[ SECRET POST #4750 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4750 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #680.
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)]

Okay, putting aside trans people just for a moment

But biological sex is real.

I think she's trying to say that there are only two sexes and she's biologically wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

How so?

[(Anonymous)]

Intersex people do exist and it's not like a completely rare thing (1 in 100 people).

[(Anonymous)]

Try 1 in 1500 to 2000.

[(Anonymous)]

There are various ways of classifying intersex beyond not XX or XY, which I think is what you are focusing on. My local group uses the numbers put out by the former Intersex Society of North America.

[(Anonymous)]

But most people identifying as trans are not intersex.

[(Anonymous)]

That's why I wrote "Okay, putting aside trans people just for a moment" at the beginning of my comment.

[(Anonymous)]

I think talking about two biological sexes is a reasonable abstraction to use in most circumstances (this specifically does not include, for example, the scenario of someone trying to derive normative ideas about gender identity from biological sex)

[(Anonymous)]

Talking about two biological sexes is only useful as an abstraction, and that because when we're teaching children about anatomy, and heredity, it's with the knowledge that the vast majority of them aren't going to go any further than the last mandatory course in that field, and teaching them the exceptions and edge cases will diminish their ability to retain the fundamentals they're expected to learn.

When used in any sort of argument whatsoever, "there are two biological sexes" serves as nothing but a red flag that the person saying it is not worth listening to on the topic, not least because the common accepted ways of defining sex both have outliers and conflict with other accepted definitions, and because the more precisely you attempt to define sex, the more outliers there are.

[(Anonymous)]

Exceptions and edge cases mean that there is, in fact, a norm. You also don't teach children that humans have anywhere between 0 and 6 limbs, just because some people are born with more or less limbs.

[(Anonymous)]

Get out of here with your science and logic, you know there's no place for that in transrhetoric.

[(Anonymous)]

Lololol, yes, I appreciate this comment.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. But it would be enormously stupid to treat 4-limb-having as a moral norm and teach children that amputees are less human than other people.

[(Anonymous)]

You also don't tell children who have only three limbs that they actually have four limbs because science says humans have four limbs, and if they think they have three limbs they're just wrong and confused and aren't trying hard enough to have four.

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody here says intersex people don't exist. But that still doesn't make every single variety of intersex conditions an additional sex. And you keep mixing up trans and intersex.

[(Anonymous)]

And trying to bring intersex people into the whole thing is sort of pointless anyway because the vast majority of intersex people identify as one gender or the other, according to my intersex friend.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt - I just fundamentally disagree with you epistemologically here. I think that any model for understanding reality is essentially an abstraction, and the necessary skill to develop is understanding (1) what level of abstraction is appropriate for a given situation or kind of analysis and (2) that these abstractions are not the same as reality, that the map is not the territory. Even a model of sex that incorporates exceptions is still an abstraction over the continuum of human variation, and that's OK.

And to reiterate - none of this justifies treating a particular abstraction as normative or ordained by nature.