• 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!

Transwomen are not women and why radfems object to the idea

Your definition
It's not my definition, it's common use.


It sounds more like you are saying that the presence of certain organs are the criteria, not any ability to carry an offspring or fertilize an egg.
these aren't two different things. Organs like uteruses and birth canals are necessary for a human to carry and birth offspring.
That would be a major difference in definitions. Which organs define which and what is optional?
No, you're reproductive organs determine whether you would carry and birth offspring or fertilize eggs.
What if there is a mix of organs?
not relevant

As I understand it, usually no. Depends upon the cause of course. But underdeveloped or nonexistent uterus and gonads not developed either way or only partly as testicles. No organs to either carry the offspring nor fertilize the egg.
Not sure why this would effect the definition of male or female.
And really, what are you classifying as "infertile"? Basically, by claiming "infertile" doesn't count, then you are countering your own "ability to X or Y" argument. As noted, then the criteria is no longer ability.
Yes it is.
You are doing nothing more than saying if this non-standard condition wasn't there then they would be standard. Circular reasoning at best.
Non standards don't determine standards. At best you could call my argument a generalization which it is because I'm going by common usage.
 
Oh my fellow liberals. Please just stop. Saying meow and identifying as feline does not make me a cat.
 
It's not my definition, it's common use.


these aren't two different things. Organs like uteruses and birth canals are necessary for a human to carry and birth offspring. No, you're reproductive organs determine whether you would carry and birth offspring or fertilize eggs. not relevant

Not sure why this would effect the definition of male or female.
Yes it is. Non standards don't determine standards. At best you could call my argument a generalization which it is because I'm going by common usage.
Which brings us right back to my one point. You are then saying that someone who is nonstandard is neither male or female. If they are still male or female, then what criteria makes them such, since they are non standard? For example, a person with AIS would have no uterus, no ovaries, no fallopian tubes, and no connection from undescended or partly descended testes. They can neither carry and birth offspring, nor fertilize eggs. Since those are the criteria for female and male respectively, by your own definition a person with AIS can not be female or male. AIS is just the example. There are other conditions that can cause lack of the required organs.

Also your definition fails to work consistently. For example, only one of the seahorse both fertilizes the egg AND carries and births the offspring. So according to you, the egg carrier is neither male nor female, and the sperm creator is both male and female.
 
Which brings us right back to my one point. You are then saying that someone who is nonstandard is neither male or female.
that is a straw man I never said that.
, by your own definition
I don't know how many times you going to make this mistake and I'm going to correct it.

It is not my definition. It is common usage.

Also your definition
it is not my definition.
 
that is a straw man I never said that.
I don't know how many times you going to make this mistake and I'm going to correct it.

It is not my definition. It is common usage.

it is not my definition.
You're the one giving the definition and can't explain how a person who doesn't meet those criteria can be labeled male or female.

But here is how your common usage fails. The most common use of the words "male" and "female" are applied without ever determining whether or not a person can carry and bear an offspring or fertilize an egg, in actual or potential. Indeed, that criteria is assumed based upon already having applied the words, not because the criteria was met in order to apply the words.
 
You're the one giving the definition and can't explain how a person who doesn't meet those criteria can be labeled male or female.
I think your argument is with the lexicon not with me.
But here is how your common usage fails.
Once again it is not my common usage that doesn't even make any sense. It is common usage among English speakers.

I already told you if you had a more nuanced definition I would hear it but you're either too lazy or too incompetent to produce such a thing.

So don't gripe at me because most of the English speaking world doesn't care about your gripe.
 
Back
Top Bottom