I’m not offended. I’m disagreeing because your opinion is public.
Unfortunately, you’re still conflating sex with gender. Gender is performative while sex is biological, and neither are dichotomous or fixed. That’s not my opinion, that is the modern, scientific understanding.
You focused on one point in my reply and ignored the rest. You said men don’t get pregnant, but"man" is a gender, not a sex. People taxonomically called men have gotten pregnant, so that’s incorrect.
The paper I linked was about genetic males getting pregnant, to prove that both men and genetic males can get pregnant. I have more peer reviewed research and on changing both sex and gender, if you’re interested.
Are you open reading more on the subject and amending your opinion, or are you more interested in being right and holding onto your views? If it’s the latter, there isn’t a point to this conversation. A conversation which started when you told a trans person they can’t change gender.
Yeah, and im going to stick to the one point for clarity. Since apparently you dont understand, or something, let me rephrase.
No person born a biological male with testies has ever been surgercally/chemically altered (meaning a womb transplant basically) enough to be able to be impregnated and give birth… this is a complex subject for in someways, but also, its very cut and dry.
A person is always born with 1 sex more developed than the other, basically testies or ovaries. But human biology isnt black or white exactly. Anyway… my main point is, no one has ever actually achieved a truly sex change. Gender is more fluid and subjective… supposedly… amyway…
I can only argue with what you say. Since you used “man” and “male” interchangeably, my comment reflects that.
This is called moving the goalposts, since your original comment in this thread was arguing with someone who said they’d changed genders. Now you seem to agree someone can change genders, so I donno why we’re still arguing.
You said men couldn’t get pregnant, which is false. Then you said males couldn’t get pregnant, which is also false. Now you’re making this extremely specific claim:
No person born a biological male with testies has ever been surgercally/chemically altered (meaning a womb transplant basically) enough to be able to be impregnated and give birth
Which is a lot to unpack, and also incorrect. If we assume a “biological male with testes” is someone with an XY chromosome and gonads, yes, they have given birth. Look up XY Gonadal Dysgenesis, and you’ll find a small percentage of cases of women who are genetically male, occassionally with internal testes, who undergo hormone treatments and IVF to get pregnant. Some don’t have ovaries and have never menstruated.
A person is always born with 1 sex more developed than the other, basically testies or ovaries…
Is an ambiguous statement, and also not true. It really depends on how you define “developed” since sex traits aren’t always obvious in babies and a number of natural factors can drastically change those traits during puberty, even before taking into account medical intervention. Check out Guevadoces for one example.
Why is it so important for you to be right? Shouldn’t it be kind of exciting that this sort of thing can happen?
Okok its whatever, I didn’t use the right vernacular and verbiage on accident. It feels like a Lotta splitting hairs, double meaning, and yall changed the meaning of what it is to be a man even… but thats besides the point. I didn’t get my point across as well as I would have liked to, but im gonna sharpen up for next time I have a conversation like this, on this subject. But im done for now. God bless you
Fair enough and thank you for being civil. I responded to your claims by giving examples to back up my point, being specific because we’re discussing definitions.
I’m a cis woman and I didn’t change anything. Gender has always been a shifting social construct and our understanding of sex has benefitted from research, as has my own understanding of sex over the years.
Have a good one and I wish you luck. Please do check out pubmed (the earlier link I shared,) it has a lot of fantastic, accessible, peer reviewed research papers.
I’m not offended. I’m disagreeing because your opinion is public.
Unfortunately, you’re still conflating sex with gender. Gender is performative while sex is biological, and neither are dichotomous or fixed. That’s not my opinion, that is the modern, scientific understanding.
You focused on one point in my reply and ignored the rest. You said men don’t get pregnant, but"man" is a gender, not a sex. People taxonomically called men have gotten pregnant, so that’s incorrect.
The paper I linked was about genetic males getting pregnant, to prove that both men and genetic males can get pregnant. I have more peer reviewed research and on changing both sex and gender, if you’re interested.
Are you open reading more on the subject and amending your opinion, or are you more interested in being right and holding onto your views? If it’s the latter, there isn’t a point to this conversation. A conversation which started when you told a trans person they can’t change gender.
Yeah, and im going to stick to the one point for clarity. Since apparently you dont understand, or something, let me rephrase.
No person born a biological male with testies has ever been surgercally/chemically altered (meaning a womb transplant basically) enough to be able to be impregnated and give birth… this is a complex subject for in someways, but also, its very cut and dry.
A person is always born with 1 sex more developed than the other, basically testies or ovaries. But human biology isnt black or white exactly. Anyway… my main point is, no one has ever actually achieved a truly sex change. Gender is more fluid and subjective… supposedly… amyway…
I can only argue with what you say. Since you used “man” and “male” interchangeably, my comment reflects that.
This is called moving the goalposts, since your original comment in this thread was arguing with someone who said they’d changed genders. Now you seem to agree someone can change genders, so I donno why we’re still arguing.
You said men couldn’t get pregnant, which is false. Then you said males couldn’t get pregnant, which is also false. Now you’re making this extremely specific claim:
Which is a lot to unpack, and also incorrect. If we assume a “biological male with testes” is someone with an XY chromosome and gonads, yes, they have given birth. Look up XY Gonadal Dysgenesis, and you’ll find a small percentage of cases of women who are genetically male, occassionally with internal testes, who undergo hormone treatments and IVF to get pregnant. Some don’t have ovaries and have never menstruated.
Is an ambiguous statement, and also not true. It really depends on how you define “developed” since sex traits aren’t always obvious in babies and a number of natural factors can drastically change those traits during puberty, even before taking into account medical intervention. Check out Guevadoces for one example.
Why is it so important for you to be right? Shouldn’t it be kind of exciting that this sort of thing can happen?
Okok its whatever, I didn’t use the right vernacular and verbiage on accident. It feels like a Lotta splitting hairs, double meaning, and yall changed the meaning of what it is to be a man even… but thats besides the point. I didn’t get my point across as well as I would have liked to, but im gonna sharpen up for next time I have a conversation like this, on this subject. But im done for now. God bless you
Fair enough and thank you for being civil. I responded to your claims by giving examples to back up my point, being specific because we’re discussing definitions.
I’m a cis woman and I didn’t change anything. Gender has always been a shifting social construct and our understanding of sex has benefitted from research, as has my own understanding of sex over the years.
Have a good one and I wish you luck. Please do check out pubmed (the earlier link I shared,) it has a lot of fantastic, accessible, peer reviewed research papers.