erinstock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I suppose it's about how we are reading the statement then - I would consider it the equivalent of saying "there are only people with two legs" in your example.

Depends on what the 'disagreeing' looks like

Filter bubble: "a situation in which an internet user encounters only information and opinions that conform to and reinforce their own beliefs, caused by algorithms that personalize an individual’s online experience."

For those who didn't know!

Who decides whether they are male or female? And how?

The different generations are sensitive about different behaviours and attitudes;
younger generations may appear more sensitive in older generations' perspectives, but this could be because the things they are sensitive to were previously unnoticed or taken for granted. Meanwhile, older generations may be more sensitive to some things than younger generations due to differences in values.

Moreover, discourse between the generations (outside of family settings) is very limited, so likely the older generations are only seeing the more irrational and extreme examples of 'sensitivity' in younger generations through social media - in reality, many millennials and gen Z's may have very rational reasons for sensitivity (or maybe we could just call it kindness in these cases).

This depends on the circumstances of this extinction. It would be a tragedy if it was caused by a disaster or by something like climate change, but not if we simply stopped reproducing.

It is important to make a distinction between:

1. cosmetic surgery in 'normal circumstances', and
2. cosmetic surgery following some kind of injury or illness (e.g. skin grafts after burns or breast reconstruction after a mastectomy).

Both are technically unnecessary for physical health, but should be considered differently. However, there is likely a large grey area between these.

I would say no - things which are naturally occuring (discounting things like growths) but just don't fit beauty standards are not disfigurements.

TL;DR - Hunting is ethical when people (such as Inuit) rely on it for survival, but there are many hunting practices which are unnecessary and unethical, such as trophy hunting and canned hunting.

There are people who rely on hunting as an essential part of their diet. For example, some Inuit people (indigenous people of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska) rely on seals, whales, fish, birds and their eggs etc. (alongside the few plants which can be gathered) for survival, as they live where it is impossible to cultivate plants for food (Searles, 2002). In these cases, where hunting is necessary for human survival, health, and/or wellbeing, it can be considered ethical.

However, there are people who hunt purely for leisure when it is unnecessary to do so. Trophy hunting (the killing of an animal for sport/leisure to display part or all of its body as a trophy) and Canned hunting (the hunting of often captive-bred animals confined to a limited area for ease of hunting), are undoubtedly unnecessary and unethical.
These types of hunting are especially unethical in cases where the hunting will negatively affect an ecosystem or the species is vulnerable/ threatened/ endangered, which is often the case for trophy hunting. Even cases of canned hunting where the animals are eaten are arguably more unethical than buying farmed meat as it will likely result in more pain and distress for the animal, and the animals are still 'bred-to-die'.

There are some cases where (non-canned) hunting does not negatively impact an ecosystem and is unnecessary for survival but the animal is eaten in place of farmed meat. These cases can be considered ethically permissible as they prevent the funding of unethical farming practices, but should ideally require enough skill that animals' pain and distress is cut short.

More info:
'Canned hunting': the lions bred for slaughter
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/03/canned-hunting-lions-bred-slaughter)

Breeding novelty animals for trophy hunting
(https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/24/africa/breeding-hunting-rare-animals/index.html)

An introduction to trophy hunting
(https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/an-introduction-to-trophy-hunting/)

References:
Searles, Edmund. "Food and the Making of Modern Inuit Identities." Food & Foodways: History & Culture of Human Nourishment 10 (2002): 55–78.

Giving birth is always potentially life-threatening, and even then it can result in or worsen long-term debilitating health problems. Even if neither of these were the case, the right to bodily autonomy dictates that no one should legally have to sacrifice or risk their own health for another, even if it were to save the life of a living relative. Therefore, no one should have to do this for a fetus, which before the safe point for abortion cannot think or feel.