uah... what?

>>8055775
>misspelling biologically

FUCK EVERYTHING WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE REPRESENTED BY HONS AND MORONS

File: uahhhh.jpg (116KB, 966x1280px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 966x1280px

uah....

File: image.jpg (514KB, 1500x2122px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1500x2122px

>>8055775
Assigned male thread?

File: image.jpg (548KB, 1280x1811px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1280x1811px

>>8055777
Nice digits

>>8055775
I mean, the rhetoric Sophie Labelle couches it in is abrasive and egotistical, but technically there is a lot of societally-induced fuckery surrounding the assignation of physical sex at birth- try talking to any intersex person about it.

Like, ethics over unnecessary surgery aside, even if you're born with a chimera condition and literally have both XX and XY cells in your body and have ambiguous genitalia doctors will assign the kid as being male based on the length of their clitdick and then you're male on your birth certificate and medical records even though it's biologically inaccurate.

And then you have stuff like CAIS that means you can develop a fully female (albeit sterile) natal body but with XY chromosomes. If you're going by the "chromosomes = sex" meme then you're technically looking at a male born with a vagina. Sex is a phenotype, not determined solely by chromosomes, but it highlights how physical sex isn't as simple as many people may think, and that doctors are humans too who make judgement calls based on society's attitudes over scientific accuracy sometimes.

Of course, if you subscribe to the view that transgender people have brains similar to their identified gender (I've heard the data is dubious myself), this makes a much clearer-cut case for saying the OP pic is correct. I agree with the sensibility that in medical emergencies etc. we shouldn't sacrifice accuracy for sentimentality but when a body has been significantly altered on a cellular level by hormone therapy there's an argument for calling it an artificially-induced form of intersex and therefore not subject to the rigid conditions society considers the rational approach to sex.

File: MALE.png (2MB, 1367x1844px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1367x1844px

>>8055802
just made this

People who argue over definitions are dumb, full stop.

For certain definitions of women, they can have penises, and for other definitions, they can't, and what definition is used is completely arbitrary.

The implied claim of "trans women don't form a distinct phenotypic cluster within the class of {cis women, trans women}" is straightforwardly wrong. This isn't hard.

>>8055816

The only argument people have against assigning biological sex is "b-b-but extremely rare mutations exist!"? 99% of people have completely normal anatomy, organs and chromosomes that match. Intersex and sex chromosome disorder are mistakes of nature and shouldn't be taken into account when discussing anatomy.

I mean, she's not wrong. Just presenting it in a needlessly controversial manner.
But it's not really biologically accurate any more than it's thermodynamically accurate or topographically accurate.

It's simply linguistically/culturally accurate. Possibly medically accurate? But it's also about as accurate as saying "some women have octuplets." So, to add another term, it's TECHNICALLY accurate, but pretty fucking misleading, and an all around needless statement.

This kind of statement really annoys me though. It's sole function is to serve as an easy target so that SJWs can jump on someone for saying the "wrong" thing any time they need to satisfy their victim/saviour complex when the person predictably tells them to fuck off. And the fallout from that is that the person who got jumped on is probably feeling salty, along with everyone who witnessed it, garnering a poor view of trans activists and trans people as a whole, and in addition, trans people who witness someone being put in that position may be forced to wonder where they stand.
So all that's accomplished is further division. Hope the oppression wank was worth it.

This is really just trying to justify not getting SRS.

>>8056049
That's funny, isn't that what this entire board likes to do?

File: 0-h2gxOnKF_IrQQoYr.jpg (63KB, 640x250px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 640x250px

>100% biologically accurate
congratulations

>>8056067
That's just because majority seems to be burgers who need to pay an arm and a leg for surgery that's free in developed countries. Classic case of sour grapes.

>>8056089
But isn't the surgery generally worse in "developed countries" where it's free? Unless you mean Canada, Brassard seems alright.

File: MALE.png (1MB, 500x1981px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x1981px

lol

>>8055775
I mean, in this case she's right.

>>8055875
Except burden of proof is on the pro-assignment crowd to show that assignment has substantial benefit. It clearly creates problems when dealing with those 1-in-100 people, so unless there is some benefit that outweighs that, it shouldn't be done.

And "mistakes of nature" makes you sound ignorant, since nature has no intent in the first place. The only thing that sets intersex/trans apart from being "normal" is that it's less common; male and female are no more intention than intersex, just more common.

>>8059991
>prove the necessity of language systems surrounding reproduction that are present in literally every culture on earth since the beginning of time
Are you fucking serious?

Burden is proof on the person trying to change shit, you moron.

>>8060845
How can we prove a negative, that there's no downside to ending assignment for the sake of intersex and non-cishet people?

>>8060914

You don't. You prove that it's of any practical, reasonable value. Which it's not.

Imposing a law that showers can't exceed 2 minutes would probably do a lot of good in terms of water wastage, but that's neither a practical nor reasonable suggestion relative to it's value.

>>8061064
>You prove that it's of any practical, reasonable value. Which it's not.
Helping gay/lesbian/bi people isn't of practical reasonable value, helping trans people isn't of practical reasonable value, helping intersex people isn't of practical reasonable value, helping gender non-conforming people isn't of practical reasonable value.

It looks like you just hate anyone who's different.

>>8055802
What makes these people think that by not following their dogma on identity politics to the letter you are erasing their entire existence? I mean, they bang on about it as if it were all that mattered in the world to them. Maybe aside from that they're just empty, human-shaped shells.

>>8061100

I explained myself perfectly clearly. You're misrepresenting my point to either be a shit or because you're genuinely stupid, and I won't humour it.

>>8061144
No, you gave no explanation, you simply claimed baselessly that it was of no value.

You're awfully good at demanding other people back up their statements and awfully good at avoiding it yourself.

>>8055875
1.7% of people are intersex according to the most widely accepted scientific study on the subject
that's about the same as the percentage of redheads

>>8061164

I'm sorry you're so thick, and that you're so sensitive about it that you have to lash out at people and bait them into rewording themselves instead of simply asking them to clarify.

>>8061177
...so?

Add the 7+% of people who are LGBT (bare minimum) and the many more who are GNC in one way or another and a significant proportion of the population are harmed by your gender assigning.

You wouldn't divide the population into blondes and brunettes and demand everyone follow the social norms you give each of those groups.

So why make those demands for gender and sex?

>>8055775
Translation:
> Trannies have penises
> Trannies consider themselves to be women
> ================================
> According to trannies, some women (meaning: almost all trannies) have penises

>>8061177
>that's about the same as the percentage of redheads
...worldwide.
Yes, an Indian or an African redhead is rare.
On the other hand there are a lot of European redheads.

>>8061186
T H I C C

Sex is never "assigned" unless you are intersex, and there is no agreed-upon definition of what intersex entails. Disorders like Klinefelter's (which only occurs in males) or Turner's (only occurs in females) in many cases are not treated as "truly intersex" because of the sex-specific nature of the disorder. This would effectively place intersex people at around 0.018%. The "1.7%" incidence was invented by an activist for political reasons.

http://www.leonardsax.com/how-common-is-intersex-a-response-to-anne-fausto-sterling/

>>8055856

>what definition is used is completely arbitrary.

Except it's not. It's the exact opposite of arbitrary. Definitions exist for a specific reason since they refer to a specific object and its relations to its observers and the ideas that it conveys. That's what a word is. Co-opting pre-established definitions for your own purposes and expecting the rest of the users of said definition to just go along with it for no other reason except because you said so is asinine. That's not how the evolution of language works.

Whether or not you believe trans women are "real women", whatever the hell that means, the definition of woman has a sociological function, one that's been used, and therby can be assumed to be useful, for centuries I might add. And like it or not the definiton has to do with biological sex. We have a definition for women who have penises or refer to themselves as transgender: trans women. The two are categorically different objects, and if they weren't, this wouldn't even be an issue in the first place.

To conflate the two as equivalent is just a basic untruth. And this has nothing to do with devaluing the person's humanity or suggesting that they don't deserved rights or to be treated with respect, it's simply calling a spade a spade.

>>8061100

He's not saying helping those people has no practical value. He's saying throwing out the concept of sex/gender entirely has no practical value. Unless of course you can explain why. If it does have practical value as it relates to helping these people, it's on you prove how and why, since you're the one making the claim. The reason we still adhere to the concepts of sex and gender is because of their practical uses for society, flawed that the system may be. It's not perfect, as we know, but unless you have a better idea of what to replace it with, suggesting that we abandon it wholesale is stupid. It has a very vital categorical function when used to refer to sexually reproducing species.