Quantcast
View Post
o_O.Q said:
fatslob-:O said:
Biological sex being a "social construct" is about as much as gravity being a "social construct" ...

These 'constructs' are based on the "rules within the universe" thus it doesn't make them not true. Again just because it is a perception of our reality doesn't make it to be not true ...

Jules98 said:
Honestly, I really don't get the uproar.

When you're born, you either have a penis, or you don't. That's a fact. Since people with penises play a different role in the process of reproduction than those without, they where given a different name. At the end of the day, that's all the terms 'male' and 'female' really mean.

melbye said:
How can observable fact be a social construct. There are men, there are women. It has to be like this from a biologically point of view

you guys are really just saying that something is the way it is simply because you declare it to be the case

you are not acknowledging as the article describes that many men do not fit neatly into the male category such as those who are intersex (2%), those who are infertile, those who are smaller than women, those who are submissive etc etc etc

and likewise we see the same with women

how do you deal with women like this in your conception of what sex is?

Personally, I like muscles on a WOMAN.  So this particular WOMAN is attractive to me.