>(There aren't only two "sexes" in humans, for example. It's much more complicated, and we do a disservice by not teaching advanced biology.)
I disagree with that one. To me, "more than two sexes" would mean more than two sexes that actually mean something for reproduction. But humans don't have that. Other creatures do, but mammals don't.
I disagree with that one. To me, "more than two sexes" would mean more than two sexes that actually mean something for reproduction. But humans don't have that. Other creatures do, but mammals don't.
Completely agree about prioritising truth over political convenience, though.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
I know, but as far as I'm aware, intersex people either can't reproduce or can only reproduce as either male or female.
It would be really weird if they could reproduce as an actual third (or fourth, or fifth, etc) sex that it's neither male nor female.
It would be really weird if they could reproduce as an actual third (or fourth, or fifth, etc) sex that it's neither male nor female.
Possibly, but I still wouldn't consider them sexes but rather abnormalities (with no value judgment attached).
A lot of disorders and conditions are relevant to medical treatment I am sure.
A lot of disorders and conditions are relevant to medical treatment I am sure.
That was an interesting video. Thank you. I will send it to my "TERF" aunt. I think she will find it interesting.
My proposal is that sex be considered a matter of function rather than form. I.e. if you can reproduce as a woman, I.e. get pregnant after being inseminated by a man, then you are a woman. If you can reproduce as a man, I.e. inseminate a woman and get her pregnant, then you are a man. I don't know if anyone like this actually exists (according to that video @mattwalshblog doesn't seem to think so), but if you can reproduce as both a man and a woman, then you are both a man and a woman. And if you can't reproduce at all, then you are neither.
I'm not suggesting that this is an objectively correct system of categorisation (in fact, I do not believe that such a thing exists (but certain systems are more *useful* than others)) but it is an interesting system of categorisation, and one that isn't being forced by political partisans (yet, anyway).
I don't know what the video presenter means by saying that Matt Walsh's views justify a "patriarchy" or what "patriarchy" means to him exactly.
I also don't know if Matt Walsh really believes that people should be forced to live as their biological sex or sex assigned at birth or if that's just the presenter's interpretation but that sounds highly authoritarian and I don't agree with it.
My proposal is that sex be considered a matter of function rather than form. I.e. if you can reproduce as a woman, I.e. get pregnant after being inseminated by a man, then you are a woman. If you can reproduce as a man, I.e. inseminate a woman and get her pregnant, then you are a man. I don't know if anyone like this actually exists (according to that video @mattwalshblog doesn't seem to think so), but if you can reproduce as both a man and a woman, then you are both a man and a woman. And if you can't reproduce at all, then you are neither.
I'm not suggesting that this is an objectively correct system of categorisation (in fact, I do not believe that such a thing exists (but certain systems are more *useful* than others)) but it is an interesting system of categorisation, and one that isn't being forced by political partisans (yet, anyway).
I don't know what the video presenter means by saying that Matt Walsh's views justify a "patriarchy" or what "patriarchy" means to him exactly.
I also don't know if Matt Walsh really believes that people should be forced to live as their biological sex or sex assigned at birth or if that's just the presenter's interpretation but that sounds highly authoritarian and I don't agree with it.
@soatok Okay, maybe that was actually a silly categorization system. I was just trying something out.
@admitsWrongIfProven @soatok
>After all, if you should feel the need to reproduce, it would be a rather big decision worthy of a few extra words, no reasonable person would expect you to just take a sex declaration as enough.
Not sure what you mean by that.
>As long as you don't plan to be intimate with someone, what harm does it do to you by which metric they define themselves?
It doesn't. I'm not offended by how people define themselves. I was just trying out a new way to think of sex.
>After all, if you should feel the need to reproduce, it would be a rather big decision worthy of a few extra words, no reasonable person would expect you to just take a sex declaration as enough.
Not sure what you mean by that.
>As long as you don't plan to be intimate with someone, what harm does it do to you by which metric they define themselves?
It doesn't. I'm not offended by how people define themselves. I was just trying out a new way to think of sex.
@soatok
>Not only is it is unscientific and ahistorical to do so,
How so?
>but it creates ... unnecessary social conflict when my goal isn't to participate in more Internet arguments.
Wouldn't this be, as you rightly condemned, letting political convenience get in the way of the pursuit of truth?
>Not only is it is unscientific and ahistorical to do so,
How so?
>but it creates ... unnecessary social conflict when my goal isn't to participate in more Internet arguments.
Wouldn't this be, as you rightly condemned, letting political convenience get in the way of the pursuit of truth?
@lizzy Very good point.
I actually changed my mind about that categorization.
I can't remember exactly what I was thinking when I posted that, but IIRC I had already thought of that argument.
I actually changed my mind about that categorization.
I can't remember exactly what I was thinking when I posted that, but IIRC I had already thought of that argument.