top | item 43259849

(no title)

steego | 1 year ago

Let's find out if you're a bigot or not. I'll throw up Webster's definition for reference.

Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

The capacity for pregnancy is not confined to individuals with a female (46,XX) chromosomal pattern. The real world is complicated, and intersex people can be born with a (46,XY) karyotype or mixed (46,XX) and (46,XY) karyotypes as a result of chimerism. People with Swyer syndrome (46,XY) develop female reproductive anatomy (a uterus and fallopian tubes) but do not produce eggs. However, pregnancy can be achieved with donor eggs and assisted reproductive technology.

So here's the question: Are you devoted to your first opinion, or are you capable of acknowledging that the medical community may have had legitimate reasons, grounded in actual biology, to choose a more inclusive word?

discuss

order

Vuska|1 year ago

Sex is defined by which gametes are produced, not chromosomes.

defrost|1 year ago

What of the people that are born who don't produce gametes?

( For example, no gametes are produced in 85% of individuals with streak gonads )

The whole human sex | gender thing seems superficially clearcut but the real world edge cases are messy AF.

The aspect I personally find confusing is that the exceptions are relatively rare .. human births are straighforward enough for 98% of births, and of the 2% that pose a challenge the really curvy edge cases are rare (but real).

Why then do some people seeming lose their collective minds over real but rare occurrences and attempt to hammer every triangle into either a round or a square hole?

I have a purely empirical observational view of the world at large, forced a priori prescriptiveness at odds with the world seems more than a little flat earthy.

me-vs-cat|1 year ago

What do you expect for people born without the capability to produce gametes?

account42|1 year ago

Some people being born with additional/missing digits or limbs doesn't mean we should stop saying that humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each. At the end this is all performative - no one was ever actually harmed by women being called women.

And if anything those who insist of forcing this newspeak onto others by attacking anyone that doesn't go along also fit your definition of being "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

defrost|1 year ago

> doesn't mean we should stop saying that humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each.

In the context of a loose generalisation that's pefectly fine.

However in the context of delivering public services to insist that all humans have two arms and two legs with five fingers/toes each with no exceptions is just wrong.