Originally Posted by ToTheNines (Post 1696894)

And you aren't?

Originally Posted by ToTheNines (Post 1696899)

Thought I was on your ignore list.

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps (Post 1696892)

But she's actually, really a dude. He can call himself a girl, sit to pee and eventually mutilate himself but he will in fact, always be a male. All he really is is delusional.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696929)

Could you define male for us please?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696933)

A human born with a p*nis.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696934)

So...is someone who has had their penis removed for any reason no longer male?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696936)

Nope. They're still male as they were born that way.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696939)

I've read a little bit about the condition where people are rarely born with both organs but it also said that one is typically dominant over the other. For e.g. A person with both organs who can get someone else pregnant but can't get pregnant themselves. In that case, they'd be considered male.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696940)

So it's not just a penis, but an intact one with gonads that produce functional gametes post puberty.

So...someone born sterile, but with a penis, isn't a male because they can't produce offspring?
With that in mind, is maleness not determined until such time as puberty has been completed?

I mean, otherwise, how would we know if they're destined to shoot nothing but blanks?
And if they do shoot nothing but blanks, does that make them something else?
Or is female just anything that doesn't have functioning intact male genitalia?

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696942)

I never said has to be fertile at a later age. Just has to be born with a certain organ to be considered either sex. And in the extremely rare case of a person having both organs, one is typically dominant over the other which determines what the person's sex was meant to be.

Even if someone is sterile, their body is still designed with a blueprint for working a certain way which allows anyone to identify whether they're male or female.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696944)

And if we're going to go the route of saying the human body has a specific design of function, then isn't the intersex person exactly as they should be?

Neither 100% male nor 100% female.

Also, you mention the blueprint, but continually evade my question of geneotype over phenotype.
What are our genes if not the blue print of our "design".

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696946)

I don't understand what you mean by your comment on intersex design of function, sorry. Please elaborate for me.

in cases of genotype vs phenotype, the person's phenotype is more important in determining whether they are male or female.

As I said before, the criteria is being born with a certain organ, and a even a person with XX male syndrome for e.g. Is still born a male and not a female. That's why he is called an "XX male".

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696954)

You assert that our primary sexual characteristics denote our sex, and that this phenotype is by "design," but then imply that the inherent design of intersex people is somehow...wrong and in need of further determination of what was "meant."
Men have a penis, women have a vulva, and intersex people...require a flag on the play.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe (Post 1696954)

So...you're perfectly fine with a genetic female being considered a male, because they have a penis.

And perfectly fine with a genetic male being considered a female, because they have a vulva.

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo (Post 1696960)

Yes, that's my view. I think the design of having two reproductive organs on the same person is not normal and is in need of further determination.

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections (Post 1703139)

So an individual says that they're trapped in the wrong body, and they need to physically change themselves (through extensive surgery and/or hormones) because they identify differently than the body they currently have.

Why is this considered socially acceptable when it comes to transgenderism, but individuals are considered mentally ill if they are anorexic or have "body dysmorphic disorder" (i.e. Michael Jackson)? Is this not selective bigotry then?

Originally Posted by TurtleWA (Post 1703140)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3385287

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

May find more information after reading the above 3 articles.

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections (Post 1703144)

So I read through the articles...
https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

One could easily argue that this reasoning could apply to those transgendered, since they see the "perceived defect" as their anatomy and their quality of life is impaired.


This "body dysmorphic disorder example" description is almost paralleling transgenderism here.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...729-story.html

Putting aside the strong political activism in the article, this excerpt seems to be the crux of their argument. This becomes a huge slippery slope argument, basically stating "if society accepts how an individual identifies, that individual wouldn't have any distress and dysfunction." It begins to erode gender objectivity, and implicitly bolsters the arguments of those who are transracial, transabled, and dare I say trans-species, to make the same argument that their distress and dysfunction is from society, not by their ______ (gender, race, abled, species) incongruence itself.

As for that HuffPost article, yeah... it's hard to take that site seriously, when they initially didn't have qualms about posting things like this:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/201...se_a_22036640/
http://archive.is/tveBZ
http://archive.is/QHqY4