161
all human embryos begin development as female. Trump just force feminized all men in the U.S.
(hexbear.net)
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
161 points (98.2% liked)
politics
22399 readers
401 users here now
Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.
Labour and union posts go to !labour@www.hexbear.net.
Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or !the_dunk_tank@www.hexbear.net.
!chapotraphouse@www.hexbear.net is good for shitposting.
Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.
Off topic posts will be removed.
Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"In healthy embryos" sounds kinda like erasure of intersex people. You should probably do some self crit on that front.
Hi! Intersex person and site admin here to correct you from both the perspectives of lived experience and relevant post-graduate education.
You are wrong. Entirely wrong. You have not said a single correct thing in this entire thread. I will give a single final warning: stop pathologizing. As leftists, we should all know that it's not acceptable to reduce people to traits like "defective." It's even less acceptable to do so when it's patently untrue.
While there are a few very flashy intersex conditions that can be associated with significant, visible effects like the two trisomy conditions you mentioned, but these are far from the only intersex conditions that exist and the overwhelming majority of intersex people do not experience severe, debilitating conditions like the ones you describe. Limb deformity or pulmonary hypoplasia are far from common amongst people with intersex conditions. In fact, a large percentage of intersex people live entirely normal lives without any unusual medical experiences. They might be born with ambiguous genitalia corrected during infancy and not even find out they're intersex til adulthood. They might live their entire life and never be aware that they have an intersex condition because there are no visible effects. They have happy, healthy children and live out their normal lives without ever realizing they had an intersex disorder.
Reconsider your viewpoint on this from the ground up immediately.
Seems like respondents actually preferred "development differences" rather than "disorders"
Also, that paper doesn't ask about how people with developmental differences view themselves as either healthy or unhealthy; you're making that leap on your own.
I can’t speak for anyone’s chromosomes, but if someone called my hearing disability a “hearing difference” I would feel like they’re infantilizing me.
Not the same thing. "Disorder" (as the above poster said) suggests a deviation from "normal" that is somehow wrong. Intersex conditions aren't inherently "wrong", they are just statistically uncommon.
Disability status is another thing entirely, and is largely a reflection of the society in which the person lives.
A. That's nice, you're not a member of the community you're referring to while the poll respondents in the study were and there's a clear difference in preferences.
B. There's actually a big issue with the Deaf community not wanting to be viewed as disabled and strongly preferring the use of the term Deaf over "hearing disability."
That’s nice. But I’m not deaf, I have a hearing disability.
Cool, looks like you're getting the point.
"They don't mind" = 65% rated the term as neutral to good when discussing the issue with their clinicians. The authors weren't asking about how the terms were used by Joe Schmo, they were asking about it in the context of talking to their doctor, where I would presume standards are probably a little different.
This is reading like you didn't make it past the first two sentences in the abstract when you were grabbing the first result off Google Scholar that looked like it supported your argument.
Jesus Christ, are you dense? We are talking about something that doctors call a disorder. What else am I supposed to call it? Also I don't use Google, fuck that company
The fact that that's controversial resulted in the paper you cited being written.
There's a third term in the paper that you cited that more people rated positively than "developmental disorder," so maybe that one.
The fact is its not controversial to call it a disorder and ...... Just because some people prefer something else doesn't make what they prefer to be a medical fact or the other option to be offensive.
Here it is, actual proof you didn't make it to the third sentence of the abstract.
I dunno, let's see what it says in the introduction:
Thus, it looks like the controversy is among practitioners, while the authors note that no one has really examined what the individuals with the conditions (as you quoted in your other comment) think. Which is what the paper was attempting to answer.
I'm not going line by line over this paper with you, you're going to have to read the rest on your own.
Kinda sus to call, say, an embryo with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity, which will develop into a person with a fully functional uterus whose body behaves exactly like that of every other AFAB person, as "unhealthy". And by "kinda sus", i mean jfc dude, fuck off with your interphobic bs, your third grade understanding of biology and your trans genocide apologia.
yeah being gay was unhealthy until 1974 when it suddenly wasn't
You are missing the point. The person you responded to provided one of many possible examples of a person having a particular set of chromosomes, which you say determines their "sex," yet they have the reproductive organs of "the other sex." This shows that the entire concept of sexual binary is outdated and, due to it being weaponized in a quasi eugenicist way to pre determine social class roles, needs to be left in the dust bin of history. If genetics needs to be brought up in public discourse, the standard should be to speak very specificly on a case by case basis and stop attempting to group millions of people under reductive labels. Since we've decided to be extra confusing by naming these reductive sexual binary roles the same exact names as the reductive gender binary roles that they are equated to, the only way to resolve this it to just stop using these gender roles in the medical field and to instead speak specifically of the genetic conditions (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XY + androgyn sensitivity, etc.)
Well yeah, intersex people aren't in a conventional cis category.
You should be a bit ashamed of making such a dumb post
Where did you find the conventional part?
There was a word in your sentence replaced with another word with square brackets.
If you're incapable of understanding, please
and enrol in whatever remedial education classes are available
The Roman's system, the inventors of democracy, had a much more accurate system. The genders were bear and bottom and that's how it should stay. Return to tradition.
Honestly a society that was split along the lines of BDSM role instead of gender would be much preferable to me
Separate bathrooms for tops and bottoms makes way more sense to me than separate bathrooms for men and women
I think we just reinvented the omegaverse