Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY

[tstorm823]

You have chosen to fundamentally connect sex to the ability to reproduce (against both the scientific and the culturally-accepted definitions).

"sex (noun): either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." Oxford English Dictionary

In doing so, you've denigrated people who aren't able to reproduce.

The denigration doesn't come from associating them with intersex/ people without a sex. The denigration comes from your denial of their identity based on their lack of a specific function.

Denial of identity is dehumanising, yes.

I think you should consider what "identity" actually means. Identity is a characteristic or collection of characteristics that distinguish an individual from others. You are suggesting that it is denigrating not to draw division between myself and others. That by minimizing the social distinctions between people to only those things necessary for the continuation of the species, I am treating people as less than me (by treating them the same).

 

[Silvanus]

"sex (noun): either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." Oxford English Dictionary

Well done, you've identified the organic function of the sexual binary, which was never in dispute.

It should be quite obvious that that does not mean that 'able to reproduce' is required to classify. Dictionaries do not give exhaustive or full scientific definitions; they give generally-useful usages. Similarly an encyclopedia may describe humans as a species that reproduces sexually, but that obviously doesn't mean you're no longer a homo sapien if you're infertile.

If functional ability to reproduce was required to count, then small children would be neither male nor female. Women past the menopause would no longer be women. The infertile would be neither male nor female.

Nobody uses the terms that way.

I think you should consider what "identity" actually means. Identity is a characteristic or collection of characteristics that distinguish an individual from others. You are suggesting that it is denigrating not to draw division between myself and others. That by minimizing the social distinctions between people to only those things necessary for the continuation of the species, I am treating people as less than me (by treating them the same).

You're not reducing the distinctions, though. You're increasing them: refusing to admit people into certain categories, creating in-groups of people who count and out-groups of people who don't fit your standard. Creating a pointless and insulting division between those who can do X and those who can't.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"Women after menopause stop being women and saying otherwise is dehumanising" is a hell of a take t.

If that's not actually your take, then you're explaining very badly

 

[tstorm823]

If functional ability to reproduce was required to count, then small children would be neither male nor female. Women past the menopause would no longer be women. The infertile would be neither male nor female.

Nobody uses the terms that way.

Everybody uses the terms that way, at least implicitly. Why do you think there are celebrations across the globe for teenagers passing from boys to men and girls to women? A boy is not a man yet, a girl is not a woman yet. People use the phrases like "becoming a man" or"becoming a woman" euphemistically around losing virginity or having a first period. Men with erectile dysfunction often say they don't feel like a man, women after menopause will say they don't feel like a woman... it's about sexual production, and it's strongly implicit in common rhetoric.

You're not reducing the distinctions, though. You're increasing them: refusing to admit people into certain categories, creating in-groups of people who count and out-groups of people who don't fit your standard. Creating a pointless and insulting division between those who can do X and those who can't.

That's not a pointless division. Those are descriptions of categories required for the continuation of the species. There are people who can get pregnant (female), and those that can impregnate (male), and you cannot just pretend those categories of people don't exist. It's wild in my eyes that you think that is a pointless division, but you have no qualms at all with divisions based solely on the personal feelings of individuals.

 

[Agema]

People use the phrases like "becoming a man" or"becoming a woman" euphemistically around losing virginity or having a first period.

They also use that sort of phrase for lots of other things, like "becoming a man" for killing someone or something.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Everybody uses the terms that way, at least implicitly. Why do you think there are celebrations across the globe for teenagers passing from boys to men and girls to women? A boy is not a man yet, a girl is not a woman yet. People use the phrases like "becoming a man" or"becoming a woman" euphemistically around losing virginity or having a first period. Men with erectile dysfunction often say they don't feel like a man, women after menopause will say they don't feel like a woman... it's about sexual production, and it's strongly implicit in common rhetoric.

...yeah, maybe don't be trotting around the idea that a 12 year old is a Woman in a discussion about abortion rights. Especially with all the concern conservatives have over "groomers"

 

[Silvanus]

Everybody uses the terms that way, at least implicitly. Why do you think there are celebrations across the globe for teenagers passing from boys to men and girls to women? A boy is not a man yet, a girl is not a woman yet. People use the phrases like "becoming a man" or"becoming a woman" euphemistically around losing virginity or having a first period. Men with erectile dysfunction often say they don't feel like a man, women after menopause will say they don't feel like a woman... it's about sexual production, and it's strongly implicit in common rhetoric.

What an utterly bizarre route to take. Do you believe children don't have a biological sex, then?

That's not a pointless division. Those are descriptions of categories required for the continuation of the species. There are people who can get pregnant (female), and those that can impregnate (male), and you cannot just pretend those categories of people don't exist. It's wild in my eyes that you think that is a pointless division, but you have no qualms at all with divisions based solely on the personal feelings of individuals.

"Required for the continuation of the species"? Even though almost everyone on the planet includes the infertile and women past menopause when they use the terms 'male' and 'female', and the species hasn't died out?

No, this absurd and fringe exclusionary definition is not necessary for humanity to persist.

 

[tstorm823]

What an utterly bizarre route to take. Do you believe children don't have a biological sex, then?

I believe that things, including people, exist in time, and it is perfectly reasonable to refer to something as what it was or will be. A object is never really a boat if it never touches the water, but you might still call it a boat while it's being made and after it's beached for good. Most children you can reasonable identify their future reproductive capacity from day 1, in much the same way you can say a log is a canoe if you know you're going to make it into one, but whether they are that thing at that point is a philosophical question without a clear answer. Is something defined by a certain purpose meet the definition before it is actually capable or after it is not? I don't know. But, what is clear enough to me, something that cannot fulfill a purpose will never meet the definition, making the time aspect certainly moot.

"Required for the continuation of the species"? Even though almost everyone on the planet includes the infertile and women past menopause when they use the terms 'male' and 'female', and the species hasn't died out?

No, this absurd and fringe exclusionary definition is not necessary for humanity to persist.

This is a rather strange slight of hand you're going for. It is not the words that are required, it is the things they describe. Male and female reproductive roles are required for the continuation of the species, again describing exclusively the actual reproductive functions, what words you use have no power over that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

This is a rather strange slight of hand you're going for. It is not the words that are required, it is the things they describe. Male and female reproductive roles are required for the continuation of the species, again describing exclusively the actual reproductive functions, what words you use have no power over that.

And yet, you care *so very much* about the words, to the point that you think people choosing other words will lead to the collapse of the human population

 

[Silvanus]

I believe that things, including people, exist in time, and it is perfectly reasonable to refer to something as what it was or will be. A object is never really a boat if it never touches the water, but you might still call it a boat while it's being made and after it's beached for good. Most children you can reasonable identify their future reproductive capacity from day 1, in much the same way you can say a log is a canoe if you know you're going to make it into one, but whether they are that thing at that point is a philosophical question without a clear answer. Is something defined by a certain purpose meet the definition before it is actually capable or after it is not? I don't know. But, what is clear enough to me, something that cannot fulfill a purpose will never meet the definition, making the time aspect certainly moot.

So the sole determining factor for you is the ability to reproduce at some point, then? And the infertile are sexless.

Why have you come to rest on an overriding factor that isn't in use by scientists or doctors?

This is a rather strange slight of hand you're going for. It is not the words that are required, it is the things they describe. Male and female reproductive roles are required for the continuation of the species, again describing exclusively the actual reproductive functions, what words you use have no power over that.

Uh-huh, but literally nobody is questioning the existence of male and female roles in reproduction, rendering this a pointless statement.

The sleight of hand was in conflating a question over the encompassing nature of a term/category with a distracting, empty question over whether the concept should exist at all.

 

[tstorm823]

Why have you come to rest on an overriding factor that isn't in use by scientists or doctors?

First off, it is used by scientists and doctors. The word roots of "gynecology" effectively spell out "the study of women". What do gynecologists actually deal with? Reproductive health. The female aspect of the human body are those specific to reproduction.

Second, I don't know what you think is being "overridden". The only alternative you've even hinted at is the purely subjective one, making your argument essentially "how dare you define words!"

 

[ko11b]

Very huge debatable topic this abortion thing regardless of stages it can be different according to ones view I would rather not debate too much because the arguments would never end none the less the woman should be the one to decide they can also be the ones to get blamed should be there choice... But there conscious and there decision whether it is good or bad too much debates in my personal opinion I would not recommend that option. That's about it

 

[Agema]

What do gynecologists actually deal with? Reproductive health.

Gynaecology deals with women's health: especially those parts where female anatomy and physiology varies heavily from male. This is mostly the reproductive system for obvious reasons, but is not restricted to it. For instance, gynaecologists may also deal with urinary tract and bladder issues, breasts, etc.

Is something defined by a certain purpose meet the definition before it is actually capable or after it is not?

Basically, no.

You could define something by its designed intent, potential to fulfill a role (in its existing form), or if it is sufficiently recognisable as something that can or did perform that role.

 

[Silvanus]

First off, it is used by scientists and doctors. The word roots of "gynecology" effectively spell out "the study of women". What do gynecologists actually deal with? Reproductive health. The female aspect of the human body are those specific to reproduction.

I genuinely don't know what you intend to prove by this etymological argument. Scientists and doctors simply factually do not exclude people who cannot reproduce from the categories of male and female. Gynecologists will treat people who cannot reproduce.

Second, I don't know what you think is being "overridden". The only alternative you've even hinted at is the purely subjective one, making your argument essentially "how dare you define words!"

No, that's bollocks, and I didn't say it was pure subjectivity. Biological sexes have definitions. Those definitions don't consider the ability to reproduce to be a sole overriding factor.

 

[tstorm823]

No, that's bollocks, and I didn't say it was pure subjectivity. Biological sexes have definitions. Those definitions don't consider the ability to reproduce to be a sole overriding factor.

Sure, okay, now provide a definition that doesn't "deny someone's identity".

 

[Silvanus]

Sure, okay, now provide a definition that doesn't "deny someone's identity".

Uhrm, ok;

Biological sex: The categorisation of animals, plants, and fungi, according to certain physical characteristics generally associated with reproductive functions, or secondary characteristics that are connected to those. In most sexually dimorphic animals (but not all) these characteristics Include: genitalia, gonads, chromosomes, internal physiology and external morphology. The weight placed on each of these characteristics depends on culture and is not universal.

 

[tstorm823]

Uhrm, ok;

Biological sex: The categorisation of animals, plants, and fungi, according to certain physical characteristics generally associated with reproductive functions, or secondary characteristics that are connected to those. In most sexually dimorphic animals (but not all) these characteristics Include: genitalia, gonads, chromosomes, internal physiology and external morphology. The weight placed on each of these characteristics depends on culture and is not universal.

I'm sorry, but you've now denied the identity of anyone who disagrees with that definition for themselves.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm sorry, but you've now denied the identity of anyone who disagrees with that definition for themselves.

no u

 

[Trunkage]

I'm sorry, but you've now denied the identity of anyone who disagrees with that definition for themselves.

So, it legit did not matter what Silvanus said

Ok

 

[Silvanus]

I'm sorry, but you've now denied the identity of anyone who disagrees with that definition for themselves.

I can see the cheap 'gotcha' that you're aiming for, but it falls flat. Because the definition I gave isn't anywhere near as pointlessly exclusionary as yours. Terms like 'generally' and 'not universal' indicate that specific characteristics are not always required (which is accurate).

All that's left is not in any serious dispute. It is suitably broad to include human sexual dimorphism, but also fungal sexual differentiation, which can have hundreds of distinct forms. And the definition given certainly doesn't have any such gross, arbitrary exclusions as yours does (the infertile).