I think I understand what you’re driving at, and to me, genetically we are either male or female. This is a scientific truth, and not a matter of opinion or social construct.
In all walks of nature, with the exception of hermaphroditic organisms, or those that reproduce by mitosis (or similar biological process), all complex/multi-cellular life has genetic instructions for the sex of the organism.
From a scientific perspective, genetic males would form the appropriate structures for fertilization, in most or all primates, sperm. Conversely females would develop structures to produce ovum. There are genetic abnormalities that can happen, and they are largely outliers at most.
Since genetic manipulation isn’t legal to perform on humans, this cannot be altered with the current laws (and/or technology). Therefore those born with the XY gene (males) will always have that genetic coding, and those born with the XX gene (females) would equally always have that coding.
At present it is, in my opinion, the only thing we cannot change about an individual when performing a procedure such as SRS.
with all that being said : none of this negates or otherwise changes the fact that every individual person can, and should, have full rights to be who they are most comfortable being. Whether you have XX or XY genes, is not an important factor when discussing gender, and other gender based social constructs. It is irrelevant to the discussion. What a man is, or what a woman is, is entirely a discussion surrounding social constructs. Anyone who attempts to isolate people into whatever their genes indicate their gender was when they were incubated, is trying to tie an entirely social construct to a scientific qualification. Those two things are so different that they can not, and should not be tied together in any way, shape, or form.
Your genetics do not dictate who you are socially.
the problem is that this is only generally true, a not insignificant amount of people have confusing genetics and still look like a standard man/woman, some people outright have both genitals (or at least parts of them) that function just fine, things just aren’t quite so simple.
The way i see it is that there’s a biological basis to male/female, but it’s far from absolute and there isn’t really any benefit to continuing to have the general concept of sex and gender in our day-to-day lives.
Better to just think of people as people and nothing else, and leave sex/gender for scientists to use when they judge it actually makes sense.
Some people have uteruses, some have testicles, no one should really care unless they’re selling underwear or looking to have fun with what’s contained in said underwear.
‘female’ and ‘male’ are just labels that have been applied to bodies, parts, genes etc. They aren’t necessary labels. We can more than explain things without calling anything them, so no, it is not a ‘scientific truth’ (also science doesn’t have truth nor facts, just suggestions and evidence because its goal is to understand, not to dictate), they are merely unnecessary labels to describe natural phenomena.
There is nothing in nature that binds language and thus labels to natural phenomena, just people deciding to do that. Again, they are unnecessary and everything can be described without resorting to such limiting, transphobic and biologically essentialist concepts.
i basically agree with you, but i just want to say that i think this ended up sounding a bit too aggressive for people to avoid their own biases. like just a heads up about that.
If you just lop off the end bit it’d probably go down a lot easier.
Thanks, I’ll think about how to put it better as I still think there’s some value in the end bit.
You might be correct about people not being able to avoid their biases, I am not always great at expressing things in a way which makes people not do so because I can be very direct.
Male and female are terms that differentiate between organisms that create material that fertilizes or organisms that create material that gets fertilized.
IMO, your own bias is incorrectly coloring those terms. So for an example, let’s take humans, primates, and even animals out of the mix.
Plants create pollen, instead of sperm, and seeds instead of ovum/eggs, but functionally they serve the same functions. In plants there are male, pollen making plants, and female, seed making plants.
Male, and female, as terms, are not matters of opinion, or social constructs in this context. They are definitions of whether an organism has the genetic instructions to create material that fertilizes, or material that gets fertilized.
Applying human social constructs for the terms should not be done in a scientific context, like when we’re discussing genetics.
I think I understand what you’re driving at, and to me, genetically we are either male or female. This is a scientific truth, and not a matter of opinion or social construct.
In all walks of nature, with the exception of hermaphroditic organisms, or those that reproduce by mitosis (or similar biological process), all complex/multi-cellular life has genetic instructions for the sex of the organism.
From a scientific perspective, genetic males would form the appropriate structures for fertilization, in most or all primates, sperm. Conversely females would develop structures to produce ovum. There are genetic abnormalities that can happen, and they are largely outliers at most.
Since genetic manipulation isn’t legal to perform on humans, this cannot be altered with the current laws (and/or technology). Therefore those born with the XY gene (males) will always have that genetic coding, and those born with the XX gene (females) would equally always have that coding.
At present it is, in my opinion, the only thing we cannot change about an individual when performing a procedure such as SRS.
with all that being said : none of this negates or otherwise changes the fact that every individual person can, and should, have full rights to be who they are most comfortable being. Whether you have XX or XY genes, is not an important factor when discussing gender, and other gender based social constructs. It is irrelevant to the discussion. What a man is, or what a woman is, is entirely a discussion surrounding social constructs. Anyone who attempts to isolate people into whatever their genes indicate their gender was when they were incubated, is trying to tie an entirely social construct to a scientific qualification. Those two things are so different that they can not, and should not be tied together in any way, shape, or form.
Your genetics do not dictate who you are socially.
the problem is that this is only generally true, a not insignificant amount of people have confusing genetics and still look like a standard man/woman, some people outright have both genitals (or at least parts of them) that function just fine, things just aren’t quite so simple.
The way i see it is that there’s a biological basis to male/female, but it’s far from absolute and there isn’t really any benefit to continuing to have the general concept of sex and gender in our day-to-day lives.
Better to just think of people as people and nothing else, and leave sex/gender for scientists to use when they judge it actually makes sense.
Some people have uteruses, some have testicles, no one should really care unless they’re selling underwear or looking to have fun with what’s contained in said underwear.
‘female’ and ‘male’ are just labels that have been applied to bodies, parts, genes etc. They aren’t necessary labels. We can more than explain things without calling anything them, so no, it is not a ‘scientific truth’ (also science doesn’t have truth nor facts, just suggestions and evidence because its goal is to understand, not to dictate), they are merely unnecessary labels to describe natural phenomena.
There is nothing in nature that binds language and thus labels to natural phenomena, just people deciding to do that. Again, they are unnecessary and everything can be described without resorting to such limiting, transphobic and biologically essentialist concepts.
i basically agree with you, but i just want to say that i think this ended up sounding a bit too aggressive for people to avoid their own biases. like just a heads up about that.
If you just lop off the end bit it’d probably go down a lot easier.
Thanks, I’ll think about how to put it better as I still think there’s some value in the end bit.
You might be correct about people not being able to avoid their biases, I am not always great at expressing things in a way which makes people not do so because I can be very direct.
Male and female are terms that differentiate between organisms that create material that fertilizes or organisms that create material that gets fertilized.
IMO, your own bias is incorrectly coloring those terms. So for an example, let’s take humans, primates, and even animals out of the mix.
Plants create pollen, instead of sperm, and seeds instead of ovum/eggs, but functionally they serve the same functions. In plants there are male, pollen making plants, and female, seed making plants.
Male, and female, as terms, are not matters of opinion, or social constructs in this context. They are definitions of whether an organism has the genetic instructions to create material that fertilizes, or material that gets fertilized.
Applying human social constructs for the terms should not be done in a scientific context, like when we’re discussing genetics.