Diesel Boogaloo
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 5 de Ago, 2017
I guess your definitions is why someone may object (as there are various Y chromosome disorders, and infertility is also a thing) and such nitpicking objections is what troons use to dismiss biology entirely.Chromosomes determine sex.
It's anisogamy that really defines a person's sex. Gametes. Whether they produce eggs or sperm. And no "Katie", that doesn't mean that if you chop your cock and balls off so you no longer produce sperm, you become a woman.
This attempt to kinda co-opt science, say "but biology can't even say what a woman is!"
Therefore I propose the following definition of "female", it should work for most species, and most importantly, all mammals:
A female is an organism that
1) is, or;
2) has undergone developmental processes (successful or not, for example interrupted by external or internal factors) striving towards, or;
3) is undergoing developmental processes striving towards:
producing larger gametes, and not smaller gametes.
This definition handles all forms of gene expression disorders (failed expressions simply do not start processes), infertility (as the processes happened, they just failed, or the menopause kicked in, but the processes were successful 30 years earlier, or you're a worker ant and you would become a queen if the older ants just fed you better), intersex people (they underwent both larger and smaller gamete processes, so they're neither male nor female), hermaphrodite snails (same idea) and so on.
Note that a surgery is not a "developmental process".
The only thing it does not handle well is sex-changing reptiles and Alex Jones' gay frogs, but improvements are welcome. Or we can just call them hermaphrodites and call it a day.
