I can't tell if this person was trolling or not.
Help, plz?
>>5856306
>female has a penis
>therefore the penis is a female's penis
>therefore the penis is female
what don't you understand?
>>5856316
>female has a penis
>therefore the penis is a female's penis
>therefore the penis is female
I don't understand parts 1, 2 and 3.
What, a female has eyeballs so they're ~female eyeballs~? A penis is a sex organ. It's a male sex organ.
girlcock sounds more kawaii than guycock. i have a girlcock and a boypussy why is that hard to understand
>>5856306
probably not. this user is just a massive autist (actual autist, not saying that to be mean)
>>5856328
>being this transmisogynstic
*pukes
>>5856328
disgusting
jesus go back to /pol/ then kill yourself
>>5856373
>They
>>5856373
So are you saying girls don't have cocks? That's super transphobic
>>5856394
We all know that real women have tentacles.
>>5856395
Naw I'm just trolling :^)
>>5856407
>>5856395
i thought we were pretending it was reddit itt
>>5856328
>It's a male sex organ.
But if it's on the body of a female, it's part of a female body, and that's what they mean by female penis.
>>5856328
>It's a male sex organ
Only if it is on a man. A male sex organ can be a vagina or a penis.
Saying penises have to be male sex organs is like saying blue eyes have to be male eyes. It makes no sense since there is no correlation between sex organs and gender.
>>5856394
a girl can have a cock, sure. but calling it a 'proud female girlcock' is a step too far
>>5856719
sex is biological, gender is mental. when you're talking about a *sex organ*, you're talking biology. a penis is the *male sex organ*, even if it's on a female.
there's no correlation between sex organs and gender, but there is an inextricable link between sex organs and sex.
>>5859722
Tell that to Hyenas that have a penis and constantly use it to humiliate their male counterparts.
And I am not joking here.
>>5859741
exactly. gender and sex aren't the same thing, isn't that what we've been telling everyone all along? a cock on a girl is still a fucking male organ, thats why a lot of trans girls are dysphoric about it
>>5859748
they have an enlarged clitoris. that's not the same thing as a penis (sorry ftms).
>>5859722
you're old
doesn't matter what your chronological age is
you are an old person :(
>>5856494
Living socially as female and identifying as a female does not change that a penis is a male sex characteristic. If penises could be a female characteristic trans women wouldn't be dysphoric over having them.
It all boils down to philosophical viewpoint, really, or rather what viewpoint one considers to be the proper foundation for scientific inquiry. Such questions of method, while clearly of great importance for science and our relation to knowledge and understanding, are themselves NOT answerable by science and are, as I stated, philosophical in their essence. So when one is asked "can a woman have a 'female penis'?", the real question is actually: do you accept methodological reductionism as a valid approach to scientific inquiry or not? Do you believe, in other words, that the nature of the whole can be understood by study of the parts of which the whole is made up; that the constituent parts explain or even DEFINE the whole?
To put it even more clearly: is the gender of a person defined by their genitalia ("you have a penis, therefore you are a man, at least biologically"), or does the person define the genitalia ("you are a woman, therefore your genitalia are female regardless of whether you have a penis or vagina")? It all depends of the viewpoint.
Methodological reductionism is the most common perspective in biology, which is why you so often hear the claim that transwomen aren't biologically female or even, more crassly, that 'science proves' that transwomen are just men. But this view is not without it's critics (most famously, perhaps, the late great Stephen Jay Gould), and is still just the philosophical viewpoint that underlies that branch of the sciences and NOT science as such (in that it cannot be either falsified nor proven). One is free to adapt another viewpoint, another methodology, without being any less scientific or 'going against evidence'.
>>5860378
[cont.]
The reductionist view is not inherently more correct, we are just more used to it and so it often appears to be so. Many prefer it almost instinctively; it even appears 'obvious', simply a matter of fact; something one shouldn't even have to argue in favour of because it's so apparently and plainly true. It is rarely questioned, and doing so will quickly lead to being dismissed or even ridiculed. In other words, it is a HEGEMONIC view. But a view nonetheless, and one that people ought to be free to question.
>>5856306
they're right
stop being transmysoginistic
some girls have cocks and are proud of it, fucking get over it
>>5860363
>If penises could be a female characteristic trans women wouldn't be dysphoric over having them.
If penises where socially acceptable as a possible and equally legitimate female sex-characteristic, then no - transwomen wouldn't feel as much disphoria. But they aren't so accepted, and so women with penises have their femininity questioned, doubted and ridiculed, and are even met with discrimination and outright violence (sometimes lethal) because of their perceived 'deficiency'.
It's a case of social construction of norms/attitudes/beliefs ON TOP of recieved biology; not that biology as such defines anything. Biology is a science, and science builds models of reality; simplifications meant to ease our understanding of it. Such models do not define reality any more than the map defines the terrain; to claim otherwise is to commit a major logical fallacy.
gilrcock is as real and boypussy
>>5860363
>Living socially as female and identifying as a female does not change that a penis is a male sex characteristic.
"On average", yes. However, it is still possible for a penis to be a sex organ on a female's body.
> If penises could be a female characteristic trans women wouldn't be dysphoric over having them.
Not every trans woman has genital dysphoria.
>>5860532
>However, it is still possible for a penis to be a sex organ on a female's body.
yes, but it's still a *male sex organ*. from a biological standpoint, which is the only sensible standpoint when we're talking about a fucking *organ*.
>>5860543
>yes, but it's still a *male sex organ*. from a biological standpoint, which is the only sensible standpoint when we're talking about a fucking *organ*.
From a biological standpoint if one adapts methodological reductionism, perhaps. And even so, the definition would only be valid within the model of that particular field. You can't just transplant the definition from a scientific model into society, thus turning it into a social category, and say "that's just the way it is!"
>>5860543
Correct. It's painfully simple. Let's remember though that we're talking about the most insecure group of people, collectively speaking. I don't know why most trans women have such a hard time accepting anything "male" about themselves. There isn't such thing as a 100% female or 100% male person, so relax people and learn be comfortable with yourself.
>>5860560
>You can't just transplant the definition from a scientific model into society, thus turning it into a social category, and say "that's just the way it is!"
I'm not. Body parts are by definition biological; it's the person that is social. I can't believe I'm having to fucking explain this.
>>5860621
>Body parts are by definition biological
Confusing the map for the territory. Something being a biological system is one thing: that's the 'territory''. Then there is a science called "biology" which studies biological systems, and that science uses certain definitions in its models and theories; that's the "map" and the process of mapmaking. Those definitions used in the science of biology are not universially, or socially, valid. It's still a map, it does not define the territory. That's turning the actual process up-side-down.
first part makes sense although their word choice hurts my eyes.
second part is 100% cringe
>>5860346
i'm 3, i don't see your point
>>5860351
>>5860743
>inb4 banhammer
>>5860723
you're making no fucking sense. body parts = biology, person = social. i don't know why you overly politically correct fucks can't just concede that gender does not change biological sex. you can't just redefine away everything that hurts your fee fees.
a girl can have a penis; that does not make her a male. a guy can have a vagina; that does not make him a female. but this will always be true: the penis is a male sexual organ because it is a part of the male reproductive system - the one which produces sperm. the vagina is a female sexual organ because it is a part of the female reproductive system - the one which produces eggs. there is no getting around this, stop making yourself sound like an idiot.
>>5860802
But i'm in first year philosophy and i'm so enlightened and profound.
>>5860828
kek
>>5860802
No need to be upset. This has nothing to do with political correctness, you are forcing a false association in order to more easily dismiss my view. My point is a methodological one at heart.
Let me be clear. I am not disputing that, given your definition and the assumptions it makes, you are right. Not at all. I am simply pointing out that you are right only under that definition, and that there is no reason for your definition being more valid or "true" than the one used in the OP. Yours in more common, sure, but not more correct. I am arguing in favour of different definitions.
You are simply making a basic assumption of which you are not even aware, because it is so common it is taken as a matter of fact. That assumption is that science=reality. But what's really going on is that science STUDIES reality. It makes definitions, yes, and those are valid and useful. But they aren't Truths in some philosophical sense; they're true for the purpose of any given study but they aren't True in the universial sense. They do not MAKE or DEFINE reality, they are just a description of it. One that is subject to change as our understanding improves.
In the labaratory, in any scientific study, such definitions are what goes. Usually, And we can adapt them in our every-day life too, sure. But then they suddenly aren't scientific categories anymore. They're SOCIAL categories; based on and inspired by scientific categories, yes, but they're not scientific in that sense anymore since we're moved them to another context. We can till use them, but we can also choose not to. In the social realm they aren't anymore valid then our "fee fees". To claim otherwise is to encounter the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness'.
>>5860802
Also:
>the penis is a male sexual organ because it is a part of the male reproductive system
And why is the "male reproductive system" male? Because it has a penis? Impossible, if what you say above is true, as that would be circular reasoning.
The real reason is that there are a series of properties that a human body can have, and that these most commonly occur in two distinct groupings which we call "male" and "female".
>>5860828
It's not about philosophy as such, but about methodology; the philosophy and assumptions underlying science. A lot of people forget that science in practice indeed does makes some philosophical assumptions that, contrary to it's empirical results, can be called into question without being 'unscientific'. The critique I have pointed out, against essentialism and reductionism, is common among recognized biologist though of course not nearly as common as the norm.
>>5860802
So it's possible for a male to have a female reproductive system?
>>5860946
>And why is the "male reproductive system" male?
Because it the system that produces and enables the small gametes to do their job in reproduction.
Every sexually reproducing creature (with very few exceptions) has one gender that produces large gametes (called eggs), and one that produces small gametes (called sperm). Male reproductive systems make the sperm, female ones make the eggs. It's very simple
>>5860918
hahahahahaahahahahah >>5860828 is even more on point than i thought originally
>>5860946
>And why is the "male reproductive system" male?
because it produces sperm, and that's basically how "male" is defined. you can't say the definition of a fucking word is "circular reasoning"
>>5860951
yes, in fact a man has even given birth. anything relating to human biology gets biological terms.
>>5860959
i agree with you completely but let's not confuse terms. every sexually reproducing creature (with very few exceptions) has one SEX that produces large gametes (called eggs) and one that produces small gametes (called sperm). not gender. gender is purely a social term.
>>5860962
>you can't say the definition of a fucking word is "circular reasoning"
Definitions are, by definition, circular reasoning.
>>5860962
>hahahahahaahahahahah
Nice, mocking in liue of actual argument. Very typical when siding with a hegemonic view. In fact I predicted it in my post >>5860382 :
"It [i.e. a hegemonic view] is rarely questioned, and doing so will quickly lead to being dismissed or even ridiculed." The expression of a hegemonic view will rarley be held to the proper standards of debate, as it is taken as 'simply a fact'. Thank you for proving my point for me.
>>5860962
>that's basically how "male" is defined
Similiar to what >>5860970 is saying. And yes, to avoid confusion we often use the word "sex" to represent the biological category while using "gender" for the socially constructed aspect.
My argument was that we shouldn't mistake the biological definition for a fact, as it is also socially constructed in a sense. Not in the sense of being pure invention, but of being a product of the social process that is "doing science". Please don't get me wrong here: mine is not the "il n'y a pas de hors-texte"-claim of the typical postmodernist - I simply insist on holding seperate the real thing (the biologial system) and the social process by which we study the real thing (the science of biology).
I recognize the scientific process as an extremly good tool, and the best we have for understanding the world around us, but a tool nonetheless, made by us, and not a Soothsayer that spits out the Truth Most Venerable. The simple fact is that if you reverse the assumption, if you assume that a person's gender defines the characteristic of their genitalia, the OP example makes sense. And you don't have to even abandon the reductionist biologial model: merely admit that there is a real world outside it and that it's just a model.
>>5861208
>My argument was that we shouldn't mistake the biological definition for a fact, as it is also socially constructed in a sense. Not in the sense of being pure invention, but of being a product of the social process that is "doing science". Please don't get me wrong here: mine is not the "il n'y a pas de hors-texte"-claim of the typical postmodernist - I simply insist on holding seperate the real thing (the biologial system) and the social process by which we study the real thing (the science of biology).
In other words, the map is not the territory. A mountain is a thing that is real, the word "mountain" is an invention that points to the real thing, and the idea that the word corresponds to the particular thing is a social convention. I am not questioning the underlying real thing, but simply the convention regarding word-usage. I am questioning the idea that "word X is used in way Z in science" means that this is simply true. It is just the current definition. That's the point of the OP-example: challenging the definition. No one is arguing that, given that definition is fully accepted, the OP example sounds crazy.
