Not false, regardless of one’s stance in gender and sexual identities.
1. If you are of the opinion that a person can identify as male or female; or that a biological female who has gender reassignment surgery is “male” then it is true.
2. If you do not believe a persons gender and sexual identity are independent or can be “changed” from their genetics at birth… it is still true that not everyone who is pregnant is female. Genetically, most “hermaphrodites” are XY chromosome. For a “traditionalist” of gender- that would make them “male.” However, it is possible for a hermaphrodite (or intersex person) to have functional reproductive organs of either or both sex(es).
This isn’t hypothetical either- there are documented pregnancies in “hermaphrodites.”
3. Let’s say that you want to be a smarty pants or are just an odd duck and you just define gender based on someone’s genitals?
You’re a person that says: “that with penis is male, that with Vagina is female..”?
Well- I’ve got you covered. Some genetically “female” persons are born without external genitals. No vagina. There are documented cases of women without vaginas becoming pregnant. One such case occurred when such a woman gave a blow job and was stabbed in the abdomen- against astronomical odds, the nature of the injury allowed the semen to impregnate her directly. So even if we try to identify females as those with vaginas regardless of genetics- still true.
4. So what if one believes that a uterus makes a woman? Surely no one gets pregnant without a uterus…well…. They totally do. It’s called “ectopic pregnancy.”
Pregnancy outside the uterus- including in those without a uterus. Which again- has happened and is on record.
So sorry, it is completely true that not everyone that gets pregnant is female regardless of a persons beliefs on issues of gender identity or whatever else*, it is a medical fact backed by genetics and science regardless of your personal feelings. Not everyone who gets pregnant is female.
@guest_ I'm well versed in sex and gender but some of those examples blew my mind a little ngl. Now please excuse me while I spend the afternoon furiously finding sources for number 3.
@karlboll- lol. No worries.
Report: “Oral conception. Impregnation via the proximal gastrointestinal tract in a patient with an aplastic distal vagina”
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Author: Douwe A. A. Verkuyl.
just a very slight "im pretty sure its a correction" to this
as far as im aware a human can't develop in a way that allows both the "fathering" of a child as well as pregnancy. There's a hypothetical situation in which a human could self fertilize if they were formed as a chimera (2 pre-fetus twins fuse into one being) by having a left right split where the left gonadal mass is testicular and the right functions as an ovary but as far as im aware it shouldn't be possible, and hasnt yet been recorded as having happened, for a human to both be able to impregnate someone else and also become pregnant themselves.
also any child born of the hypothetical situation mentioned above would likely be very problematic as the chimera situation would create a human that is functionally their own non-identical twin and thats not good for the genetic lottery.
I dig the fun fact and hypothesis. Thank you. I don’t recall saying that a person could self impregnate- but I wrote a lot so if I made a mistake or it was hard to read- my apologies. The main point I recall making on “hermaphroditism” was just that generally speaking genetically “hermaphrodites” tend to be “male” aka XY chromosome. The two most common arguments I hear when it comes to rejecting gender identity determination are that a “male” has a penis or a “male” has an X and Y chromosome. The chromosome is the only factor relating to sex that can’t be altered or disguised presently- pointing to a bit of the silliness of the entire thing. I guess the third common argument hinges on wether a person produces egg or sperm- but since people can be born without or lose the ability to produce these things; and what dictates that is generally chromosomes, that’s another silly criteria.
you didn't say anything about self impregnation that im aware of, the correction was to this
"However, it is possible for a hermaphrodite (or intersex person) to have functional reproductive organs of either or both sex(es). "
specifically the "or both" part, hence the stuff about how, as far as im aware, you can't have both bits function to the degree of impregnating someone else and also getting pregnant.
Honestly this kind of topic is always really interesting. genetics and environmental factors can do some crazy fascinating shit to the body
Ah! Apologies. Thank you for citing the line in question. Thank you for the correction as well. I didn’t recall writing that. Yes. That is written incorrectly, and as I wrote it, I agree it reads to imply exactly what your correction sets to clear up. As far as I am also aware- but I cannot say it is completely impossible or has never happened- you are correct in that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that a person would have male and female sex organs that are fully functional for reproduction. Also I agree that I find this stuff fascinating too. What we consider the “norm” is largely a host of mutations, and what we consider “mutations” could one day be the “norm” as well. Factoring in environmental evolutions of different groups and other changes from environment adaptation of an individual, we can get some crazy stuff. The human body is quite the odd wonder.
Seems like an overreaction tbh. They have one unified questionnaire and their inner bureaucracy requires them to have all questions answered. Big whoop.
1. If you are of the opinion that a person can identify as male or female; or that a biological female who has gender reassignment surgery is “male” then it is true.
2. If you do not believe a persons gender and sexual identity are independent or can be “changed” from their genetics at birth… it is still true that not everyone who is pregnant is female. Genetically, most “hermaphrodites” are XY chromosome. For a “traditionalist” of gender- that would make them “male.” However, it is possible for a hermaphrodite (or intersex person) to have functional reproductive organs of either or both sex(es).
This isn’t hypothetical either- there are documented pregnancies in “hermaphrodites.”
3. Let’s say that you want to be a smarty pants or are just an odd duck and you just define gender based on someone’s genitals?
You’re a person that says: “that with penis is male, that with Vagina is female..”?
4. So what if one believes that a uterus makes a woman? Surely no one gets pregnant without a uterus…well…. They totally do. It’s called “ectopic pregnancy.”
Pregnancy outside the uterus- including in those without a uterus. Which again- has happened and is on record.
Report: “Oral conception. Impregnation via the proximal gastrointestinal tract in a patient with an aplastic distal vagina”
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Author: Douwe A. A. Verkuyl.
as far as im aware a human can't develop in a way that allows both the "fathering" of a child as well as pregnancy. There's a hypothetical situation in which a human could self fertilize if they were formed as a chimera (2 pre-fetus twins fuse into one being) by having a left right split where the left gonadal mass is testicular and the right functions as an ovary but as far as im aware it shouldn't be possible, and hasnt yet been recorded as having happened, for a human to both be able to impregnate someone else and also become pregnant themselves.
"However, it is possible for a hermaphrodite (or intersex person) to have functional reproductive organs of either or both sex(es). "
specifically the "or both" part, hence the stuff about how, as far as im aware, you can't have both bits function to the degree of impregnating someone else and also getting pregnant.
Honestly this kind of topic is always really interesting. genetics and environmental factors can do some crazy fascinating shit to the body