... which, in this worldview, is to assume a reproductive role which is somehow immanent in the body, regardless of the possibility of fulfilling such a role. This is, somehow, "objective biology". The physical effects of hormones and surgery are, I guess, just "subjective" in this world view. - ThreadSky

lousadzak.bsky.social • 4 days ago

... which, in this worldview, is to assume a reproductive role which is somehow immanent in the body, regardless of the possibility of fulfilling such a role.

This is, somehow, "objective biology".

The physical effects of hormones and surgery are, I guess, just "subjective" in this world view.

Comments

skyyks.bsky.social•3 days ago

📌

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

This is the topsy-turvy place that this definition takes us to, where a hypothetical (and in practice undecideable) purpose of the body can be deemed to be "objective biology" whereas the actual physical state of a body is declared irrelevant.

indiawilloughby.bsky.social•3 days ago

📌

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

This also goes to a favourite assertion of anti-trans thought, that the lack of a "third gamete" means that there is no "third sex"...

itsdvw.bsky.social•4 days ago

Even if it were defined by the presence or absence of gamete production, having two options, either of which can be present or absent, isn't a binary system! If we rule out the possibility of both present (afaik that's never been observed though there's evidence of one case), it's a ternary system!

buckmeister.bsky.social•4 days ago

Quaternary really; A, B, A&B, Neither

itsdvw.bsky.social•4 days ago

That's why I stipulated ruling out both being present together; as far as my 5 minute internet search could tell no one has ever been confirmed as producing both eggs and sperm.

buckmeister.bsky.social•4 days ago

I think there are intersex folk with both testicular and ovarian tissue. I think you're right that no such people produce both gametes (probably produce neither). But under the above definition they would have the potential to produce both?

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

That's why they rely on what I call "subjunctive gametes": the gametes you would produce if you did even though you don't. The gametes that you have the "function" to produce even if you don't function in a way that produces them.

I mean, this model requires this ridiculous epicycle...

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

... of "subjunctive gametes" to be brought into play simply so everyone can be shoehorned into one of two categories.

It has no relationship to physical reality.

itsdvw.bsky.social•4 days ago

And there are real people who don't fit in their categories no matter how they change their definition.

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

... which is a strawman entirely.

Noting that a binary definition of sex does not adequately characterize the range of physical variations that exist in the sexual characteristics of bodies is not an argument that a "third sex" exists. It's just a call for "sex" to be accurately modeled.

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

But this is all about imposing a crude classification for political purposes. Partly it aims to eradicate the social reality that trans and intersex people exist. More broadly, it is part of imposing a complementarian "biology is destiny" ideology which defines who you can be in terms of "sex".

massivruss.bsky.social•4 days ago

“But this is all about imposing a crude classification for political purposes.”

The essence of white supremacist thought is the imposition of a “crude classification” of skin tone for “political purposes”.

The purpose being domination.

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

Thus we see a statement that "biological differences" require "sex-specific practices" in medicine which will, I predict, be broadly used to enforce gendered practices of all kinds under the banner of "health".

lousadzak.bsky.social•4 days ago

The broad nature of enforcement this implies is spelled out in the last paragraph, with the mantra of "protecting women" in place, which in practice will be very much "protection" in the vein of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."

auska.esq•3 days ago

Ah — it *is* decideable, and it's the ultimate point of it. The two sexes are the impregnators, and the child-bearing vessels and this is verified through impregnation and childbirth.

And yes, that excludes and implies exactly all of who and what it seems to.

That is the fundamental ideology.

snoopsqueak.com•4 days ago

Thank you for this thorough explanation. More people suffer from backwards thinking than people seem to realize, it is alarming.

Baffling how often I hear sentiments like "let them be wrong, it's not hurting you." Being right matters to EVERYONE. Our beliefs influence actions in our shared world.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply