Questions & Mysteries WTF is Yamato?
- Thread starter Herrera95
- Start date
she's gay
Stewey said it right
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cgcx2MjlpyG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Post automatically merged:
Stewey said it right
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cgcx2MjlpyG/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Blatant cherry-picking aside, the point was that the separation of sex and gender isn't new. It's not a recent phenomenon, it's a concept that has been with us as a species for thousands of years across countless cultures.
Yamato's sex is female. His gender is male. Oda's word is final and your headcanon is irrelevant.
The irony of this post. Your position isn't logical, it's based entirely on emotions-fueled ignorance. Your view is unsupported by and diametrically opposed to overwhelming opinion among medical professionals. Including biologists.
Yamato's sex is female. His gender is male. Oda's word is final and your headcanon is irrelevant.
The irony of this post. Your position isn't logical, it's based entirely on emotions-fueled ignorance. Your view is unsupported by and diametrically opposed to overwhelming opinion among medical professionals. Including biologists.
Sexual variations have been observed at chromosomic (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX), endocrine (androgens, estrogens, progestogens, neurosteroids...), structural (e.g. in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis)..., among others, levels; it's very brave to believe whatever basic biology you learned at school makes you capable of reducing an issue studied for decades by all kind of scientists to "female = boobs and vagina" and "male = penis, moustache and beard".
School biology is, well, school biology for a reason: it's just a glimpse for starters, not an absolute truth.
School biology is, well, school biology for a reason: it's just a glimpse for starters, not an absolute truth.
everything works together, hormones & genes are compatible with the body appearance, & if they are not compatible (which is rare or even impossible), the body appearance is the decisive factor. I mean a female should be able to get pregnant (unless if she's sterile), other than that how will she get pregnant if she doesn't have womb? if she doesn't have vagina? how will he be able to f her without penis?
the educational subjects that's taught in schools are designed by corrupt organisations (PPH, UN, & others) who only cares about money & destroying the morals of societies, even if the cost was to destroy the lives of millions, even if the cost was to literally kill thousands of people.
the educational subjects that's taught in schools are designed by corrupt organisations (PPH, UN, & others) who only cares about money & destroying the morals of societies, even if the cost was to destroy the lives of millions, even if the cost was to literally kill thousands of people.
Last edited:
No, everything doesn't work together. We don't even need to go too far: from 5 to 10% of adult women have polycystic ovary syndrome, which causes high levels of androgens (therefore traits commonly attributed to men, such as facial hair or lower voice) and from reduced to no fertility at all. That's how complex the human body truly is; but I can't expect you to understand it since your take on this is like that of a little kid, speaking of fucking and penises, breasts that look like a balloon (sure they do, all of them in fact), mustaches and beards. It's really funny to see you stating that "the body appearance is the decisive factor" yet your depiction of the physicals of male and female aren't even accurate in many cases.
Also, "morals of societies" don't exist. Whatever you call as such are just the statu quo enjoyed by majoritarian groups traditionally subjugating and silencing anything that would discomfort their lives; like saying there's more to it than just "male and female". You're just a conservative reactionary.
Also, "morals of societies" don't exist. Whatever you call as such are just the statu quo enjoyed by majoritarian groups traditionally subjugating and silencing anything that would discomfort their lives; like saying there's more to it than just "male and female". You're just a conservative reactionary.
I had biology class in high-school too. But no one ever needed a blood test to figure out if they're male or female though. Personally I'm aware that lots of people are a mix of "male" and "female" but that's not what Yamato's case is about, is it ? I mean, you're talking about intersexuality, meanwhile Yamato is supposed to be a male-transgender. The first one concerns observations, blood samples and whatnot--- the latter concerns feelings. Tell me if I missed something.
Do you realize this hits you back too?
That's the beauty of Worst Gen the best forum on internet.
Too bad current One Piece sucks and I'm not active as I used to do when the worst arc was going on.
Pretty much that. She never stood like a man if not for the Oden joke.
Post automatically merged:
That's the beauty of Worst Gen the best forum on internet.
Too bad current One Piece sucks and I'm not active as I used to do when the worst arc was going on.
Post automatically merged:
Pretty much that. She never stood like a man if not for the Oden joke.
I don't have to be accurate since I was speaking in general, everything is clear from the body features, specially for cases like Yamato which an anime character. for accuracy moustache, beard and voice might be ignored, but we can't ignore the genitals.
morals do exist, this is a fact, everybody has a feeling for what is right & what is wrong, some of them just denying his morals, because he knew if he accepted them, then he will have to accept that there must be a creator who built those morals within human body
morals do exist, this is a fact, everybody has a feeling for what is right & what is wrong, some of them just denying his morals, because he knew if he accepted them, then he will have to accept that there must be a creator who built those morals within human body
Last edited:
You don't have to be a biologist to know a dog is a dog or a horse is a horse. You have billions of men and women who you can confirm as a man or women based on visible and biological markers. It's fine if there are groups of people who wish to be identified differently from the norm but that doesn't mean the rest of us can't keep using the same methods that we've been using to identify genders.
I'm not talking about intersexuality but both it and transgender (and on a related note, what defines male and female plus man and woman as different constructs), which keeps being studied by scientists beyond reducing it to feelings.
Nah, it doesn't.
You don't have to be a biologist to know a Homo sapiens is a Homo sapiens either, but we aren't talking about species but something way more nuanced and out of sight. "Biologicla markers" certainly encompass way beyond what is visible and any method that won't take into account genetics, hormones, brain structures..., among others, will be inherently flawed. Which makes sense since the average Joe isn't a scientist, whether an endicronologist, a neurobiologist, etc.; but then you have the same average Joe comparing the distinction of gender and sex within the same species to distinguishing a dog from a horse because so far it has worked for him, in spite of the obvious petitio principii lying behind this reasoning.
Those groups of people don't wish to be identified differently from the norm, by the way; I can guarantee you this isn't some kind of a whim as they wish for a significantly harder life in pretty much every aspect possible.
Oh, now I get it, you are religious; sadly for you, whatever creator you believe in didn't put any moral in our hearts, hence why those rules of behavior we accept as shared as they're beneficial for a specific society to work tend to evolve beyond the old-fashioned teachings of the sacred text establishing those morals.
And of course you have to be accurate and ignore the genitals as they not only may not fit the standard but also aren't the only thing determining this; but doesn't surprise me that you'd speak in general since this kind of simplification of the world is exactly what conservative reactionaries tend to cling to.
Nah, it doesn't.
You don't have to be a biologist to know a Homo sapiens is a Homo sapiens either, but we aren't talking about species but something way more nuanced and out of sight. "Biologicla markers" certainly encompass way beyond what is visible and any method that won't take into account genetics, hormones, brain structures..., among others, will be inherently flawed. Which makes sense since the average Joe isn't a scientist, whether an endicronologist, a neurobiologist, etc.; but then you have the same average Joe comparing the distinction of gender and sex within the same species to distinguishing a dog from a horse because so far it has worked for him, in spite of the obvious petitio principii lying behind this reasoning.
Those groups of people don't wish to be identified differently from the norm, by the way; I can guarantee you this isn't some kind of a whim as they wish for a significantly harder life in pretty much every aspect possible.
Oh, now I get it, you are religious; sadly for you, whatever creator you believe in didn't put any moral in our hearts, hence why those rules of behavior we accept as shared as they're beneficial for a specific society to work tend to evolve beyond the old-fashioned teachings of the sacred text establishing those morals.
And of course you have to be accurate and ignore the genitals as they not only may not fit the standard but also aren't the only thing determining this; but doesn't surprise me that you'd speak in general since this kind of simplification of the world is exactly what conservative reactionaries tend to cling to.