You "think" we're somehow different from our phenotypes? That our sexes are some mythic and magical "je ne sais quoi" essence separate from them? An intrinsic and immutable element of our souls? 🙄
Try thinking about an analogy with heights. We might define "six-footer" as "the phenotype that is 6 feet tall". Are you going to argue that a new-born baby is a "six-footer" at birth because it is likely to become 6 feet tall?
The child doesn't qualify as a "six-footer" until it HAS the phenotype that IS six feet tall. The same way a child won't qualify as, say, a "female" until it has the phenotype that produces ova.
🙄 :roll-eyes: 🙄 You're INCAPABLE of a coherent, rational, and well-evidenced response.
The "mythic essence" was a rhetorical question to emphasize the untenability of your position. The analogy was an attempt to show why that is the case.
But you're too gutless, too much of an intellectually dishonest fraud to actually deal with the argument and analogy tabled.
You "think" we're somehow different from our phenotypes? That our sexes are some mythic and magical "je ne sais quoi" essence separate from them? An intrinsic and immutable element of our souls? 🙄
Try thinking about an analogy with heights. We might define "six-footer" as "the phenotype that is 6 feet tall". Are you going to argue that a new-born baby is a "six-footer" at birth because it is likely to become 6 feet tall?
The child doesn't qualify as a "six-footer" until it HAS the phenotype that IS six feet tall. The same way a child won't qualify as, say, a "female" until it has the phenotype that produces ova.
🙄 :roll-eyes: 🙄 You're INCAPABLE of a coherent, rational, and well-evidenced response.
The "mythic essence" was a rhetorical question to emphasize the untenability of your position. The analogy was an attempt to show why that is the case.
But you're too gutless, too much of an intellectually dishonest fraud to actually deal with the argument and analogy tabled.
What a jam tart.
🙄:roll-eyes: 🙄