the attempts to account for that take the form of 1) those people have/had the 'potential' to produce gametes, under different circumstances, even if they don't or never do, & 2) those individuals are 'designed' to produce one or the other, even if they do not
Comments
To call 46, XY people with vulvas (people with CAIS) “males” is pretty ridiculous
Yes humans are sexually dimorphic, but biological sex is bimodal in practice.
Like they literally went from it's your secondary sex characteristics to it's your chromosomes to it's what gametes you make to it's what gametes I THINK you should make, lmao
Hilarious shit if it wasn't so malicious
That's why it doesn't phase them when you shoot one down with actual logic and reason. They just throw out another, and another.
Ultimately it comes down to transphobes deciding what a person is and retroactively justifying that view.
They are categories we draw around reality using various concepts to make it easier to understand & talk about.
But these categories don't actually exist in nature; they're human linguistic conventions that exist to help our human brains communicate
There is only utility in these categorical constructs if we can acknowledge that we are using them and recognize when we're trying to apply a category concept to a situation it is not appropriate for.
It covers a case of a human chimera with both testes and ovaries.
We've known for over two decades that determination of sex isn't simple.
also if the book your reading is by/references Emma Hilton you should know she believes humans are designed like buses for a bus route
Saviours & defenders of reason, of western civilisation, of women… but what always stays the same is the focus on their own ego
There's no consistency.
Managing that complexity and ambiguity is half of the reason biology is difficult. I distrust anyone trying to file that down to make sociological or societal prescriptions.
I've talked to many atheists, and I have met those who get so angry about religion they slip into sounding quite a lot like a militant theist.
Atheism is literally an absolute, complete lack of belief of any kind. If there is no empirical objective proof of its existence, then it doesn't exist. That's atheism. A true atheist would think words like "destiny" slurs. Are these fools too cowardly to call themselves agnostic?