Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Fan
He just did. You can't be that much in denial. She was "scientifically" born a man. You are hung on the mental aspect of her transition which itself isn't scientifically proven.
Like everyone else I'm not sure how her transition went but I'm not against her being the AEW Women's World Championship eventually, I don't think they should lead with her though.
|
Saying something isn’t proving it. I like my science concrete and demonstrable. Some things about Nyla are concrete. We know she is trans. We know that she was assigned male sex at birth. But we don’t know her testosterone levels, how her chromosomes are like or how her brain developed. We just don’t. And to me it’s unimportant, and I think it is to #fan too, but I’m just saying that to categorically and declaratively state “Nyla Rose was scientifically a male” is a step too far with assuming the things we don’t know.
We know gender is constructed, right? But we’re also learning that a lot of biological stuff is more fluid than we thought too. I don’t think it’s scientifically correct to say that biological sex is a binary anymore. Some trans people do align their bodies to match their identified gender. This could very well be the case with Nyla. I just don’t think it’s fair to say that’s concrete since, like you just said, you don’t know. It’s too reductive to say that happens 100% of the time in 100% of cases.
If the wording was like something like “their first Women’s Champion was someone that was assigned male status” I’d be like “yeah, that’s true.” From what I know, she was. She’s probably lived male experiences. I don’t know that. I wasn’t there. I know she’s Native American, and some tribes have had “two-spirit” people. I’m not sure how she grew up and how her environmental development was. But we don’t have a complete phenotype, and even if she were phenotypically male and that were scientifically true, I don’t think it’s the right wording to say she was “scientifically” a male. That’s just too...unspecific and broad, even if I knew what #fan meant and it wasn’t offensive.
Like, a painting of a tree is scientifically “a tree.” Look at it, it’s a tree. It’s not the same thing as it being a conifer. Or it having actual roots in the ground. Or it also being made of paint. Or it being comprised of shapes. Or is it even a tree? Maybe it’s a painting of a photo of a tree? Maybe the artist did paint a tree and it’s supposed to be a tree and the artwork is called “Tree.” Whatever. That’s cool. But to see that painting, have no more information and to say “scientifically that is a tree.” Is it? It depends. It may be in how it is perceived and described by people, but it’s not botanically.
In this scenario, I’m not accusing #fan of trying to tell me that it’s a botanical tree. He’s just telling me that scientifically it’s a tree. And it might be. It probably is. I’m just saying that there is probably a better word than “scientifically.”
If #1-wwf-fan said that Nyla Rose was probably phenotypically male, I’d totally agree with that, with the caveat that I am still assuming and whatever. It’s just that concrete, blanket “scientifically.” #fan probably didn’t think twice about it, and I know the point he was making wasn’t shitty, so I actually didn’t want that to be the purpose of my post, it was just an added aside in a fun-spirited way — “I agree with everything but...” If I were peer-reviewing #fan’s work, I’d probably catch the wording and note it “awk.” But these are wrestling boards, so whatever. I’m actually pretty sure #fan wouldn’t use that word writing a hypothetical paper because it wasn’t part of his point.