farrable said: Just wanted to let you know that your view on being able to address transwomen as biological males is disgusting especially if the person is transsexual! Rad fems call gender a social construct but for some reason fail to recognize that biological sex is also! If you don't see women who have to transition as no different from any women your ignorant. You also can't know for sure what someone's sex is! Look at women with androgyne insensitivity syndrome..

words-have-meaning:

existentialist-cunt:

Okay, so if biological sex isn’t a social construct, can you please define a male and a female?

A male is a someone who has an XY chromosome and, if he is healthy, the ability to produce sperm. He will have a prostrate gland and a penis. A female is someone who has an XX chromosome and, if she is healthy, the ability to release ova. She will lack a prostate gland, but she will have overies, a vagina, and a uterus. In other news, water is wet and fire is hot.

The penis and the clitoris are exactly the same thing, only one is statistically smaller than the other.

Let’s talk about the word “exactly.” Exactly means: “without discrepancy” or “without vagueness”. Exactly means: “in every way, 100%, every bit.” Do you actually, literally, really and truly believe that penises and clitorises are exactly the same? Do you really? Do you think that the two words are synonyms, to be used interchangeably, the same way we use the words “skull” and “cranium”? If you actually really literally believe that penises and clitorises are exactly the same thing, even though you can pee out of one and not out of the other, even though an orgasm will cause one to eject semen and the other one will never eject semen, then you might suffer from some mental disorder. More likely, you just are using words imprecisely. Further, even if penises and clitories were exactly the same thing — which they are definitively not — it doesn’t follow that male and female categories do not exist. We are a species that reproduces sexually. In order to make a baby, you need one biological male and one biological female and oh my fucking god why am I explaining this I need a really stiff drink and it’s 4 pm

You mentionned intersex people; but I don’t think you’ve factored in what their existence means. Intersex people are born with original genitalia, genitalia that completely destroys the notion that there ever was a thing as biological sex. 

Nope. It doesn’t. Intersex people should not be used as a prop in your bizarre war. Intersex people should be allowed to live their lives in peace — as should we all, basically — but they are not proof that biological sex doesn’t exist any more than Siamese twins prove that humans can sometimes have two heads.

If to be female, you must produce ova, then what is a woman that doesn’t produce it? If being a male is intrinsically about producing sperm, what is a man that doesn’t produce sperm?

Humans, as a species, have the ability to see, hear, smell, and taste. The existence of individuals who lack one or more of these senses is not proof that humans, as a species, lack these senses, and any human who lacks these senses is still human, but a human who has a medical condition that marks them as “abnormal.” I put the word in quotes because I understand that it’s hurtful, but I mean it in the mathematical sense. In this context, the word “normal” means “adhering to the central tendency”.  As a species, humans can see; some humans lack that ability, and they are still humans, just humans who don’t, in that one regard, adhere to the central tendency. They still can be awesome people. Or suck, I don’t know. Just like anyone.

I believe that all humans probably deviate from the central tendency in several ways. For example, some humans are born with an extra toe or finger. But the central tendency is still five digits per hand or foot, and that is a medical fact. A good friend of mine cannot, for whatever reason, smell anything. He just can’t. It doesn’t prove that humans, as a species, cannot smell anything. As a general rule, if you took a human at random, I’d be willing to bet a fair sum of money that he or she would have five digits per appendage, the ability to see, hear, smell, and taste to at least some degree, and would fall into the medical category of biologically male or biologically female, but not both.

A woman who can’t produce ova is probably suffering from a medical condition, or else she might be on the pill or has had tubal ligation. However, if she has an XX chromosome, then she’s still medically female. She may have non-fuctioning ovaries, but she will still have a vagina and a vulva. If a man can’t produce sperm he is either someone who underwent a vasectomy, or is suffering from a medical condition, but if he has an XY chromosome, he’s still medically male. His testes might not be producing sperm, but they will still be there. This is almost literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever had to type. For fuck’s sake, you already know this, why are we talking about it?

Seriously though, define male, define female. Some women don’t have a uterus, some women never have their period, some women never have children, some women have exceptionally big clitorises, some women are barren, some women are asexual, some women are incapable of lubricating. WOMANHOOD IS NOT ABOUT PRODUCING A SPECIFIC BODILY FLUID.

Male: XY chromosome. Above stated equipment, whether functioning or not.

Female: XX chromosome. Above stated equipment, whether functioning or not.

Did I ever say that females must produce children to prove their womenhood? And if, according to your logic, a clitoris is just a small penis, then wouldn’t that woman with the large clitoris be a man? That’s your logic, not mine. According to my own logic, a woman with a large clitoris is still someone with a clitoris so she’d be a woman.

How about this then. If womanhood is not based in biology, then WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS IT BASED OFF OF? What is womanhood? Is it… sweetness and caring? Is it… long hair and eyelashes? Is it… being sexually submissive? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK DOES THE WORD WOMAN MEAN IF IT DOESN’T MEAN SOMEONE WITH AN XX CHROMOSOME?

You’re so interested in proving that biological sex doesn’t exist — even thought it’s patently obvious that in order to make a baby we need a sperm and a ova — that you seem to need it not to exist in order to make your argument. Listen, though. Biological sex exists — and let me blow your mind — I DON’T CARE MUCH THAT IT EXISTS.

You seem to think that just because I am arguing for the existence of a factual fact, that I must think that this biological fact proves… something. It doesn’t. I just don’t understand why a movement, any movement, would base itself off of lies.

Anthropologists show that societies were built on the idea that there was such a thing as the biological sex. Human societies defined themselves on this binary (the information that we’re sending each other is coded in binary, that’s how profound and deep this idea is) , they defined their philosophies, their politics, their religion around this binary. So much so that today, we feel like this binary exists. It doesn’t. 

It still does. The fact that we are able to sexually reproduce means that biological dimorphism is a fact. However, we do not have to define philosophy, religion, or politics around it.

For example. Some people have attached earlobes, and some don’t. Mine are attached. You can look at my ears and see my earlobes are attached. That has no particular significance in my life. You most likely don’t give a shit. Why would you? I don’t even give a shit. But it’s a medical fact.

Biological males and females exist. Fine. And they can do whatever the flying fuck they want with that fact. If they want to base their behavior around the norms of what is expected from that biological sex, ok, that’s what a lot of people do. If they want to base their behavior around the norms of what is expected from the other sex, fine, I really don’t care. But don’t sit there and argue something that isn’t true because it is so ridiculous and frustrating.

Trans Women are Women just like Cis Women are Women, because Womanhood is vast and mysterious, and it is constantly redefined. 

If it is constantly redefined, who is redefining it? Are transwomen defining now what it means to be a woman? Do I, a uterus bearer, not understand what it means to be a woman as fully and completely as a transwoman does? How excellent! That isn’t at all like every other fucking aspect of my life, wherein men want to teach me all the things about the world that I could never, ever, ever understand on my own.

How about this. How about you allow for the fact that womanhood isn’t mysterious at all? How about you acknowledge that biological gender exists and then move the fuck on from it? How about you say, sure, yes, there are on this earth penises and vaginas, and that means that there are medically speaking men and women, and then say: who cares. Biology exists, and then we can just move on from it. It doesn’t have to dictate behavior or rights or responsibilities. It just… is there. It’s a realty. We have to acknowledge it or we’ll be like those people who claim they “don’t see race.” Race exists, and in order to combat racism, we have to acknowledge it, and then, it can be hoped, move the fuck on. Say, yes, of fucking course I can tell that that person is black and the other one is white, and I don’t fucking care about it, because they’re both perfectly nice people. Done. All is full of love.

You should educate yourself more thoroughly on Trans people. You would learn that some Trans women, for instance, develop breasts without taking hormones.

And some cismen produce breasts too. How many transwomen spontaneously grow vaginas or change from producing sperm to producing eggs? The answer is FUCKING NONE OF THEM and the further answer is WHO GODDAMN CARES. Transwomen can go on and do whatever the fuck they want. How many times do I have to say that? I know that they’re biologically male, but want to do the gender roles expected from women, and like… whatever. Fine. As far as I’m concerned, go for it.

Let me ask you this further. If transwomen are already women, then why do they have to transition? What are they transitioning from and what are they transitioning to?

The idea that biological sexes exist is basically a remix of the archaic idea that Women have something that sets them apart from men, intrinsically. Something that has been called the Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan or Simone de Beauvoir. 

Or something that has been called “mysterious and constantly redefined” by tumblr user existentialist-cunt.

In case you missed my point just now. You actually, yourself, argued above that womanhood is mysterious and then right now you are saying that it is an archaic notion to say that women have something that sets them apart from men intrinsically. Which is it? Are women mysterious? or does the word “woman” just refer to an adult human female?

words-have-meaning:

Let’s talk about this a little bit, little ignorant* one.

*ignorant: This word means “willfully uninformed about things that you could choose to understand if you devoted the time to it.” I strive to be someone who cannot be described as ignorant. I also know the difference between you’re and your but honestly no one likes a grammar snob so I’ll not go there. Just for you. Just today.

Because I feel an almost inescapable need to, I will take the time to explain this shit to you. I hope that you’ll actually read it and try to understand it, although you’ve already decided that you don’t want to listen to me and that I’m wrong. Remember that it is the sign of an educated mind to entertain an idea without necessarily believing it. The only way you can be sure that you do not agree with my point of view is to actually fully understand what it is. However, I don’t hold out a lot of hope that you will actually try to do that. You almost certainly will not read it with any degree of open-mindedness, care, or concern. You might even reblog this with a “la la la, I didn’t even bother to read your poison” kind of comment. So while I’m addressing this response to you, Farrable, I’m really writing it for someone else who might be reading this and who might actually keep an open mind.

You said that biological sex is a social construct. Let’s talk about why it is not.

First, we’ll have to understand what a social construct is. Social: having to do with how humans behave in groups. Construct: something that has been constructed or fabricated. An antonym would be “naturally occurring.” So a social construct is something that humans have created while operating as a group.

One example of a social construct is money. It doesn’t occur in nature. Some societies have money, and some don’t (or at least didn’t before colonization). Another example of a social construct is religion. While for whatever reason most societies have some type of religion, they vary wildly in terms of how they work. There is no universal belief that all humans share, even if they’re born on a desert island and grew up alone.

An example of something that isn’t a social construct is lifespan. It is true that with or without us believing in it, we all are born, grow older, and eventually die. Another example would be digestion and nutrition. It is a fact that we all eat and poop and stuff. It doesn’t matter whether you were born in China in the year 1700 AD, or Dubai in the year 1800, or the United States in the year 1900. You would have been born, grown older, and eventually die, along the way doing your share of eating and pooping. It’s incontrovertible.

Biological sex is not a social construct. It’s a medical and natural fact. In most of the the animal kingdom, and even some of the plant kingdom, some portion of the species produces something akin to sperm, and the other part produces something like ova. Even plants have pollen and pistils and stamens and stuff. You learned this in ninth or tenth grade biology class. It is a medical fact and it is absurd that I have to type all this up and explain it to you because you already know it.

In humans, just over 50% of babies are born biologically male — which means that they have a penis and will, at maturity, produce sperm if they are healthy — and just under 50% of babies are born biologically female — which means that they have a vagina and a full complement of ova at birth. There are also some people who are born intersex, in the same way that there are people born with an extra toe. These intersex people are perfectly worthwhile and fully human, as deserving of love, concern, empathy, and rights as anyone else, but they aren’t “proof” that biological sex doesn’t exist any more than the existence of people with extra toes means that humans are born with a completely random number of toes at all times. They aren’t. You know that.

Just because biological sex exists doesn’t mean that we have to ascribe a lot of meaning to it. But some people do, and that’s where gender comes in. Sociological gender is when we say things like “men wear pants and women wear skirts,” even though in other cultures, the opposite can and has been the case. It is not naturally occurring or universal.

I really honestly do not give a shit how people want to dress or walk or wear their hair or anything like that. If biological males want to wear make up and/or frilly clothes, go for it. If biological females want to forgo hair removal and make up, I think that’s just fine. Within the boundaries of courtesy and common sense, I don’t really care how you behave, either. Anyone who wants to ignore the gender constructs of society can do so with my blessing. But biological realities are just that: realities.

I wish no one harm. Honestly, I don’t. I’ve explained my issues with transactivism in a whole lot of other posts and it would be absurd to have to type it here all again so I won’t. I will just say this: you can call an apple an “orange” but you won’t get much vitamin C from it. You can call the ceiling a “floor” but you can’t sit on it. You can call a biological male a “woman” but he will never produce ova so he is not a biological female.

Whatever your issues are with radfems, or whatever your stance on transactivism is, it is absurd for anyone, on either side of the conversation, to willfully put your fingers in your ears and shout “LA LA LA!” when others speak of medical realities. It’s fine with me if you want to talk about respecting pronouns or whatever, but as you do so, do not just randomly spout complete falsehoods. They don’t do your case any good.

It reminds me a little of the pro-life folk who say things like abortion causes cancer. Abortion doesn’t cause cancer, as has been shown again and again, and regardless of someone’s stance on abortion, it is absolutely absurd to try to argue a case by citing complete lies. It makes it look as if you don’t have a real leg to stand on when you do that — doesn’t it?

A movement that utilizes flat-out falsehoods as a cornerstone of its argument is questionable at best. Don’t act like that, folks. As you argue your points about transwomen, don’t ignore biological realities such as the divide between biological males and biological females. It makes you look foolish and it makes it almost impossible for us to have a conversation of any quality.

PS I have no idea what you were trying to say by pointing out that some people have various medical issues such as androgyne insensitivity syndrome. I don’t walk around making assumptions about people’s biological sex just to harass people who I think are male, for fuck’s sake.

PPS I’m going to reply to your other nasty ask when I get around to it because wowee wow do I have a lot to say about a name that you called me.

But we are human beings, not plants, not flowers, not dolphins, not bacteria. Human beings. The size of our brains evolved faster than the size of Women’s hips, thus the human baby is intrinsically prematured. As the human baby is prematured, he needs to be taken care of. He is socialised immediately. So the traits we think are intrinsically female (or male) because they appear rapidly in a child’s upbringing (typically sensitivity for females and violence for males) is only the direct consequence of the gender roles we thrust onto our babies when they are born.

We’re human beings, yes. I think I’ve been arguing that all along? And… yes… I know that stuff about the brains and the hips — did I ever say that wasn’t true? But despite all that, we are still primates. We still reproduce sexually. It is still a fact.

What’s so ridiculously bizarre is that I completely fucking agree with the last sentence you typed. It is my point as well. See, I don’t need for biological sex not to exist in order to believe that sociological gender shouldn’t exist. That’s where you and I differ. We both think that sociological gender is a load of bullshit. But you are basing your argument on a complete fallacy, whereas I am looking the facts in the eye, nodding and acknowledging them, and then saying, I DON’T CARE.

A baby is born. The doctor notices the presence of a penis and the absence of a vagina, marking the baby as biologically male and one who, someday, might produce sperm that form one half of a baby. What happens next is up to society. Should that baby be taught to be active and loud and not respect boundaries and to always hide his feelings and that he is entitled to women’s time? Should that baby be taught to be quiet and respectful, should his abilities be discounted, should his parents set smaller goals for him and feed him somewhat less food?

My stance is: neither of those things. Regardless of biological sex, all children should be taught to respect one another, should be encouraged to dress and behave in whatever way seems comfortable (assuming the bounds of courtesy and common sense), and should be respected as equally competent in terms of emotional expression and mathematical ability.

Remember further that knowing that something exists is not the same thing as thinking it’s super important. Transwomen are biologically male, sure, that’s a fact, but it doesn’t have to mean everything in the world. Like, they can do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they’re not shaming lesbians for not having sex with them or arguing that they are the “real” women and women-born-women are somehow not real. I don’t care. I don’t know how many times I have to say that.