology than people who say they're the opposite sex to gonads. But people don't need to describe their biology when they say what their perception is.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.