[ SECRET POST #2937 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2937 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #420.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

They do, but are not nearly as clear cut as people assume.

It's a bit like defining species. Most people will agree that dogs and elephants are different species, but botonists will shank you over if a slight flower petal variation in a common plant that occurs when it grows in marshy areas makes it a new subspecies deserving of ecological protection or not. Even within humans obviously there are conditions that can result in no formation of gametes, gonadal abnormalities, chromosomal abnormalities, and so on to the point the Olympics decided there was no perfect way to define biologically male or female.

Scientists love arguing stuff like that. It makes them happy. Yes as a general rule the organism or structure that forms a small number of large reproductive cells gets labeled female and the one that makes a large number of smaller reproductive cells gets labeled male and it's a good definition. But it's still something that can go sideways in a hurry.

[(Anonymous)]

da

It's not always clear cut, absolutely, and we've certainly seen cases of "gray" between the two sides. That being said, it is fairly ... cut. This movement that biological sex is a "social construct" is taking it too far, imo. There's no point in ignoring that abnormalities exist, and not all organisms follow a male/female reproductive pattern, but frankly humans pretty much do.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's worth pointing out that it's not very clear cut since people really, REALLY seem to think that men and women are dogs and birds, when in reality it's a bit more like being two different breeds of cat. You see it all the time in popular culture. "Men don't get breast cancer!" "Why do men even have nipples?" Drawing guides that claim to be realistic but show men with dorito skeletons and women with hourglass ones, and dozens of other things.

Yes biological sex differences exist on a medical level and should be explored. They should also be done in scientific ways that account for the fact there's a great deal of biological variation within a group instead of just assuming everyone within a group will react the same, like how one of the reasons obesity is so dangerous is because medical science doesn't yet know how to account for it, so you get cases like birth control pills being prescribed that are ineffective for women with a higher percent of body fat than they tested for. It doesn't help that there's a huge movement now of 'treat the numbers, not the patient' because numbers look good on paper.

It's a bit like arguing back and forth that 'white' and 'person of color' is a social construct, vs. pointing out that Chinese people do often form differently shaped eyelids and most African Americans have more melanin than Irish Americans. Well yes, a lot do, and some don't, and at the end of the day do you want to be the person going "If you're from Africa, how come you're white?" ?

And considering the hill that anon wants to die on is "HUMAN FEMALES FIRE BABIES OUT OF THEIR GENITALS LIKE CANONS PEW PEW THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A FEMALE" Do you really want to climb up onto that hill with them?

[diet_poison]

Well medical treatment (alluding to this and your other comment) should always take the individual into account IMO. Of course there is gray area. I'm just saying that male and female are things (arguably defined by the sort of gametes you possess). Not everyone fits one category neatly, but the categories are there.

I think we're on the same page, though. Your comments are good.