Red Mosquito

Rob wrote:Do you think the terms biological male and female, as applied by science, are social constructs?

yes; we don't need them

washing machine wrote:Days 1 & 2 of this week in the thread were like a blockbuster and a sequel.

Today's like the straight to DVD installment.

you produced a hearty laugh in my person

Ms Harmless wrote:

Rob wrote:Do you think the terms biological male and female, as applied by science, are social constructs?

yes; we don't need them

let me rephrase that: science is phasing out the need for them to be applied as a binary system, and that's a world I'm after

Ms Harmless wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:science didn't appear in the big bang; humans needed it, so we created it

Wrong.

you don't need science?

I'm saying that the discursive field we know as "science" did not arise and articulate itself in response to a "need"

for now, I don't want "biological male" applied to me; some people respect that, others don't

Mickey wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:science didn't appear in the big bang; humans needed it, so we created it

Wrong.

you don't need science?

I'm saying that the discursive field we know as "science" did not arise and articulate itself in response to a "need"

sure; we saw what we now call a "tree" and thought "it would be nice to be able to describe that"; there are a LOT of (sometimes conflicting) ways to describe a tree

but I agree that science is a discursive field; discourse on sex and gender has evolved massively since high school

Ms Harmless wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Rob wrote:Do you think the terms biological male and female, as applied by science, are social constructs?

yes; we don't need them

let me rephrase that: science is phasing out the need for them to be applied as a binary system, and that's a world I'm after

I'm trying here... are you saying there are no discernable biological differences (gender aside) at birth? Some babies have "boy parts" and some have "girl parts", and a TINY % are intersex. Is this wrong? Should science not distinguish between the two (3), but rather ignore it?

Rob wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Rob wrote:Do you think the terms biological male and female, as applied by science, are social constructs?

yes; we don't need them

let me rephrase that: science is phasing out the need for them to be applied as a binary system, and that's a world I'm after

I'm trying here... are you saying there are no discernable biological differences (gender aside) at birth? Some babies have "boy parts" and some have "girl parts", and a TINY % are intersex. Is this wrong? Should science not distinguish between the two (3), but rather ignore it?

Also, additional question, if science does decide to distinguish between the two, does that really diminish your choices and identity?

Lol @ Rob asking 15 variations of the same question

Jorge wrote:Lol @ Rob asking 15 variations of the same question

This thread is turning me into _tree.

Jorge wrote:

Apparently Will was in fact asked to leave

He refused to leave? What an asshole. Now they SHOULD ban him.

Strat wrote:

Rob wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Rob wrote:Do you think the terms biological male and female, as applied by science, are social constructs?

yes; we don't need them

let me rephrase that: science is phasing out the need for them to be applied as a binary system, and that's a world I'm after

I'm trying here... are you saying there are no discernable biological differences (gender aside) at birth? Some babies have "boy parts" and some have "girl parts", and a TINY % are intersex. Is this wrong? Should science not distinguish between the two (3), but rather ignore it?

Also, additional question, if science does decide to distinguish between the two, does that really diminish your choices and identity?

there are biological / anatomical differences between bodies with a penis, a prostate, etc., and bodies with a vagina, uterus, womb, etc.; but there are many more variables in the human body than "M has these / F has these"; and I believe we can (and we've started to) find other ways of talking about those bodies that don't just shove everyone into that binary system, and expect outliers to just put up with being outliers; more and more scientists are agreeing that if "sex" is a thing, it's just as much a spectrum as gender

Double resistance.

Jorge wrote:Lol @ Rob asking 15 variations of the same question

I was gonna say: that is not an "additional question"

What's the spectrum? I certainly agree that gender is a spectrum, you can be born to an assigned gender that doesn't fit. But can you name a 4th biological sex that isn't male, female or intersex?

Please, please, please lock this thread.

when babies are born, our doctors could just be saying "your beautiful baby has this biological / anatomical arrangement; let's lay out a personalised plan for their healthcare" (and your baby can decide their gender as they grow); and that's a thing already starting to happen; I have friends raising kids this way

Ms Harmless wrote:when babies are born, our doctors could just be saying "your beautiful baby has this biological / anatomical arrangement; let's lay out a personalised plan for their healthcare" (and your baby can decide their gender as they grow); and that's a thing already starting to happen; I have friends raising kids this way

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man that is fucking British

God what's it like to "have" a "doctor"