Right, which would entail not recognizing or labeling anyone as man, male, woman or female. Essentially we would erase gender/sex and the related terms from our vocabulary. Transgenders want to be recognized as the opposite sex/gender. You can't have your cake and eat it too.I was recently advised by my employer that some people have variable gender. They just go with how they feel when they wake up. My employer requested that I get used to gender neutral speech so as to avoid offending people accidently.
That's how it works. — frank
:roll: The logic is just so bad here.Sex has in mind something more tham just difference in anatomy.
When we use sex, we are not dedicated to identifying anatomical parts. We are interested in identifying which people are male and which people are female. It’s why we don’t just point out an anatomical difference by describing their are different anatomical parts. It’s a self-defined identity. Rather than just describing what bodies people have, it’s an attempt to capture our bodies under specific conceptual meanings. Sex is a categorisation of who takes on an identity of male or female. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these. If you did a principal components analysis using the combination of all five traits, you’d find two widely separated clusters with very few people in between. Those clusters are biological realities, just as horses and donkeys are biological realities, even though they can produce hybrids (sterile mules) that fall morphologically in between.
If sex were purely a social construct, sexual selection wouldn’t work: males would look identical to females. That difference itself suggests that there’s a biological reality to sex, and that this biological reality—the correlation of chromosomal constitution with reproductive traits and with secondary sexual traits—is what has caused both behavioral and morphological differences between the sexes. If sex were purely a social construct, then male deer wouldn’t have antlers, male peacocks wouldn’t have long tails, human females wouldn’t have breasts, etc. — Harry Hindu
Your employer is just jumping on the mass delusion bandwagon. — Harry Hindu
Deers don't need to be male to have antlers, humans don't need to be female to have breasts. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This account of sex does not work for anyone. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The failure is there is there is acually no descprtion. If you are dealing with the body, then the terms which describe it are that a body exists. To speak of this notion of sex does not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Sex does not. In this case, it is just our just-so story of who is supposed to nurse on account of the identity of sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It doesn't uneven get those with breast right: some of them don't nurse, some of them cannot nurse — TheWillowOfDarkness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.