No, we’re not talking about how a baby is formed. We’re talking about the categories of sex. You’re making the assertion that’s the same as making babies, but that is an ideological assertion, just as is my assertion that hormones are part of sex. Sex is a social construct, so all definitions are necessarily ideological in nature. Sex is not a rule of physics, it’s a guideline of biology, and nature breaks it all the time. We invented that guideline to describe nature, it does not prescribe nature. That is the unbiased, non-ideological science. How we choose to invent sex is the ideology.
It does not change the sex absolutely, but it does change most parts of the sex that are not developing whole new organs.
So it doesn’t change the sex; that is what is being discussed, please stop pushing your ideology into this conversation, I’m not interested.
Quit pushing your ideology that sex is reproduction. Sex has dozens of different dimensions that can differ in any combination.
We’re talking about about how a human baby is formed. If you want think that’s ideology then you’re too far gone for any kind of conversation.
No, we’re not talking about how a baby is formed. We’re talking about the categories of sex. You’re making the assertion that’s the same as making babies, but that is an ideological assertion, just as is my assertion that hormones are part of sex. Sex is a social construct, so all definitions are necessarily ideological in nature. Sex is not a rule of physics, it’s a guideline of biology, and nature breaks it all the time. We invented that guideline to describe nature, it does not prescribe nature. That is the unbiased, non-ideological science. How we choose to invent sex is the ideology.