Transwomen are not women and why radfems object to the idea

[CLAX1911]

I was using your argument that a transwoman is a woman because they're called women.

Looks like she was attempting a tactic

 

[CLAX1911]

Do you really believe that North Korea is a democracy?

If your logic was consistent you would have to believe they are because they identify that way. At this point you're arbitrarily cherry picking what identity is valid and what identity isn't.

Who made you the arbiter of who's identity is legitimate?

I was using your argument that a transwoman is a woman because they're called women.

 

[maquiscat]

That is why I said potentially

If the equipment isn't working from birth then there is no potential, and never was. Potentially means that there is a chance. If they are born with no ovaries or testicles then there is no chance.

 

[maquiscat]

Transwomen are not men. They are women or or they would not be a transwomen.

Do you really think that being transgendered is a whim? The current rule is that they must be on hormones and stabilized at the female levels for testosterone and estrogen for a minimum of 6 months. You could mandate that they have had reassignment surgery that will be paid for by the government if it isn't covered by their medical insurance. I doubt that they would have a problem with that requirement.

Some might given that not all transgender people want to go the full transition. Most want to do what is necessary to alleviate the GD. For some that is as little as presenting as their gender, with no hormones or surgery. Besides, doesn't that bold part invalidate your argument about no mandatory medical procedures that you and other commonly bring up in abortion threads?

 

[maquiscat]

Do you really believe that North Korea is a democracy?

I believe that his point is that if you have to accept the words a transgender person uses to describe themselves, then the same principle applies across the board, and then used NK as the example of why the principle doesn't work.

 

[maquiscat]

Is a person born with 6 fingers on each hand not a human?

If the claim is made that a human is defined as an individual with 5 fingers, then it is claimed that more or less means they are not human. If the claim is made that a human is defined as an individual that usually has 5 fingers, then it is in the definition that there can be variations.

The only person making the argument that an infertile woman is not a woman is you. It's a dumb argument and you know it is.

I'm not making that argument. I am pointing out that the definition given would exclude variations. Once that was pointed out, then modifications to the given definition were thrown out. In doing so, it was proven that the ability to provide an egg or a sperm is not the deciding factor for what defines a man or woman. So what is?

 

[maquiscat]

What does woman mean?

In this context, it means the word that I am asking for a definition for that includes a deciding factor that is universal for determining what makes a woman. But as noted I am not limiting woman. I also asked for this for man

Edit: Actually, I dropped into her usage, which fell back on the interchangeability of the two sets of words. Due to context, I knew she was referring to sex as opposed to gender. This goes back to my point that the language is evolving, but that it is still in progress with other possible end points. (fe)male for sex and (wo)man for gender is just the current most likely, not a guarantee.

 

[Bodi]

If the equipment isn't working from birth then there is no potential, and never was. Potentially means that there is a chance. If they are born with no ovaries or testicles then there is no chance.

If a person is born with some of the parts then they have potential one not need all the parts to have potential.

 

[CLAX1911]

In this context, it means the word that I am asking for a definition for that includes a deciding factor that is universal for determining what makes a woman. But as noted I am not limiting woman. I also asked for this for man

So these words are more nuanced than they're common parlance but you can't define them? You can't Define them as more nuanced how are they more nuanced?

Edit: Actually, I dropped into her usage, which fell back on the interchangeability of the two sets of words. Due to context, I knew she was referring to sex as opposed to gender. This goes back to my point that the language is evolving, but that it is still in progress with other possible end points. (fe)male for sex and (wo)man for gender is just the current most likely, not a guarantee.

It's fine to say language evolves. It does as common usage changes.

Common usage as far as I can tell hasn't changed.
So the word woman still means human adult female. Human adult females do not have penises.

 

[maquiscat]

So these words are more nuanced than they're common parlance but you can't define them? You can't Define them as more nuanced how are they more nuanced?

It's fine to say language evolves. It does as common usage changes.

Common usage as far as I can tell hasn't changed.
So the word woman still means human adult female. Human adult females do not have penises.

You haven't been able to define female and male such that it applies universally, yet alone on how to identify a male or female.

To expand on the usage part. You keep using the word changed, past tense, as if somehow I have claimed that it is done and over with, at least until the next lingual shift. However, I have been using the present tense, changing, pointing out that the change is in progress. I have noted that newer words could come out, returning "man" and "woman" to their previous use. Some people are still using it as it was, others are using it in a new manner. This is not settled language or definition.

If being "male" or "female" was only about what a person could do in procreation, then the how and where of going to the bathroom, and what they wear and so on, would mean nothing and we would not be having this issue. So there has to be more to it. So what is it?

 

[maquiscat]

If a person is born with some of the parts then they have potential one not need all the parts to have potential.

BS. Oh look, that car has wheels, electrical system, and a battery, but no engine or transmission. What potential is there to run? If a "male" is born with no testicles, what potential is there for him to fertilize an egg? If a "female" is born with no uterus or ovaries, what potential is there for her to birth a child?

Potential is not ability, and ability was given as the supposed definition. Now that the fallacy of the argument has been revealed, backpedaling is ensuing to change the argument. Answer this. Does an XX person who has a penis have the potential to fertilize an egg? Does an XY person who has a vagina have the potential to produce an egg, or gestate a ZEF? What determines potential? After all these people have some of the parts.

 

[CLAX1911]

You haven't been able to define female and male such that it applies universally, yet alone on how to identify a male or female.

I presented common usage of the term. If you don't like how terms are used in common parlance that is not my issue.

To expand on the usage part. You keep using the word changed, past tense, as if somehow I have claimed that it is done and over with, at least until the next lingual shift. However, I have been using the present tense, changing, pointing out that the change is in progress.

so explain what it is changing to mean?

I have noted that newer words could come out, returning "man" and "woman" to their previous use. Some people are still using it as it was, others are using it in a new manner. This is not settled language or definition.

Man and woman currently mean human adult male and human adult female respectively. What would be their previous meaning?

If being "male" or "female" was only about what a person could do in procreation, then the how and where of going to the bathroom, and what they wear and so on, would mean nothing and we would not be having this issue. So there has to be more to it. So what is it?

Are you suggesting that a man wearing a game and a woman's bathroom or wearing a pair of panties means that he's not a woman?

So woman and man are a form of fashion like goth?

 

[Bodi]

BS. Oh look, that car has wheels, electrical system, and a battery, but no engine or transmission. What potential is there to run? If a "male" is born with no testicles, what potential is there for him to fertilize an egg? If a "female" is born with no uterus or ovaries, what potential is there for her to birth a child?

You just owned yourself, TBH.

A car with no battery is what? A car.
A woman with no ovaries is what? A woman.

Potential is not ability, and ability was given as the supposed definition. Now that the fallacy of the argument has been revealed, backpedaling is ensuing to change the argument. Answer this. Does an XX person who has a penis have the potential to fertilize an egg? Does an XY person who has a vagina have the potential to produce an egg, or gestate a ZEF? What determines potential? After all these people have some of the parts.

Again...

Potential was an argument. A car with no battery has potential to run. It may never get a battery but it is still a car. A woman with no ovaries my never have a baby... but she is still a woman.
'

 

[Lisa]

I believe that his point is that if you have to accept the words a transgender person uses to describe themselves, then the same principle applies across the board, and then used NK as the example of why the principle doesn't work.

NK is an obvious example of propaganda, just as East Germany claimed to a democratic republic, despite the fact that Erich Honecker was a dictator.

I don't like the idea of self-diagnosis because there are some people who are not trans, and others who later detransition because the self-diagnosis was wrong.

If your logic was consistent you would have to believe they are because they identify that way. At this point, you're arbitrarily cherry-picking what identity is valid and what identity isn't.

Who made you the arbiter of who's identity is legitimate?

I'll defer to the trained professionals with Ph.D. psychologists and psychiatrists to make that med-psych. diagnosis.

 

[CLAX1911]

NK is an obvious example of propaganda, just as East Germany claimed to a democratic republic, despite the fact that Erich Honecker was a dictator.

I don't like the idea of self-diagnosis because there are some people who are not trans, and others who later detransition because the self-diagnosis was wrong.


I'll defer to the trained professionals with Ph.D. psychologists and psychiatrists to make that med-psych. diagnosis.

But you know what you're arbitrarily cherry picking.

 

[maquiscat]

You just owned yourself, TBH.

A car with no battery is what? A car.
A woman with no ovaries is what? A woman.



Again...

Potential was an argument. A car with no battery has potential to run. It may never get a battery but it is still a car. A woman with no ovaries my never have a baby... but she is still a woman.
'

True enough, but it's because I am slipping back into my own views while trying to point out the flaw in the argument.

Right now we have knowledge that our predecessors didn't have. We now know that the SRY gene is the specific gene that triggers most of the "male" developments upon a person. We know that said gene doesn't always activate. We know that said gene can end up detaching from the Y chromosome. We know that it can also attach to an X chromosome, and activating, adding "male" characteristics to an XX person. So what makes a person a male? What is the determining factor or factors? Same for female. Do they cease being female despite being XX if they end up looking male?

We thought we had something either/or before, and based on what evidence we had at the time it was a valid conclusion. But now we have more evidence that alters that conclusion.

 

[maquiscat]

I presented common usage of the term. If you don't like how terms are used in common parlance that is not my issue.

Not my problem either since the common usage is changing. There are thousands of people out there commonly using "man" and "woman" to mean the gender identity and not the physical sex. And yes there are thousands out there still tying the two together. That is part of the flux and shift. Lingual evolution isn't a switch where suddenly everyone starts using the new definition overnight.

so explain what it is changing to mean?

That is part of the issue here, that I have been trying to explain. There is no settled definition yet. It's changing, shifting. People are trying to develop language to account for the new knowledge, and many are trying to fit current words into new slots. Others are creating new words, which is where we are getting all these new pronouns.

Man and woman currently mean human adult male and human adult female respectively. What would be their previous meaning?

Dictionaries lag lingual change. That is the current dictionary definition, which is the previous social definition. As noted, it remains to be seen what will be the final outcome. They could settle back into the most recent past use, or they could change into a settled use.

Are you suggesting that a man wearing a game and a woman's bathroom or wearing a pair of panties means that he's not a woman?

Reword please. This is not making any sense.

So woman and man are a form of fashion like goth?

Your conflating the label with that the label describes. People whose gender does not match their sex (using binary sex for the moment), know what they are, even if they don't have words to describe it. We now know and acknowledge (well most do) that what we previously limited with the labels "male", "female", "man" and "woman" is not as limited as we once though, and that gender and sex are not as interlocked as we once thought. Just like we learned that our sex is not interlocked with our sexual attractions. One of the ways that we, as a collective, are trying to adjust is altering the language to accommodate the new knowledge. As individuals and smaller groups, we are attempting a variety of ways. In some cases, "man" is being separated away from "male" as the gender is being separated away from the sex.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not my problem either since the common usage is changing. There are thousands of people out there commonly using "man" and "woman" to mean the gender identity and not the physical sex.

common usage doesn't seem to be changing no matter how much you insist that it is.

And yes there are thousands out there still tying the two together. That is part of the flux and shift. Lingual evolution isn't a switch where suddenly everyone starts using the new definition overnight.

no there's probably hundreds of millions still tying the two together and that probably won't change.

That is part of the issue here, that I have been trying to explain. There is no settled definition yet. It's changing, shifting.

well there's common usage. I don't think that's changing.

People are trying to develop language to account for the new knowledge, and many are trying to fit current words into new slots. Others are creating new words, which is where we are getting all these new pronouns.

it doesn't seem to be any new knowledge here there seems to be people like yourself that insist on something that doesn't really matter. That's not how coming you since gets changed

Dictionaries lag lingual change. That is the current dictionary definition, which is the previous social definition. As noted, it remains to be seen what will be the final outcome. They could settle back into the most recent past use, or they could change into a settled use.

well common usage doesn't seem to include the terms for transgender people case in point people still call them trans women and trans men. So it won't have to settle back into the most recent past it'll just have to continue meeting what it means.

Your conflating the label with that the label describes.

false you did you reduced gender to clothing choices or fashion. If you don't want to do that think before you say something next time.

People whose gender does not match their sex (using binary sex for the moment), know what they are, even if they don't have words to describe it.

this isn't true oftentimes transgender people struggle to figure out what is "wrong" with them. Some of them it takes decades to figure it out. You seem to be making this up as you go.

We now know and acknowledge (well most do) that what we previously limited with the labels "male", "female", "man" and "woman" is not as limited as we once though, and that gender and sex are not as interlocked as we once thought.

that isn't knowledge you can't tell me what gender is or what these words even mean because you lack knowledge.

Just like we learned that our sex is not interlocked with our sexual attractions. One of the ways that we, as a collective, are trying to adjust is altering the language to accommodate the new knowledge.

we adjusted our language decade to go to accommodate this it's not new. The term homosexual came into being in the 1800s and that's to describe someone who's attracted to the same sex. And transsexual came into being in the early 20th century. We're not trying to rewrite language that already happened.

As individuals and smaller groups, we are attempting a variety of ways. In some cases, "man" is being separated away from "male" as the gender is being separated away from the sex.

I don't think it is. There are people trying to gaslight others into believing that but that isn't knowledge.

 

[maquiscat]

common usage doesn't seem to be changing no matter how much you insist that it is.

Common use seems to be changing no matter how much you insist it isn't.

no there's probably hundreds of millions still tying the two together and that probably won't change.

Probably will especially as the older generations die out. And I used thousands more colloquially than literally. I've no doubt the actual number on both sides is much higher.

well there's common usage. I don't think that's changing.
it doesn't seem to be any new knowledge here there seems to be people like yourself that insist on something that doesn't really matter. That's not how coming you since gets changed

It obviously matter to a great many people since there is a lot of push on both sides of the issue.

well common usage doesn't seem to include the terms for transgender people case in point people still call them trans women and trans men. So it won't have to settle back into the most recent past it'll just have to continue meeting what it means.

Only in context of the discussion of the issue. In common use, they are typically called men and women. Same argument could be made for cis men and cis women.

false you did you reduced gender to clothing choices or fashion. If you don't want to do that think before you say something next time.

Gender is not clothing and fashion. That is your strawman. Quote me where I said that. Gender is the self identity. It may be man, woman or something else. And I don't deny that there are those who are labeling their gender as male or female, but that justy falls in line with my assertion that there is a varity of use between sex and gender labels. My claim of "(fe)male" for sex and "(wo)man" for gender is but one tend, and I've claimed no less.

this isn't true oftentimes transgender people struggle to figure out what is "wrong" with them. Some of them it takes decades to figure it out. You seem to be making this up as you go.

As do homosexuals and bisexuals. They know what they are. Whether they lie to themselves because they are pressured to conform to a given expectation or not is another matter.

that isn't knowledge you can't tell me what gender is or what these words even mean because you lack knowledge.

You can't tell me what sex is. Still waiting on that universal criteria. Is an XY person with a vagina a male or female?

we adjusted our language decade to go to accommodate this it's not new. The term homosexual came into being in the 1800s and that's to describe someone who's attracted to the same sex. And transsexual came into being in the early 20th century. We're not trying to rewrite language that already happened.

And since "transgender" has replaced what "transsexual" originally meant, and "transsexual" now refers to one who has undergone SRS. The changes aren't over yet.

 

[CLAX1911]

Common use seems to be changing no matter how much you insist it isn't.



Probably will especially as the older generations die out. And I used thousands more colloquially than literally. I've no doubt the actual number on both sides is much higher.



It obviously matter to a great many people since there is a lot of push on both sides of the issue.



Only in context of the discussion of the issue. In common use, they are typically called men and women. Same argument could be made for cis men and cis women.



Gender is not clothing and fashion. That is your strawman. Quote me where I said that. Gender is the self identity. It may be man, woman or something else. And I don't deny that there are those who are labeling their gender as male or female, but that justy falls in line with my assertion that there is a varity of use between sex and gender labels. My claim of "(fe)male" for sex and "(wo)man" for gender is but one tend, and I've claimed no less.



As do homosexuals and bisexuals. They know what they are. Whether they lie to themselves because they are pressured to conform to a given expectation or not is another matter.



You can't tell me what sex is. Still waiting on that universal criteria. Is an XY person with a vagina a male or female?



And since "transgender" has replaced what "transsexual" originally meant, and "transsexual" now refers to one who has undergone SRS. The changes aren't over yet.

I seem to recall you couldn't point out the meaning these words were changing to or how they're used. So how do you know the meaning is changing if you have no idea what the meaning is?

 

[maquiscat]

I seem to recall you couldn't point out the meaning these words were changing to or how they're used. So how do you know the meaning is changing if you have no idea what the meaning is?

Because there are various groups of LBGT people using the words differently. Keep in mind that I am saying that there are several groups out there. You still haven't been able to point out the meaning of male or female, so I am in good company.

 

[CLAX1911]

Because there are various groups of LBGT people using the words differently.

that's esoteric usage.

Keep in mind that I am saying that there are several groups out there. You still haven't been able to point out the meaning of male or female, so I am in good company.

Yes I have.

Male is the sex that fertilizes an egg. Female is the sex that carries The offspring and gives birth.

So now I've presented it twice let's see if you run away for a second time?

 

[maquiscat]

that's esoteric usage.
Yes I have.

Male is the sex that fertilizes an egg. Female is the sex that carries The offspring and gives birth.

So now I've presented it twice let's see if you run away for a second time?

To which you still haven't said if those who cannot fertilize an egg or carry an offspring are neither male or female. If they still are male or female then obviously the ability to fertilize an egg is not the criteria to define a male, nor the ability to to carry an offspring, a female. I asked before and it was avoided. Is an XY individual who is born with a vagina male or female?

 

[CLAX1911]

To which you still haven't said if those who cannot fertilize an egg or carry an offspring are neither male or female.

what does that have to do with the definition of male and female?

If they still are male or female then obviously the ability to fertilize an egg is not the criteria to define a male, nor the ability to to carry an offspring, a female.

yes it is. That is the criteria by which we Define it.

I asked before and it was avoided. Is an XY individual who is born with a vagina male or female?

does she have a uterus fallopian tubes birth canal? These are organs even if you're infertile that would otherwise allow you to carry offspring.

So you have to tell me more would she be capable of carrying offspring if she weren't infertile?

 

[maquiscat]

what does that have to do with the definition of male and female?

Your definition makes the ability of these things the criteria, yet you keep moving away from the ability to something else. Either male is one who can fertilize an egg or the criteria is something else.

yes it is. That is the criteria by which we Define it.

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. That would be a major difference in definitions. Which organs define which and what is optional? What if there is a mix of organs?

does she have a uterus fallopian tubes birth canal? These are organs even if you're infertile that would otherwise allow you to carry offspring. So you have to tell me more would she be capable of carrying offspring if she weren't infertile?

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.

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. You are doing nothing more than saying if this non-standard condition wasn't there then they would be standard. Circular reasoning at best.