Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 11:41 pm
If ^ this is a biological reality, why couldn’t gradations of such a thing be a reality? And if gradations of such a thing are a reality, then what kind of
construct would we use to describe someone who isn’t 100% biological female/male, because even though their outward appearance is that of a female/male, any number of inward things, from plumbing to neural wiring, is that of a the sex opposite of their outward appearance.
A man (because society has defined what a male looks and feels like) on the outside, but a woman (because society has defined what a female looks and feels like) on the inside? What do we call these people who are so constructed after the manner shown and described above, or of its endless varieties?
They’re generally defined as transgender, because they don’t fit the biological ‘norm’ and are transitional in a literal sense.
So. In effect, is a woman a woman if they’re 38% genetically and hormonally a male? Are they less of a woman who is 11% male, or 1%? If a 60% female can be a woman, then can a 49.5% female be a woman?
In other words, can a person who presents as a woman, but because genetically and hormonally they’re actually 58% male, still be considered a female through dress and mannerisms? I’d say yes. This is how and why gender is considered a construct, along with social evolution that demanded roles for males and females, and forced the ‘in-betweener’ to choose one or the other.
How is this so difficult to either understand or to accept that braying loudly and consistently is the only recourse left to the doggedly dunning-krugers?
- Doc
It is not a question of what we look like, but what we are, at least in my opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong…but what you are implying here is that you, as a member of society, want to change the 5000 +- year old accepted norm for what a man and woman are? Not because it is right, or wrong…science has nothing to do with it, but based only on what society deems it to be? Also, we cannot as a society, according to this line of thought, choose words to describe absolute “things. In other words we cannot choose words to describe a “healthy” male or female.
In the case of AIS we should forget and ignore the scientific fact that only biological males can contract this disease…erase this from the equation and just pretend that is not the truth?
Also, It that light what do we do with society defining what a “male” is. In one breath you are confident with what a male is, yet in another unsure what a woman is? Is not male a term also accepted by society just as woman is?
Your pictures appear to be all mutations, or deformities…I am not sure about the bird…but speaking from a biological sense, is there more that two “sex’s” of human beings besides a male and female? If so what are they called?
Thanks