A very simple rule for voters.

[HonestJoe]

Of course, that's not the problem at all......basic respect to those who desire to be a woman, but are biologically a man, is weird, imo....but what can I do, just leave them be. The problem is when they begin to tell me that a man is scientifically a woman or men can get pregnant and have children or visa versa......when they state these things and force me to believe it, they show great disrespect towards me.....they have crossed the line.

But nobody is saying a man is "scientifically" a woman. The whole point here is that transwomen (e.g. born male but identifying as female) aren't "scientifically" women, and so can't get pregnant. Equally, transmen (e.g. both female but identifying as male) aren't "scientifically" men and so may still be capable of having children.

This whole thing is only an issue when people refuse to acknowledge the use of words in context, preferring to pretend those words can only ever reflect how they'd like the world to be. It'd be like refusing to acknowledge the existence of your friends pick-up because they called it a "car" and you think it should only ever be called a "truck". Even if you don't like their word choice, you understand what they mean and could just choose to move on without making a big issue of it.

 

[Questerr]

But nobody is saying a man is "scientifically" a woman. The whole point here is that transwomen (e.g. born male but identifying as female) aren't "scientifically" women, and so can't get pregnant. Equally, transmen (e.g. both female but identifying as male) aren't "scientifically" men and so may still be capable of having children.

This whole thing is only an issue when people refuse to acknowledge the use of words in context, preferring to pretend those words can only ever reflect how they'd like the world to be. It'd be like refusing to acknowledge the existence of your friends pick-up because they called it a "car" and you think it should only ever be called a "truck". Even if you don't like their word choice, you understand what they mean and could just choose to move on without making a big issue of it.

Transwomen are scientifically women. Sociology and psychology are sciences just as much as biology is.

 

[HonestJoe]

Transwomen are scientifically women. Sociology and psychology are sciences just as much as biology is.

Even in science, context is relevant. You can't say "Scientifically, H2O is a liquid." since that is only true under certain conditions (albeit, conditions typical on Earth). Calling on science to unconditionally declare transwomen as women in all contexts and understandings is as flawed as calling on science to declare transwomen as men in all contexts and understandings.

Transwomen are transwomen. In the vast majority of circumstances, identifying and treating them as women is perfectly fine and correct (IMO) but there are undeniably circumstances where that isn't the case, medicine in general and maternity in particular being an obvious example. Those circumstances won't even necessarily be the same for every transwoman, depending on the nature and stage of their individual transition and circumstances.

 

[redbeer]

But nobody is saying a man is "scientifically" a woman. The whole point here is that transwomen (e.g. born male but identifying as female) aren't "scientifically" women, and so can't get pregnant. Equally, transmen (e.g. both female but identifying as male) aren't "scientifically" men and so may still be capable of having children.

This whole thing is only an issue when people refuse to acknowledge the use of words in context, preferring to pretend those words can only ever reflect how they'd like the world to be. It'd be like refusing to acknowledge the existence of your friends pick-up because they called it a "car" and you think it should only ever be called a "truck". Even if you don't like their word choice, you understand what they mean and could just choose to move on without making a big issue of it.

If that's what they are stating, but it's not.....read the posts from the liberal or whatever I've been conversing with.....he/she believes scientifically that transwomen are scientifically female.....it's not a word game or a play on semantics, and they expect EVERYONE to admit it.....if not, then comes the labels ending in ists and ism.....same ole lame bs.

 

[HonestJoe]

If that's what they are stating, but it's not.....read the posts from the liberal or whatever I've been conversing with.....he/she believes scientifically that transwomen are scientifically female.....it's not a word game or a play on semantics, and they expect EVERYONE to admit it.....if not, then comes the labels ending in ists and ism.....same ole lame bs.

I'm not saying that there aren't lots of idiots on all "sides" of this debate saying stupid things, believing they're saying something they're not or just expressing themselves badly. Some people might use the word "scientifically", whether they're arguing that transwomen are women or that transwomen are men, but none of them are actually demonstrating any scientific established truths, even if they think so.

I do have to say I've not seen a direct "scientifically" argument from "pro-trans" proponents, even if they're saying that all transwomen should be treated as women in all contexts, though I'm sure it's possible. As I say, lots of people on the various extremes of this debate say stupid things (like in most controversial debates).