• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?

Is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome)


  • Total voters
    8

neil

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
1,256
I don't normally listen to Steven Crowder, but I am at the moment & he brought up something about a woman without a uterus. What he was saying has me wondering, is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?
 
I don't normally listen to Steven Crowder, but I am at the moment & he brought up something about a woman without a uterus. What he was saying has me wondering, is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?
Would depend on the circumstances

same as if its PC to point out if somebody is male, female, black, white, Christian , straight, bi etc etc

its circumstantial and more detail would be needed
 
I don't normally listen to Steven Crowder, but I am at the moment & he brought up something about a woman without a uterus. What he was saying has me wondering, is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?
What, like, in ordinary conversation? That would seem highly rude.
 
I don't normally listen to Steven Crowder, but I am at the moment & he brought up something about a woman without a uterus. What he was saying has me wondering, is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?
Males don't have uteruses.... uterusi .... err.. uterusesses....

Ah, the madness of our times...
 
What, like, in ordinary conversation? That would seem highly rude.
I guess if it was just out of the blue, but if biology or anatomy came up in conversation, one would think saying that a person without a uterus doesn't have a uterus isn't the least bit rude. Women don't have prostates, either, so, not sure how that's rude or politically incorrect, lol
 
I guess if it was just out of the blue, but if biology or anatomy came up in conversation, one would think saying that a person without a uterus doesn't have a uterus isn't the least bit rude. Women don't have prostates, either, so, not sure how that's rude or politically incorrect, lol
This is the thing with these man vs. woman wedge issues. They are completely academic and theoretical. Never in my life have I ever asked anyone to identify whether they are a man or a woman. It's not relevant to anything in ordinary conversation and is rude.
 
This is the thing with these man vs. woman wedge issues. They are completely academic and theoretical. Never in my life have I ever asked anyone to identify whether they are a man or a woman. It's not relevant to anything in ordinary conversation and is rude.
Never in my life has that question been necessary.

But that question wasn't what the OP asked, at least not literally. The OP just asked if it's o.k. to say that a woman without a uterus doesn't have a uterus. I guess if it came up in conversation, like if people were discussing some of the issues of the day, it might come up.

This is one of those issues like "it's okay to be white." The kerfuffle over innocuous things these days is mindboggling. Yes, it's okay to be white, and if one doesn't have a uterus, one doesn't have a uterus. Feel free to be offended.
 
:oops: You dare to bring up scientific truth?
Homo sapiens is a species of primate, which reproduces via sexual reproduction when the male of the species fertilizes the eggs of the female internally, through sexual intercourse.

I'll report for reeducation now, I guess....
reeducation.jpg
 
This is the thing with these man vs. woman wedge issues. They are completely academic and theoretical. Never in my life have I ever asked anyone to identify whether they are a man or a woman. It's not relevant to anything in ordinary conversation and is rude.
I work in the healthcare industry, and we are required to take a training course about gender identity; I didn't see anything I disagreed with. All it's saying is that we should basically be respectful and mindful of how the community we serve wants to be addressed.
 
I don't normally listen to Steven Crowder, but I am at the moment & he brought up something about a woman without a uterus. What he was saying has me wondering, is it politically correct to point out that a woman born without a uterus (human with Y chromosome) doesn't have a uterus?



Why consider that person a woman in the first place?
 
Why consider that person a woman in the first place?
Well, if a person wants to have a baby, then it depends on whether they're male or female & history has shown us that one of each is required: if a person is one of them, they need to pair up with one of the other. I am a man (a male) and I need a woman (a female) to make babies, so I need to know whether or not someone has a uterus for that. </neil spiel>
 
It's social science. A very unscientific kind of science.
LOL It's biology, which isn't a social science. I actually do consider the social sciences to be totally as much a part of the sciences as any of the other sciences. Where I have an issue is with Orwellian BS that results in males competing as females with other females, males using locker rooms for females, males claiming to be women raping females, etc.
 
It's social science. A very unscientific kind of science.


LOL It's biology, which isn't a social science.



Its hardly biology if it defines a woman first before addressing what biology considers a woman, then proceeds to hammer biological evidence to fit this theoretical woman.


I actually do consider the social sciences to be totally as much a part of the sciences as any of the other sciences. Where I have an issue is with Orwellian BS that results in males competing as females with other females, males using locker rooms for females, males claiming to be women raping females, etc.


Agree. It was for want of better words that I used "social science"
 
I was listening to it live on YouTube; here's a link to the recording:
 
Well, if a person wants to have a baby, then it depends on whether they're male or female & history has shown us that one of each is required: if a person is one of them, they need to pair up with one of the other. I am a man (a male) and I need a woman (a female) to make babies, so I need to know whether or not someone has a uterus for that. </neil spiel>




The funny thing is even lower forms of life get it. They check each other for the right fittings.
 
I didn't read this thread, Did I miss anything?
 
why would anyone give a rat's ass........oh wait I know...because white is black and black is white
 
I count at least 5 paid subscriptions to Crowder.
 
While I support the many leftist 'men' on this site that think they are women and by golly...I can even see where they get their delusions...the fact still remains...no matter how badly they WANT to be women...they arent. They are men.

kind of.
 
Back
Top Bottom