All Things LGBTQ+ (3 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SystemShock]

Some women have them removed for medical reasons, sometimes the ovaries fail to form in utero, my friend’s daughter had a non-malignant tumor as a toddler and they were removed at the age of two. Stuff happens.

This type of comment is common practice in this type of discussion

Hysterectomies aren't uncommon now in the U.S. but not as common globally. And, for a person to have a hysterectomy, that person needs to have a uterus to begin with, i.e., hysterectomies are by definition procedures performed on the female of the human species.

Hysterectomies are also unnatural, as in they do not happen in nature. Matter of fact, we are the only known species who can remove organs from a living body and have that living body continue to live.

And sure, some times ovaries fail to form in utero; but that is a birth defect. I know the word defect makes some people cringe nowadays, but ovaries not forming in utero is not how things are supposed to be.

What I meant by “much more” was that humans may be animals, but that they are somehow also more than animals. Whether you consider the presence of a soul, or the ability to reason for the non-religious, we are not merely animals. To define a human woman only by her reproductive organs is leaving out her human-ness, for lack of a better word.

I don't believe in souls. Most all other animals have brains and the ability to think.
Wouldn't human-ness apply to all humans?

 

[MT15]

Yes, human-ness would apply to all humans. But we were speaking of women.

And yes, failure of ovaries to developed in an embryo would be a birth defect. But wouldn’t that person still be considered a woman?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This type of comment is common practice in this type of discussion

Hysterectomies aren't uncommon now in the U.S. but not as common globally. And, for a person to have a hysterectomy, that person needs to have a uterus to begin with, i.e., hysterectomies are by definition procedures performed on the female of the human species.

Hysterectomies are also unnatural, as in they do not happen in nature. Matter of fact, we are the only known species who can remove organs from a living body and have that living body continue to live.

And sure, some times ovaries fail to form in utero; but that is a birth defect. I know the word defect makes some people cringe nowadays, but ovaries not forming in utero is not how things are supposed to be.




I don't believe in souls. Most all other animals have brains and the ability to think.
Wouldn't human-ness apply to all humans?

Would a person with XX chromosomes whose ovaries failed to develop in utero still be a woman?

 

[SystemShock]

Would a person with XX chromosomes whose ovaries failed to develop in utero still be a woman?

Ah! More conditionals.
What if they are born during the Summer solstice when the moon is full on a Wednesday and the rooster crows three times when morning comes?

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, human-ness would apply to all humans. But we were speaking of women.

Right. And while I don't know what exactly do you mean by "human-ness", the condition of being human has nothing to do with being the female of the species. All species, being mammals, fish, birds, have at least females.

 

[MT15]

Right. And while I don't know what exactly do you mean by "human-ness", the condition of being human has nothing to do with being the female of the species. All species, being mammals, fish, birds, have at least females.

Yes, which is why it seems to me that any attempt to define a woman by her biology, and only her biology is essentially reductive. De-humanizing, in a way.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ah! More conditionals.
What if they are born during the Summer solstice when the moon is full on a Wednesday and the rooster crows three times when morning comes?

How so? You're the one who first brought up XX chromosomes and then glossed right over MT's point about a potential failure to develop ovaries in utero. That's why I'm asking.

 

[coldseat]

Speaking of the definition of woman...

There is a lot of back and forth about this definition, mostly because one side talks biology and the other behaviors/feelings/mentality/self-identification.

To me, a woman is the female of the species, no matter the behavior, feelings, mentality, or self identification. And even when the person has chromosomes other than just XX, still, the female of the species has ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation.

I found this article illuminating. Maybe some food for thought.

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary

blogs.scientificamerican.com

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, which is why it seems to me that any attempt to define a woman by her biology, and only her biology is essentially reductive. De-humanizing, in a way.

That sounds dramatic.

Biology is a very essential part of being human. And really, without it, would there be any humans ? Whatever characteristics you want to give to human beings, the fact is that any behavior, any societal norm, and/or cultural norm, that could be assigned to make a secondary or ancillary distinction between male and female humans, their basis is the biological conditions of our species. This has been so since before homo sapiens became homo sapiens.

 

[SystemShock]

I found this article illuminating. Maybe some food for thought.

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia

Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Here we go again...

1. I am not justifying transphobia.
2. Nothing that the article says contradicts anything I said.

 

[MT15]

That sounds dramatic.

Biology is a very essential part of being human. And really, without it, would there be any humans ? Whatever characteristics you want to give to human beings, the fact is that any behavior, any societal norm, and/or cultural norm, that could be assigned to make a secondary or ancillary distinction between male and female humans, their basis is the biological conditions of our species. This has been so since before homo sapiens became homo sapiens.

Yes, however, you should forgive women for being a bit touchy about being defined by their biology, given the history of how women have been treated over the centuries. Especially by religions, who reduce women to baby makers, and think that’s all they are good for. A sitting US Congressman just recently characterized women as “vessels”.

 

[SystemShock]

How so? You're the one who first brought up XX chromosomes and then glossed right over MT's point about a potential failure to develop ovaries in utero. That's why I'm asking.

So, to clarify what I said about XX chromosomes about 3-4 posts ago was as follows:
"And even when the person has chromosomes other than just XX, still, the female of the species has ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation."

You just want to go into the rabbit hole MT started digging. But I'll dig this one for a bit until I am bored: do we still have a uterus, a vagina, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation?

 

[SystemShock]

Yes, however, you should forgive women for being a bit touchy about being defined by their biology, given the history of how women have been treated over the centuries. Especially by religions, who reduce women to baby makers, and think that’s all they are good for. A sitting US Congressman just recently characterized women as “vessels”.

I do understand where you are coming from. Based on other posts, I think you feel that I am somehow attacking you, but really, I want to know your opinion, I want to know what you think.

And what you say there, doesn't contradict my statements: it is the very basic condition of being the female of the species that has lead to how women have been treated throughout the history of humans, good or bad.

And, it is this history of how women have been treated over the centuries, especially by religions - and I think you may know how I feel about religions - why I side with the female of the species on issues like sports competition, or abortion - to which BTW, I am opposed in principle for a couple of reasons, but it's not that I want to see laws passed prohibiting abortions under the penalty of jail or worse, but rather, I want to see the empowerment of women to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with through education and science, no matter the reason for the pregnancy.... I digress...

 

[coldseat]

Here we go again...

1. I am not justifying transphobia.
2. Nothing that the article says contradicts anything I said.

I'm not saying your are. The title is more accusatory than the actual article. I just found the complexity, variance and contributing factors in our human biology intresting and how that contributes to our concept of sex/gender. While it doesn't contradict anything you've said, it makes the point that it's a lot more complex than our often simplified constructs of sex/gender.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So, to clarify what I said about XX chromosomes about 3-4 posts ago was as follows:
"And even when the person has chromosomes other than just XX, still, the female of the species has ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation."

You just want to go into the rabbit hole MT started digging. But I'll dig this one for a bit until I am bored: do we still have a uterus, a vagina, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation?

"And even when the person has chromosomes other than just XX, still, the female of the species has ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation."

'And' implies that all things on the list are necessary to fulfill the condition. In your own words, you are saying:

Ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation: Female no matter what.

My question is if someone is still female if they have a womb and pelvic bones adapted for gestation but lack ovaries that produce eggs due to a failure for those organs to form?

 

[SystemShock]

"And even when the person has chromosomes other than just XX, still, the female of the species has ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation."

'And' implies that all things on the list are necessary to fulfill the condition. In your own words, you are saying:

Ovaries that produce eggs, a womb, and pelvic bones adapted for gestation: Female no matter what.

My question is if someone is still female if they have a womb and pelvic bones adapted for gestation but lack ovaries that produce eggs due to a failure for those organs to form?

For the most part, yes.

Seriously, though, where are we going with this?

 

[SystemShock]

I'm not saying your are. The title is more accusatory than the actual article. I just found the complexity, variance and contributing factors in our human biology intresting and how that contributes to our concept of sex/gender. While it doesn't contradict anything you've said, it makes the point that it's a lot more complex than our often simplified constructs of sex/gender.

And why would you bring up gender? I made not statement or claim about gender. So why quote me on a reply with an article which title is indeed accusatory, which content is accusatory as well, that deals with gender?

 

[coldseat]

And why would you bring up gender? I made not statement or claim about gender. So why quote me on a reply with an article which title is indeed accusatory, which content is accusatory as well, that deals with gender?

I think the point the article was making is that our growing understanding of our biology is as varied and complex as our growing understanding of gender. That's why I posted it in response, sorry you got offended. I honestly didn't mean it a such.