If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.
At the end of the day, gender and sex are separate things which often councide in a certain way but do not need to. I won’t claim to understand that feeling as a cis dude but that’s just how it is. Bringing sex into the transgender talk is beyond pointless(except when it isn’t, but that’s not what people who talk about “biological females” are ever talking about).
You are misunderstanding, but I don’t blame you in the slightest. I don’t seem to have communicated very clearly. Someone else in this post has a comment making the argument that there are two sexes and that all humans either produce one of two gametes or have the potential to based on their body’s design, and at the time I thought it would be very obvious what I was referring to and why I would make a separate post instead of replying in that chain. I’m sorry for the confusion and any offense.
What I’m thinking about with my question is whether any humans can truly be considered as capable of producing eggs if they must be present at birth, if even people who already have eggs can’t make more.
Ah ok cool cool. “Asking questions” is always a dicey game that needs incredibly clear intent these days.
I don’t have the background nevessary to answer your question, but if I understand it correctly you’re asking about when the eggs are created and, if they’re technically made before birth, does it then not count. I’m not sure any one definition would really help nail it down. It’s a question that can probably not be answered within a strict binary which I imagine is part of the point you were trying to make, that said strict binary isn’t something we should be wasting too much time trying to force in the first place.
If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.
At the end of the day, gender and sex are separate things which often councide in a certain way but do not need to. I won’t claim to understand that feeling as a cis dude but that’s just how it is. Bringing sex into the transgender talk is beyond pointless(except when it isn’t, but that’s not what people who talk about “biological females” are ever talking about).
You are misunderstanding, but I don’t blame you in the slightest. I don’t seem to have communicated very clearly. Someone else in this post has a comment making the argument that there are two sexes and that all humans either produce one of two gametes or have the potential to based on their body’s design, and at the time I thought it would be very obvious what I was referring to and why I would make a separate post instead of replying in that chain. I’m sorry for the confusion and any offense.
What I’m thinking about with my question is whether any humans can truly be considered as capable of producing eggs if they must be present at birth, if even people who already have eggs can’t make more.
Ah ok cool cool. “Asking questions” is always a dicey game that needs incredibly clear intent these days.
I don’t have the background nevessary to answer your question, but if I understand it correctly you’re asking about when the eggs are created and, if they’re technically made before birth, does it then not count. I’m not sure any one definition would really help nail it down. It’s a question that can probably not be answered within a strict binary which I imagine is part of the point you were trying to make, that said strict binary isn’t something we should be wasting too much time trying to force in the first place.