this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
-23 points (18.9% liked)
Conservatives
104 readers
3 users here now
Pro-conservative discussions
Rules
- Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
- We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
- Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
- Attack the topic, not the person
- Report violations of the rules
- Downvotes are disabled
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nothing of the science requires any social distinction on the basis of what gametes (if any) an individual produces.
Any such distinction you - or anyone - cares to make about any individual is not based on science.
Do you agree with the basic scientific consensus, that sex is binary and immutable?
Do you agree with the advanced scientific consesnus, that sex is not binary?
Gamete size is binary. It's sperm or eggs, there's no "spergs" or "speggs". The advanced scientific consensus is exactly that sex is defined by gamete size. You won't be able to cite anything else, because that's the plain reality.
There is no such consensus. Scientifically, "sex" is so much more complicated. Hormones, hormone receptors, gonads, genitalia, secondary sex characteristics, and reproductive gametes, to name just a few of the components of biological sex.
People who are biologically known to be inter-sex (never mind anything about gender or identity) outnumber those with natural red hair.
But all of this is relatively unimportant. Only a doctor would ever need to know most of these things about a person, and only a doctor or a potential sexual partner would need to know the others. There's no circumstance in which anyone else needs to know any of these details about a person in order to decide how their interactions with that person should go. Especially not anyone who doesn't have a close personal relationship with the person. Gender is how someone expresses themselves in society, and that's the only thing that matters in most circumstances.
Sex is defined by gamete size. You're confusing sex with phenotype/genotype. Intersex people still produce one of two gamete sizes
Do you know what gametes I produce, if any? Do you need to know what gametes I might produce in order to conduct this conversation?
I think I'm managing to convey my meaning to you, and receiving your meaning in return, without knowledge of what's happening in your abdomen/pelvis.
Whatever concern you have about the terms "sex", "binary", and "immutable", it isn't scientific.
It doesn't matter what I think of you. The reality is that you produce one of two gamete sizes, and that determines your biological sex. This is binary and immutable. If you can't agree with scientific consensus that's fine, just be honest.
Exactly. Now you're getting it.
Until you are trying to produce offspring with them, or providing them with medical treatment, you have precisely zero interest in the sex of another person, let alone a scientific interest.
The only interests you have in anyone else is social, and the boundaries of social interaction do not extend to gamete production.
It doesn't matter what I think of you, a person on the internet. It takes an immense amount of privilege to claim that sex doesn't matter in the real world.
Don't speak over women.
Where did I make such a claim?
My claim was that the specific gametes an individual may or may not produce is not socially relevant. Whether a person is socially a "man" or a "woman" is not a question of what gamete (if any) they produce. The offense you are taking above is to your own position.
Science has no interest in this social issue. Science's concern is only with regard to the medical needs of the individual. Unless you are trying to procreate with them, or provide them with medical treatment, you have precisely zero interest the nature of their gametes.
https://reduxx.info/canada-trans-identified-male-charged-after-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-multiple-women-while-staying-at-a-womens-shelter/
Women deserve their own spaces, free of men. Women want their own spaces.
Men that feel like women are still men and can have their own spaces, but don't get women's spaces
You're denying reality. That man didn't care how the people he assaulted identified as. Men don't care if the women they rape identify as men.
Stop speaking over women.
To my way of thinking, rape is wrong regardless of what gamete the rapist produces; regardless of what gamete the victim produces.
You defined "sex" on the basis of "gamete production". So, my comment should be read as:
Socially, the presence of a beard is a far more relevant characteristic than the specific gamete an individual produces. Or the timbre of someone's voice. When a 6'2", 250lb person with a heavy beard and a deep, booming voice, claims to be a man and walks into the women's restroom, the fact that they actually produce the larger, "egg" gamete isn't particularly relevant.
I didn't define sex that way, the entire field of biology did. That's literally the biological definition. You're pushing unscientific nonsense if you claim otherwise
You are conflating scientific issues with social issues.
The social factors are that a person claiming to be a man, wears masculine clothing, has masculine physical characteristics, such as a beard, large physical stature, deep voice, yet this person is trying to enter a female restroom.
The science says this person produces the larger, "egg" gamete, and is therefore female. By your "scientific" argument, this person-claiming-to-be-a-man is actually a women, and therefore entitled to the use of this women-only space.
Your interests here are social, not scientific. That this man produces eggs is not a significant factor; this is a social issue, not a scientific one. You have precisely zero interest in the biological condition of this person; this person is a man, just as they claim to be. The fact that they produce egg cells is not at all relevant: this egg-producing man should be denied access to this women-only space. The fact that they produce egg cells should not be a defense against their conduct.
There is nothing "scientific" about prohibiting this egg-producing man from using a restroom used by women. The only winning argument you have for keeping that FtM man out of the ladies room is social.
Yes, i'm left wondering... when does this ever come up? Are biologists complaining about this constantly in peoples minds?