Gender again. Sorry!

[Deleted member 159]

There are women who say ''Sometimes biological reality isn't everything.''

Very few indeed

 

[monkers]

Very few indeed

You think? Who would these women be? What would you say to them?

 

[Deleted member 159]

Biology is reality,

anything else is 💄 on a 🐷

 

[newfhouse]

There are women who say ''Sometimes biological reality isn't everything.''

Yes, there are some here. I know three generations of my close family members feel that way too.

 

[monkers]

Biology is reality,

anything else is 💄 on a 🐷

How charming. So you don't agree with the legal position that birth certificates don't have to state absolute biological reality?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Biological reality isn't everything; nobody has claimed it is. Most of the time sex doesn't matter, but sometimes it matters very much. Pretending it shouldn't matter at all, or that gender identity should override it in law when it does matter is a problem.

 

[newfhouse]

Biological reality isn't everything; nobody has claimed it is.

I think Andy just did.

 

[monkers]

gender identity should override it in law when it does matter is a problem.

Your sex is not overridden by another person having a GRC. Your sex and gender identity (or lack of one) are unaffected.

 

[monkers]

Most of the time sex doesn't matter, but sometimes it matters very much.

It matters very much for baby making at the moment, but there's news on that, scientists are making some progress with some workarounds.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your sex is not overridden by another person having a GRC. Your sex and gender identity (or lack of one) are unaffected.

We are talking about 'sex' as a biological category, not an individual's sex. You can't override sex in reality because, well, it's material reality unlike gender identity which is a metaphysical belief. Sex as a category in law is overridden if the law gives the same legal status to unquantifiable nebulous concepts like gender identity as it does to material reality.

As to workarounds and baby producing, I understand transwomen can take a shed load of drugs and lactate to produce something akin to breastmilk for babies now. Perhaps science will eventually apply this innovation to male livestock. We can all rush down the shops to stock up on cheese made from lactating bulls and billy goats. I fully expect you guys to show your support and be first in the queue for the Dairlylea Dunkers.

 

[monkers]

We are talking about 'sex' as a biological category, not an individual's sex. You can't override sex in reality because, well, it's material reality unlike gender identity which is a metaphysical belief. Sex as a category in law is overridden if the law gives the same legal status to unquantifiable nebulous concepts like gender identity as it does to material reality.

As to workarounds and baby producing, I understand transwomen can take a shed load of drugs and lactate to produce something akin to breastmilk for babies now. Perhaps science will eventually apply this innovation to male livestock. We can all rush down the shops to stock up on cheese made from lactating bulls and billy goats. I fully expect you guys to show your support and be first in the queue for the Dairlylea Dunkers.

No, women won't be needed for breeding duties in the near future. Men will manage without us for that purpose.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...study-discovered-make-embryos-skin-cells.html

 

[monkers]

At least @CXRAndy is amused now, but that what do you @AuroraSaab suggest we put on a child's birth certificate when the child doesn't have a mother?

And when these artificial eggs are made from the skins cells of one man and fertilized by himself, biological reality will be reimagined. However the overriding argument will be, what is permissible to be put on a birth certificate?

 

[Deleted member 159]

At least @CXRAndy is amused now, but that what do you @AuroraSaab suggest we put on a child's birth certificate when the child doesn't have a mother?

And when these artificial eggs are made from the skins cells of one man and fertilized by himself, biological reality will be reimagined. However the overriding argument will be, what is permissible to be put on a birth certificate?

Dreaming

 

[monkers]

Dreaming

From the article, and it must be true if it's in the Daily Mail ...

Eggs can be tricked into developing into an embryo without fertilization, but the embryos, called parthenogenotes, die after a few days.

Scientists at Bath have developed a method of injecting mouse parthenogenotes with sperm so they can go on in many cases to become healthy pups.

Working with mice, the team produced healthy offspring while bypassing the normal process of fertilising an egg cell with sperm.

This means that males alone could be baby makers without needing female baby bakers.

But what about those birth certificates?

Should lesbian women who have children be allowed to put the two female identities on the birth certificate as mother and father? Or as two parents? Or as one mother and one parent?

Or what about a trans man with an amended birth certificate to sex: man who carries a child. What should be on the child's birth certificate? One mother and one father? Or two fathers? Or just two 'parents'. Or maybe no mother, no father, and no parents because is it doesn't fit in with the binary narrative?

 

[Deleted member 159]

From the article, and it must be true if it's in the Daily Mail ...



This means that males alone could be baby makers without needing female baby bakers.

But what about those birth certificates?

Futuristic hyperbole . Everything else irrelevant