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.
Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
stray@pawb.social 15 hours ago
I have a question for kind of the whole thread in general, regarding the gametes discussion. Isn’t it the case that a human is born with all the eggs they’ll ever have? So like if you aren’t both with any, you’ll never make any later? And if so, isn’t the only way to produce eggs to become pregnant with a child and make their eggs for them?
Soup@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
stray@pawb.social 11 hours ago
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.
Soup@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
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.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Are you asking leading questions?
stray@pawb.social 13 hours ago
There’s a comment chain in this thread focused on the definition of sex as producing one of two gametes, which leads to pointing out that some people produce no gametes, which is countered by saying they could potentially produce them in the future or if they didn’t have a particular condition, etc. Normally I would post this kind of question directly to someone, but the same stuff is being said so many times that I’m not sure which one to reply to, hence creating a new comment chain.
Basically I’m thinking that defining the female sex by ability (or potential ability) to produce eggs might be faulty on the grounds that no one produces eggs. Or that only a person pregnant with a child who will be born with eggs can be said to have achieved femaleness by this definition. Or maybe the baby is the one making the eggs, so the only way to be female is to have produced eggs prior to birth. I’m not really sure of the details regarding when the eggs develop or who’s really responsible for them, I’m just pretty sure they’re there at birth and it’s interesting to think about.
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 11 hours ago
The term that might help you is “oogenesis”.
Essentially once cells have begun dividing following fertilization some are set apart as germ cells. These are the cells that eventually become gametes. The thing is, like I tried to mention in my last reply to that guy, it isn’t strictly chromosomes that determine what these cells become in humans. Lots of genetic transcription and translation factors, hormones and hormone receptors, ligands and so on. Sometimes those cells don’t even make it into the gonad, they die, and are absorbed by the embryo’s body.
This is why sex isn’t a binary, there is a spectrum of outcomes following gametogenesis, including a lack of gametes. Statistically it is most likely for a person who is born XX to have primary and secondary female sex characteristics. But that doesn’t mean people who fall outside of that aren’t also biologically women. If you define a woman as someone that is born with eggs, you deny womanhood to millions of people that would otherwise be considered a cis-woman by outdated standards.
That person stated one argument and then kept changing it, eventually arguing that we just weren’t understanding his words. Either he’s willfully ignorant and pushing a definition that is not taught in American universities, or he has an agenda. And the refusal to acknowledge the 30+ comments telling him he is wrong really suggests that there is an agenda.
stray@pawb.social 11 hours ago
I’m pretty sure they have an agenda, yeah. I just wanted to think about the premise on its own terms, like how one might think about the definition of a fish? I feel like it’s both personally enriching and better equips me to respond to such arguments. Even though I don’t think they’ll listen to anyone, I don’t think anyone’s responses to them were a waste of time because I really feel like I’ve learned a lot from reading them, and I’m sure plenty of other people did too, so thank you for your labor.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
The word “make” does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to pregnancy. A word like “nurture” might fit better. Once the sperm and egg combine, it starts doing its own thing, the mother’s body just provides resources for it to continue growing and a safe place to do so for the first 9 months give or take.
So the way to make human egg cells would be to either be conceived as a female and have everything go well enough to grow those eggs, or probably some other methods involving introducing various chemicals to unspecialized cells to trick them into behaving as if that was happening.
stray@pawb.social 13 hours ago
Okay, thank you.
When you say other methods, do you mean like in a lab somewhere? I was restricting my idea of egg production to what’s naturally capable by a human body (which I feel is in the spirit of powerstruggle’s definition of a sexual binary), but I figure probably anyone can produce any gametes they like through the magic of science.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Yeah, I was talking about the magic of science or extreme coincidences.
Ultimately (having read your other reply), I don’t think biological definitions are useful when it comes to social things like gender. It’s just trying to change the argument into an easier one. “What is normal?” vs “what is possible?” or “what is ok?”.