Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on ""Jessica" Yaniv is Exactly the Kind of Opportunist That I Warned About in 2016" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@untamedpandasweg8986 I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say when you say either gender is a social construct or biological sex matters. It appears the claim being made by scientists and doctors is that transgender people are transgender because they are actually intersexed in some way, perhaps neurologically (the brain being considered the most important sex organ). Furthermore, if you have the knowledge I have about sex/gender you would know that the definitions of male and female are not certain. We tend to believe the distinction is clear, that a female produces ova gets pregnant and either lays an egg or gives birth while a male produces sperm which fertilizes the ova. Right? But the fact is in some animals such as birds and even some mammals we find that what we call chromosomal males are the ones which produce the ova and the ones which are what we'd otherwise call chromosomal females produce the sperm and fertilize the ova. We call the chromosomal males "females" because we are using a definition of "male" as the sperm producer and the definition of "female" as ova producer. But if we use chromosomal sex to determine sex it could be argued that females originally were the sperm producers and males were the ova producers. Science teaches birds evolved from dinosaurs so it is possible the same applies to the ancient saurian ancestors of humans. If so, then that means somewhere along the way of evolving into mammals, either before or after the emergence of mammals, our ancient ancestors reversed sex the same way birds and reptiles sometimes do to produce XY males and XX females and these survived and/or reproduced more succesfully than their XX male and XY female ancestors did. Perhaps this is getting too complex for the average person but the fact is sex isn't some trait which can be easily measured or determined because it isn't determined by a single trait but rather by weighting several traits such as chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, anatomical sex, hormone levels, hormone sensitivity and response, sexual instinct/behavior, reproductive role, and (in the case of humans) gender identity. All of these factors combined play a role in determining whether we consider a creature male or female. When you fully understand the implications of this fact you will understand that the concept of biological sex is actually a social construct because how we define male or female is arbitrary. Do we define male or female based on the absence or presence of certain chromosomes, the absence or presence of certain genes, gonadal type, anatomy, or some other trait? Take your pick. Personally, I prefer to use genes (over chronosomes and other factors) but there are exogenous factors which can override genes causing a person whose genes dictate they should be a female to become a male or vice verse. But should we consider someone who is genetically female but born with male anatomy a female if they identify as male? No, in my opinion, we should not. Not even if it's discovered they have fertile ovaries in their nutsack because gender identity trumps all in my opinion. Only if they identify as a female (despite having an apparently male external anatomy) should we consider them a female. After all, biological sex is a social construct. However, I am inclined to believe if it's true jessica yaniv has ovaries or even ovotestis functioning as ovaries jessica has more of a right to access female only spaces, regardless of their appearance, than somebody who is what we consider male in every way (chromosomally, genetically, anatomically, hormonally) but self-identifies as a woman. But to be clear, I do believe people have a right to self-identify as the opposite sex (or both sexes or no sex at all). Yet, somebody whose gonadal sex is female and identifies as a female has more legitimacy as a female than somebody whose gonadal sex is male but identifies as a female. In other words, if its true jessica yaniv has ovaries, menstruates, and can get pregnant then it seems to me she has more of a right to use the ladies room than blaire white. Not to say blaire white has no right to use the ladies room. But if blaire white can use the ladies room then yaniv should also be allowed to use the ladies room. The fact that yaniv prefers women is irrelevant. Lesbians are equally entitled to use the ladies room, aren't they? It doesn't matter if yaniv proves to be a pedophile (which I doubt) because even convicted pedophiles registered as sex offenders are entitled to use public restrooms despite the fact that may put them in proximity to children (I should emphasize yaniv is neither a convicted pedophile nor registered sex offender). I find the abuse yaniv is enduring to be horrifying. It seems to me she is being abused because she is perceived by many be too "masculine" to be entitled to self-identify as female (primarily because she is sexually attracted to women). As if appearance is important where gender identity, or rather acceptance of one's gender identity, is concerned.
1
-
1
-
1