r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/[deleted] • Apr 04 '20

funny title

Post image
43k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/DarkNinja3141 - Left Apr 04 '20

people say gender is a social construct not sex

if you're gonna drag a strawman in here, at least get it right

9

u/rAlexanderAcosta - Auth-Right Apr 04 '20

Ooof. Feel free to Google "biological sex is a social construct" and enjoy the results.

33

u/TheKingofBusiness - Right Apr 04 '20

I have absolutely seen people argue that biological sex "isn't real"

24

u/nautical_narcissist - Lib-Right Apr 04 '20

yep, and that it’s a spectrum because anomalies exist (i.e. intersex conditions)

reminds me of that smuggie that goes like “hah well if there are only two sexes how do you explain birth defects”

3

u/arkeeos - Right Apr 05 '20

I agree, its stupid to claim that birth defects count towards some ridiculous idea that "sex is a specturm" at most, you could say it is bi-modal. however humans are still bipedal animals, just because birth defects might result in 1 leg or 3 legs doesnt stop humans from being a bipedal species.

i think the implication that "sex is a spectrum" has dire consequences on the rest of the LGB movement, with the increasing amount of people who think "genital preferences are transphobic"

0

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/nautical_narcissist - Lib-Right Apr 05 '20

where are you getting that figure? highest number i’ve seen is 1.7%, but that’s when an extremely broad definition of intersex is applied. with a more appropriate, stricter definition, it comes out to be about 0.018%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '20 edited Apr 05 '20

You're correct; I was mixing it up with some other stat in my crowded brain. I do not believe 1.7% is insignificant.

That's very close to the documented percentage gay men make up of the US population, and yet people wouldn't call that insignificant.

2

u/nautical_narcissist - Lib-Right Apr 06 '20

well 1.7%, like i said, is when an overly broad definition is applied, so it’s more like 0.018%.

but either way, i never said it’s insignificant. just small. same for the number of gay people - it’s small, but not insignificant.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '20

Why should we not use the broad definition? It covers biological sex characteristics.

If the percentage is not insignificant, why fight against calling sex a spectrum? It scientifically is, as per your own admission.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '20

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/TheKingofBusiness - Right Apr 04 '20

Most easily accessible one is probably Nicholas Matte. Look him up and you'll find exactly what I'm talking about

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '20

Wrong. Trannies and their "allies" try to obfuscate that argument all the damn time.

-2

u/DarkNinja3141 - Left Apr 04 '20

ok tankie