Advanced search

Thought exercise: Debate without using certain words

(5 Posts)
JapabSharted Mon 13-Mar-17 13:19:25

Who's up for a thought exercise? My game, my rules.

Definitions of certain words are currently hotly contested, and often posters use the same word with conflicting definitions which makes for a confusing debate.

The rules to my game:
Cannot use the following words:


But of course you can make your arguments using whatever words you would otherwise have used to explain those concepts.
Stay factual.
Fact checking welcomed, challenge non-factual statements.

I'll begin.

I am a person with XX chromosomes. I also have ovaries, a vagina and a uterus. There are 3.5 billion people who also meet that factual description.
I therefore share a body type with approximately that number of people.
There are another 3.5 billion people who have XY chromosomes, penises and testicles.
Neuroscientific studies strongly support the conclusion that the former group of people, whilst differing significantly anatomically and in their reproductive organs from the latter group, do NOT differ significantly in cognitive ability. Studies demonstrate that any minor differences observed between the brains of the two groups is resultant from the impact of the environment upon the brain's neuroplasticity. Innate differences between brain abilities are not demonstrable.

I believe all people who meet the former description should be accorded the right to be recognised socially and legally as a distinct group.

What do you believe?

[Disclaimer: If you don't want to play there are a gazillion other threads so please, don't derail this one. Please don't drop by to be offensive. This is an exercise in people discussing difficult concepts, factually, and in good faith, without using loaded terms. If the exercise doesn't appeal to you please leave it to those who are interested.]

QuentinSummers Mon 13-Mar-17 20:09:20

I agree js
It would be useful to have some terminology to refer to these two distinct groups of people.
It would also be useful if the same terms could be applied to humans as to animals, we are after all just apes.

Semaphorically Mon 13-Mar-17 20:21:18

Yes, I agree that the group of people who share XX chromosomes must be recognised as a distinct group.

Physiologically we are different to the group of people who share XY chromosomes - different pelvis, different musculature, tendons attached in different places, on average physically weaker... and of course able to bear children.

Without a collective noun to describe ourselves, this group discriminated against based on our XX biology, we cannot adequately share our collective experience or attempt to address the numerous challenges still faced.

The world already knows we are different to those with XY chromosomes, because of our biology, and treats us differently, because of our biology.

We are not trying to exclude people from a lovely club. It isn't about being mean. We are trying to name ourselves clearly so that we don't lose the progress we have made towards equality.

QuentinSummers Mon 13-Mar-17 20:47:10

semaphorically star

uniquehornsonly Tue 14-Mar-17 14:24:56

Some people try to derail discussion of these issues by mentioning that rare individuals have genetic variants such as XXY, endocrine disorders such as androgen insensitivity, or structural birth defects such as absence of a uterus. However, variations on the genotype and phenotype of individual humans is a normal part of biological diversity. The rarity of these variations underscores the fact that, in common with many other species on Earth, humans are specialised into XX-vagina-uterus and XY-penis-testicles groups.

Hence, the existence of such individuals is unrelated to the right of XX-vagina-uterus people to be recognised socially and legally as a distinct group.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: