Biological Sex
Yeah, the grey area is broader than I had initially thought don't snap your spine patting yourself on the back. And yeah I'm getting to it I'm spinning a lot of plates here. I have like 20 other tabs open with other things I'm actively thinking about at the moment. I'm getting to it fuck-face, relax!
Hym "As far as the biological sex rant is concerned, I didn't realize the multiplicity of ways in which a person can be intersex and it obfuscates the ontology of the matter. And what I mean by that is that even if it's true that there is a way in which an XY chromosome person can be genetically male but phenotypically appear female (And can, therefore, be both male and female) but you still have to reconcile fact that the way in which SOME trans-people ARE 'Trans' is in an abstract one. So, the XY chromosome, phenotypically female (Or male I guess I'm sure it happens in reverse) is both male and female in an ontological sense.
The trans-person has no consistent genetic marker so we have to look at the epistemology. And I've already done this. I talk about the ways in which a person can be temperamentally more feminine or masculine (Women tend to be high in trait agreeableness and higher in neuroticism, therefore, a man who is both uniquely high in agreeableness and neuroticism would be temperamentally more 'feminine' than all men AND some women and could, therefore,
Hym "As far as the biological sex rant is concerned, I didn't realize the multiplicity of ways in which a person can be intersex and it obfuscates the ontology of the matter. And what I mean by that is that even if it's true that there is a way in which an XY chromosome person can be genetically male but phenotypically appear female (And can, therefore, be both male and female) but you still have to reconcile fact that the way in which SOME trans-people ARE 'Trans' is in an abstract one. So, the XY chromosome, phenotypically female (Or male I guess I'm sure it happens in reverse) is both male and female in an ontological sense.
The trans-person has no consistent genetic marker so we have to look at the epistemology. And I've already done this. I talk about the ways in which a person can be temperamentally more feminine or masculine (Women tend to be high in trait agreeableness and higher in neuroticism, therefore, a man who is both uniquely high in agreeableness and neuroticism would be temperamentally more 'feminine' than all men AND some women and could, therefore,
get the sensation that they are not the thing they present as phenotypically and seek to remediate that) AND I consider how THAT PHENOMENON interacts with sexuality.
But IS that sensation congruent with objective reality and IS that phenomenon sufficient justification for changing and/or creating more legislation. In what way does being trans interact with other people AND how much authority over their own person are they expected to cede for these people to be happy with the way in which they are being interacted with?
And as far as the health concerns are concerned, if the treatment sterilizes them, it's inconsequential because they can always adopt and/or freeze reproductive matter for later use, if estrogen increases the risk of prostate cancer, they likely would have got cancer and they die anyways, and if teaching them is has some kind of profoundly negative psychological effects, what are those effects? What is the issue there? Are they going to increase in frequency or even result in sleeping with 'wrong person?' What is, like, that maximally destructive octcome tha-OH! Right! Eternal damnation hellfire forever land. Ha! I genuinely forget that THAT is a real consequence people believe will happen in an ontological sense. Ha! That's like the whole thing right there! Ha! Biological Sex."
But IS that sensation congruent with objective reality and IS that phenomenon sufficient justification for changing and/or creating more legislation. In what way does being trans interact with other people AND how much authority over their own person are they expected to cede for these people to be happy with the way in which they are being interacted with?
And as far as the health concerns are concerned, if the treatment sterilizes them, it's inconsequential because they can always adopt and/or freeze reproductive matter for later use, if estrogen increases the risk of prostate cancer, they likely would have got cancer and they die anyways, and if teaching them is has some kind of profoundly negative psychological effects, what are those effects? What is the issue there? Are they going to increase in frequency or even result in sleeping with 'wrong person?' What is, like, that maximally destructive octcome tha-OH! Right! Eternal damnation hellfire forever land. Ha! I genuinely forget that THAT is a real consequence people believe will happen in an ontological sense. Ha! That's like the whole thing right there! Ha! Biological Sex."
Biological Sex by Hym Iam September 1, 2023
Get the Biological Sex mug.