i disagree with this conceptualization. I would argue that biological sex has a relevant social construct to aid it’s conceptualization. Gender norms and roles would be an extension of this.
I think biological sex is a function of the human organism.
so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all.
maybe, but i’m operating strictly in a philosophical sense here, so it’s not like i’m arguing that people don’t physically exist at all or anything, essentially just making the argument that the physical existence is irrelevant to the argument because there is a much better argument in the form of this conceptualization.
some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.
while this is true, i question the relevancy in making this as a logical argument, i could argue that a human has more in common with a banana than with a meteor for example. I’m just not convinced that the physical existence matters all that much in this case.
I’m also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women.
i don’t think you are, but i question whether or not this provides some level of subconscious restriction to the concept at hand. Relevant or not, it may not even matter at the end of the day. That’s not really something i’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, logically though, it heavily restricts how you can conceptualize things. Which you could argue is the human framework i suppose. We are humans at the end of the day.
Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake)
i’m not, there’s not point, i’m essentially arguing that their entire conception of the issue is fundamentally flawed and cannot work. And that people spend too much time missing the forest for the tree in front of them.
Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.
i always appreciate in depth discussion about things, it’s a good way to learn things.
i disagree with this conceptualization. I would argue that biological sex has a relevant social construct to aid it’s conceptualization. Gender norms and roles would be an extension of this.
I think biological sex is a function of the human organism.
maybe, but i’m operating strictly in a philosophical sense here, so it’s not like i’m arguing that people don’t physically exist at all or anything, essentially just making the argument that the physical existence is irrelevant to the argument because there is a much better argument in the form of this conceptualization.
while this is true, i question the relevancy in making this as a logical argument, i could argue that a human has more in common with a banana than with a meteor for example. I’m just not convinced that the physical existence matters all that much in this case.
i don’t think you are, but i question whether or not this provides some level of subconscious restriction to the concept at hand. Relevant or not, it may not even matter at the end of the day. That’s not really something i’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, logically though, it heavily restricts how you can conceptualize things. Which you could argue is the human framework i suppose. We are humans at the end of the day.
i’m not, there’s not point, i’m essentially arguing that their entire conception of the issue is fundamentally flawed and cannot work. And that people spend too much time missing the forest for the tree in front of them.
i always appreciate in depth discussion about things, it’s a good way to learn things.