Why is a Vagina feminine if there is no sex?

Thats not an honest question on my part.



I have an opinion on the matter but just wanted to highlight some aspects of Canada's new genderless ID law.

If the distinction is made medically between 2 options then to me there are still those two options. The rest is just an over complication of preference.

If you like what ever sex you do then good for you. Your sexual attraction or lack thereof is entirely linked to your type of partner, god bless what ever they have between their legs.

What you identify as is SEPARATE from that finite expression of habit ,social intelligence and biology. You can identify with being a vampire or a punk, surfer, waiter, pilot, and so on.

Those are things you LIVE AS. You LIVE being gay or straight or whatever. YOU ARE what you are medically, until you CHANGE that very important aspect.

Yes the operation and all the hormones and follow up treatment are what makes the crossover into the only other option. The OPPOSITE sex. Even still the distinction of POST OP is needed for medical and legal reasons. There are two biological options.

Finally the last point.

If a Vagina is then a trait like eyebrow length that is randomly assigned to some and is not entirely of itself a feminine trait, then perhaps gay men are being bigots for discriminating against people with vaginas, since "woman" doesnt exist.

I obviously was laughing while typing that. I think its absurd and far fetched. Then again I never thought we would ever have to hash this all out.

I have seen longer lasting trends in toys than this new facet of gender politics.

Anyhoot, Do I even have genitals? What am I when I walk into a bathroom? These are the deep questions we leave to future generations.

LOL.

My question is why are they pushing this gender less agenda...

It's like they are trying to take away human traits all the while pushing A.I and robotics

personally i think its all part of the master plan and when we are not needed mass human extinction and a small Utopian population with the robots as slaves instead of us humans

a reply to: tadaman


Obvious there is some big time social engineering happening. I don't know what the plan is, but it is happening. In a sense the brute male has been the biggest problem for a few thousands years in terms of constant warfare and all manner of hideous raping, invading, environmental destruction, etc. We might be thinking humans are deliberately social engineering. However, it might be nature doing it.

I am not fond of brute machismo. Good riddance if that's the case. I like it that women are stronger. Being a nervous wreck, mentally disturbed, imprisoned sub-servant of male whim is neither attractive or healthy.

Hope it works. Couldn't be any worse than what we had in the past. Just hope it doesn't end up tits up like Medea savagery though, lol. Probably will do knowing humans.

a reply to: theruthlessone

All kinds of traditionalism are under attack.
When even the word "normal" has been deemed as offensive, you can't help but feel that the New World Order is winning.
These things have to stop being seen in isolation and need to be seen as part of a much bigger agenda.
Several recent threads on here need to be viewed as connected.
I can't link them for you on my phone i'm afraid but I can see the connection and so should everyone else.
Frightening stuff.

a reply to: tadaman

The real question is why does this bother you so much?

a reply to: tadaman

Also, I don't think we can thank patriarchy for modern development and a spike in our evolution. We lived pretty much the same drear of carnage, war, slavery, colonization until later on in the middle nineteenth century when women began to make their presence felt once more. Since then we have developed big time and many times more quickly as women have risen in status. The two appear to go hand in hand.

a reply to: Revolution9

I attribute our great leaps of progress to a higher protein diet. Our decline usually mirrors a decrease in national meat consumption.

Im kidding. Its a similar argument though and statistically could be true just because when people have more money they can afford more meat. That doesnt mean that the meat in the store is the source of the extra cash people may have for it.

Its a bit far to say that modern civilization is a female creation when part of the argument made is one of exclusion. What COULD have been. I agree though that SOME measure of increased development can be attributed to the other half of the population contributing in more meaningful ways to society as a whole.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

What gave you an impression I felt anything about it?

Its a subject, I speak English, Yall are there/

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: tadaman

The real question is why does this bother you so much?

For someone who isn't bothered by anything, being on the internet and on ATS sure is a bit of a tell.

Why are you bothered so much to bother with bothering posts that bother others enough to bother posting about if it may bother them? what a bother.

too much time?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Deaf Alien

What gave you an impression I felt anything about it?

Its a subject, I speak English, Yall are there/

Oh bother !!!

I'll tell you why there is a problem though, in regards to the op.

Women say that a doodle is just a deformed lady bit. "Everyone is female, till the male develops."

So... your wang is a mistake. We're all chicks. Some of us are chicks with... ahem.

if you have a snoo snoo, you're the superior. Just look at rosey odonnell..


"YOUR PENIS IS FAKE NEWS!"

a reply to: badw0lf

I am not certain but I think that has been misinterpreted. The cells for development of the penis dont "come from brain cells" in early fetal development.

The total mass of them is different because the structures vary. The respective male and female brains have different weights at various stages of development.

Something along those lines. People thought that difference was meant to express a cut and paste of fetal cells.

This does bring up a valid point though. Where does FEMInism fit in a genderless society?

Third wave feminism especially. Its goals are not aligned with this new gender identity complex.

There is nothing to be equal, there is nothing to be superior. The latter is of some comfort to the former as both come hand in hand.

originally posted by: tadaman
If the distinction is made medically between 2 options then to me there are still those two options. The rest is just an over complication of preference.

Wrong, gender is a social construct, a simplification to create gender distinctions into two categories, male or female.

Medically we are much more complex than just XX and XY. Whilst I agree that most people are 46XX and 46XY, some will be born differently (estimated at 10%): there are females XY, males XX, 49XXXXY males, 45X, 45Y etc.

Some will be born with an identified chromosomal anomaly condition, such as Turner, Klinefelter (affects 1 in 600 males), hermaphroditism, Androgen syndrome etc, too many to count.

Human biology is not as black and white as you wish it would be and we are a lot more fluid than just male or female. And I think it's time we recognize that and accept that many people in society either identify with the gender opposite to their visible sex organs, or they do not feel they belong to any category.

Empathy for others can change the world, you know?

a reply to: Agartha

Sir, /maam,

Respectfully there is no new subclass of the human species to accommodate every variation and mutation of our DNA.

We have two sexes. Reproduction is a mechanical, exclusive process in a binary system not a philosophical exercise.

Science laughs at idiotic SJW non-sense.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: tadaman
If the distinction is made medically between 2 options then to me there are still those two options. The rest is just an over complication of preference.

Wrong, gender is a social construct ...

Wouldn't the social construct be gender roles, not gender itself?

Gender is a direct 'extension' of sex, a mere label, whereas the social construct - that is the the model for values, behavior etc that we consider appropriate for a gender - is the roles we assign to the label.

The gender roles.

Of course there are two physical sexes, which are clearly expressed, medically, in the vast majority of individuals.

If some want to think of themselves as being somewhere else on the continuum than at the binary extremes, mentally, emotionally, socially or physically...have at it. Who cares really?

I just find the endless debate about, and the fixation on, this minuscule slice of humanity...boring.

originally posted by: tadaman
Sir, /maam,

Respectfully there is no new subclass of the human species to accomodate every variation and mutation of our DNA.

We have to sexes. Reproduction is a mechanical, exclusive process in a binary system not a philisophical excercise.

And yet we have females that have female reproductive organs, can have babies, but their chromosomes indicate they are male and feel male.

And we have males that have external male genitalia, but are not 46XY and do not feel either male nor female.

Like I said, at least 10% of do not fit in any category. You are simplifying things by external genitalia and reproduction, but biology is a lot more complicated than that. And this is clear not just with humans, but also animals.

You cannot define somebody by the sex organs you can see. We don't live in the dark ages anymore.

a reply to: Agartha

What is archaic about being medically accurate?

As DupontDeux stated before, Gender ROLES are a system of beliefs /mental constructs where as Gender is a label for medical and legal purposes.

Because FEMales have vaginas and males have penises.

Never saw Kindergarten Cop?

Or went to sex-ed in school???

Boys(masculine) have penises, girls (feminine) have vaginas.

Why don't they sell male tampons?

Is an equally redundant question.

a reply to: DupontDeux

originally posted by: Disturbinatti

Is an equally redundant question.

originally posted by: tadaman

What is archaic about being medically accurate?.

Simply because you are not entirely medically accurate.

You are defining people by male or female based on their visible sexual organs. This is what we do when babies are born: we look at them and assign a gender according to whether we see a penis or a vagina.

Most babies will grow up to match that sexual assignment but at least 10% of the population will not: those people were assigned a gender according to their primary sexual characteristics but their reproductive system either contradicts that or is a mixture of both.

Medically we know we are not all just male or female. In fact, gender assignment based only on whether someone has a penis or vagina is wrong and this is why to legally assign a sex is being challenged in many secular countries. And I agree, medically millions do not match a/one specific gender and we should allow them to choose the gender they think/feel they are.

In the dark ages we didn't know all this (explained in my 3 posts here), hence we learned to go by 'penis=boy' and 'vagina=girl' when biologically it's not as simple.