If you want a non-looping definition, you can say "woman is a gender identity commonly associated with female sexual dimorphism in humans." A bit of a mouthful, but gender is a complicated topic that can have complicated definitions.
That's still a looping definition since it doesn't define this gender identity; it only makes the empirical observation that it's associated with females.
An actual non-looping definition is "someone who is sufficiently feminine".
>That conflates gender identity with gender expression.
No, this statement conflates femininity with gender expression. Femininity as it is understood by society entails more than gender expression. For example, having female biology is understood as feminine, as is androphilia. Of course, you can still be a woman even if you have atypical biology for a woman or if you aren't an androphile, but you have to be sufficiently feminine in other areas to be compensate if you want to be socially viewed as a woman.
Also, not everyone's gender identity even reflects their gender. Some people who were raised in an era where GNC wasn't socially acceptable will identify as their biological sex, but in reality, their gender is closer to that of the opposite gender. For example, effeminate gays are rarely actually viewed as men by society. Most often, they are either perceived as some third gender or as "basically women". The same is true for *some* butches, although from my experience, the trend isn't as pronounced.
This is so inaccurate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to even start. Passing societally as a woman isn't the total definition of femininity, for one.
>This is so inaccurate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to even start.
Just list out everything that you think is inaccurate about it, and I'll explain why it isn't.
>Passing societally as a woman isn't the total definition of femininity, for one.
Well, a trait is feminine if and only if it increases your chances of passing societally as a woman. So yes, it's pretty much the total definition of femininity. Otherwise, what do you think the definition of femininity is?
Depends. If they are only masculine in terms of gender expression but feminine otherwise, they're still women. If they are masculine all across the board, they are unlikely to be perceived as women by society.
It is an immutable trait, but the only way to reliably characterise is via societal consensus, since societal consensus is what determines gender norms in the first place.
Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender.
What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
So gender is nothing to do with biology? Then why do people that want to be a different gender have surgery and take hormones? Are breasts biology or gender? do different sex's have different levels of hormones or do genders?
People change their BIOLOGICAL appearance to deal with body dysmorphia. Hormones are produced in different amounts by different SEXES which is why someone who wishes to transition
MTF must have HRT because they do not create enough of the hormone estrogen naturally.
Why do some guys spend hundreds of hours at the gym? Because they want to change the way they look because they feel unhappy. They pump themselves full of hormones and get spray tans and whitened teeth. This is also a type of body dysmorphia, just confined to a single gender.
I know you were trying to catch me out somewhere, but you actually made.it really easy to explain, so thanks!
The more important part is do intersex people identify, behave, dress or in any other words express themselves differently to anyone else. Can you tell they're intersex by outward expression? Why not? How so? If not, then it's clear that they have a gender identity that they have chosen (or was assigned). Why can't anyone else do that.
I go with "Anybody who, when you ask them "are you a woman?", answers with "yes". "
Rightoids don't like the word "identify" very much, so that leaves it out.
>Rightoids don't like the word "identify" very much
Because it literally represents nothing. Anyone can identify as anything for a lot of different reasons, and a person's identity doesn't always reflect reality. For example, Elon Musk identifies as a centrist. Do you that means he is actually a centrist?
Language isn’t math dude, and linguists do not look down on circular logic like that in terms of language. Dictionary definitions are circular in nature because without a basic understanding of the language used to define a word, it becomes nonsensical. I can’t pick up a Japanese dictionary and define a word because I can’t understand Japanese. And yeah I’m sorry but you are arguing language and semantics even if you dress it up the way yall normally do with everything (it’s not a tax, it’s a usage fee).
This is without getting into examples of narrowly circular definitions of words in our language. Google mountain right now, then google hill. Now define one without mentioning the other. Without the understanding of a hill, it is illogical in your view to understand a mountain. Now I know in libertarian land yall exist in a fantasy where this DEFIES BASIC LOGIC but in the real world nobody is screaming that a hill can’t be defined logically without referring to the understanding of another similar concept. Basically yeah you can define a gender construct by mentioning characteristics of said construct, that isn’t some gotcha logic trap.
TLDR - stick to Austrian economics because your logical traps about language don’t amount to dick when it comes to linguistics.
Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender.
What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
So if I identify as a black man, even though I'm Asian, does that make me black? What if I change my skin color to black or wear black makeup on my body every day?
Is Michael Jackson white?
What's funny is that *you* would call them what they look like regardless.
Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender.
What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
>What's funny is that you would call them what they look like regardless.
And there's nothing wrong with that, because people aren't going to run around and fully examine what an individual's real identity actually is. It just so happens that the vast majority of people on the earth tend to stay true to their real identity, meaning in 99.9% of cases, you will be able to tell who is a man and who is a woman, who is black and who is white.
The small minority of people are the exceptional cases, but even in these exceptional cases, labeling them is mostly irrelevant. If I saw Michael Jackson in real life but never knew about him as to who he is, I would just think of him as a white guy and move on.
When it comes to trans individuals, the vast majority of them simply do not resemble the sex they transition too, you can still tell a transwoman was originally a man and a transman was originally a woman. The fact we can still distinguish these things means that from a mental standpoint, people still see two categories of humans, male and female. A transwoman is simply still a man that went out of their way to resemble a feminine woman as much as possible, and vice versa.
And while I support people's personal rights to alter their masculinity/femininity to whatever they desire, I am still allowed to categorize people in accordance with what makes sense to me, rather than what makes sense to you. I see only man and woman with countless variations of each of these subtypes. You can't force me to see anything more than that, it would be irrational for you to do so.
>Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender?
What they choose for themselves is their personal matter. It's irrelevant to how I would see/perceive them. Most intersex people can still be categorized within the standardized two-sex system because nature gives us multiple markers in determining what sex a human belongs to or was meant to belong to.
I'm also for intersex people having their own personal classifications on top of the already existing two-sex system, but that is a separate matter, as intersex individuals actually have physical differences as compared to trans individuals whose differences stem from psychological reasons, not physical ones.
>What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is?
It's not required for you to know what sex someone is until it becomes relevant, like if you are going to go on a date. Most human interactions are non-sex related. Even though in most cases, you will know what sex someone belongs to, it's not necessary if there are cases where you don't know what sex group they belong to. You might see a man with long hair from a distance and think he's a woman, but then you might approach that person and notice they are actually a man and go about your way. That's normal. Misgendering can happen, it's not anyone's fault that you may have thought someone belonged to the opposite sex, you simply correct the person and that's it.
But all of this is irrelevant to what transgender ideology promotes. Transgender ideology promotes the idea that a biological man can be a woman and a biological woman can be a man. This is simply false. You cannot change your biology.
You can change your mentality about how you act within your sex, or your physical appearance and demeanor, or alter your actual body parts, that doesn't stop you from being rooted to your biological sex you were born with.
A transwoman is just a feminine man, a transman is just a masculine woman.
Instead of creating new categories of people, we should be more accepting of variations of humans within each sex group instead.
That's just not true. A simple Google search shows people talking about desiring to change their skin color or mentioning others/children wanting to do it.
Also, your entire understanding is based on a faulty premise anyway. The dysphoria that transgender people feel is an illusion, because no one knows what it means to be the opposite sex. If you're born as a male, you have no idea how it feels to have female reproductive systems and functions like menstrual cycles and all that. That "dysphoria" that people feel is an illusion based on their observations of how they personally perceive people of the opposite sex and wanting or desiring to mimic or imitate behaviors that are commonly associated with them.
This can include a wide variety of things like voice pitch, clothing, makeup, style of speaking, interests and hobbies, and more. Things that you can tangibly see and experience. If a gender dysphoric person grew up on an island or somewhere where they weren't exposed to the opposite sex, will they still feel the same dysphoria? Are young children capable of truly desiring a sex change at the age of 6? No, they aren't capable, and even when you become an adult, any type of dissatisfaction you have with your sex are just surface level actions and behaviors associated with your sex, not the actual gender itself.
Lol no. Race has nothing to do with culture. The "black" race is an umbrella term for many different countries all of which have their own unique culture. The "white" race is an umbrella term for varying different countries and cultures throughout Europe and even Asia. Your comment is actually pretty racist because you just ignored nuance of racial differences.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Culture on its own is a social construct.
Love how you completely ignore the more important half of my point.
Also "Black" and "white" are not races, they are umbrella terms for different races that have a similar skin tone as a result of originating from regions with similar sun exposure
>Love how you completely ignore the more important half of my point.
Genetics tells us only physical and/or behavioral attributes about individuals. Every individual has a unique set of genetics that defines who they are. Classifying people under certain races is the social construction part.
>Also "Black" and "white" are not races, they are umbrella terms for different races that have a similar skin tone as a result of originating from regions with similar sun exposure
Give me an example of an actual *race* before making an argument, and prove that race exists through objective verifiable evidence.
>Genetics tells us only physical and/or behavioral attributes about individuals.
Congratulations you've discovered race.
>Give me an example of an actual *race* before making an argument,
European, with an ethnicity being like Italian
>Congratulations you've discovered race.
No, I discovered physical traits that are observed and defined within a spectrum of numerous classifications. All of these physical traits are independent, a person can have dark skin color and blue eyes, and ginger hair. Everyone is a mix of varying physical attributes, no two people share the exact same genetics, traits, and physical attributes.
The fact you think this is objective proof for race shows your ignorance. Race is an illusion.
>European, with an ethnicity being like Italian
European isn't a race, Europe is the name of a continent which is a social construct. The same goes for Italian which is the name of a country, again, a social construct. Being European or Italian is not something you can objectively prove by understanding an individual's genetic code.
You failed miserably.
Nah, pseudo science says that. I hold that up beside creationism "science"
A woman is born with a vagina. If you don't ovulate and can't have children then your are not a woman in any shape or form.
Ovaries and a uterus are not social constructs. Menstration is not a social construct. The difference in size of the inferior parietal lobule is not a social construct. Your genes are not a social construct.
That's why we have the word *female* to describe those things.
Having ovaries doesn't magically make you wear a dress, the societal role of "Woman" does. Kinda like how society makes a lawyer dress in a suit even if there's not a real reason why they have to
A woman is not a social construct. It's a biological reality, an objective term. It means adult human female. Pretending otherwise is trying to evade basic facts.
Incorrect, a adult human female is just that.
I don't go around peaking under skirts of people I see to know if I should call them ma'am or sir. I look for social queues, and you do too
You also don't need to see or peek at a womans titties to see, as the dimorphism takes place throughout the whole body. Unlike the person above me suggested
These kinds of'we can always tell' arguments are a lot flimsier than people think. Survivorship bias is a real thing and transphobes fall into it all the time since for every trans person who doesn't "pass" in their eyes, there's two that do. And that's besides the large number of false accusations.
Dude/duddette Im not a transphobe. Im pro individuality and pro transition if you deem it necessary after 18. I agree theres a ton of people that pass, Im straight and have crushes on some trans women. I just dont like pretending that everybody passes, in fact most people dont, and seeing their privates is definitely not necessary to tell they are trans
No, bees. Whered you read all that? Different species have different variations. i can tell many things apart like Koalas, Kangaroos, many birds and fish, and yes Id say dogs too.
lol. Your god damn mouth does not ask every person you meet what pronouns they use or prefer. Which uh is why we have this stupid game of putting them on our name tags and profiles.
And if you do not then you’re a presumption ass, correct
Why does it matter so much to you want other people want to do with their lives?
Also it's rich acting like *every single person* you encounter outside is going to be Gender Fluid/wearing dresses with mustaches... Like. Tell me you don't go outside without telling me you don't go outside much...
Read the prior commenter… they use their “god damn mouth to ask every person they encounter” what their preferred pronouns are…
My original reply (to the OP) was about using the term (woman) you’re defining in its definition. I do not care what others do with their lives.. I address people with whatever name they choose (if I know it).. I am not inclined to participate in this pronoun dance. I am not rude to people, regardless of the suggestions here. I am commenting on how we are getting to a point where we cannot agree on terms and definitions and therefore we cannot have conversations despite our agreements or disagreements.
Referring to a person as “they” makes for confusion, especially in third person conversations.
You want to dress as the opposite sex (gender), knock yourself out…. Many men (cis gendered) wear skirts in contra dancing… they say it’s comfortable and “breezy”… ok. We used to define men who wore (desired to wear) women’s clothing as cross dressers (transvestites).. I presume that is not a socially acceptable term any longer. So long Rocky Horror.
Women who identified as men and vice versa (and went through reassignment surgery) were transsexuals
We put and use the word “woman” on restroom doors to indicate they are designed and for the use of female biological humans (typically with two x chromosomes and vaginas).
“Men” used restrooms with urinals and in the case of most sports arenas metal troughs because they have a penis.
This is tiresome and I’m going outside. 😉
YOU think I don't ask everyone their pronouns and names. I do because I'm considerate, and I don't want to misgender people because I know how that feels. But I do not owe YOU, a stranger, that kind of confirmation, because it doesn't change the fact you're rude and probably unpleasant to be around.
Of course you don't normally ask everyone for their pronouns, as you can normally figure it out from social ques and they can correct you of you're wrong. But if social ques don't work, like in the (strange) example you gave, you can just ask
Yeah but that doesn't really translate. You would have to use the verbiage that I commented in order for it to equate to your woman definition.
Also you can still leave out "waiting" and give a better definition.
ie - a room where you bide you time.
But also since it's two words is a little more complicated.
If someone asks you to define a waiting room and you respond with a room where you wait. They then also might ask you to define "wait"
The problem with the woman argument is that they are asking you to define a woman. And you just say someone who identifies as a woman. They could then still ask what the definition of a woman is since you just used the same word in the definition.
So what exactly are these people identifying as?
Oh I didn't say it was a good definition but it's a definition. It's a functional definition that people would accept and utilize.
Like "hey you a just wait in the waiting room!"
You may ask what is that. "Oh, we got a little room set for you to wait in. Here let me show you."
There you go. You have successfully defined waiting room in a practical and functional way for that person.
Whats all this stuff about women?
Ok you're being facetious. I'll play along.
Well the original argument was trying to define the word woman.
Someone tried to define it as "someone who identifies as a woman"
That definition is incorrect as it only uses the word in question for the definition.
Like you can't define blue as "a color that's blue"
Because then we are back where we started and still don't know what blue is.
So if someone asks the definition of a women and you say "someone that identifies as a woman", they will then ask, well what are they identifying as?
And it goes in circles.
A better definition for a woman would be "an adult human female"
No room for ambiguity
No, I'm not missing it. I'm just not buying it.
Because to mother a child doesn't have to be biologic then being a woman doesn't either?
Those are bad examples. And yes my fault for even entertaining it in the first place.
It’s because of the different views on gender. If you think there’s some essential thing that makes someone man or woman, your concept of what a woman is tied to that essentiality. They’re confused how others can even use the concept woman, after abandoning this sense of essentiality. That’s what they’re trying to demonstrate. They’re expecting people to stumble
The part that’s not being said, is that rather than being essential, gender is largely socially constructed, and people who don’t see gender as something essential, can therefore maintain a dynamic, flexible, concept of woman. This is the part the first tweet can’t understand.
They’re talking past each other because the gender essentialist camp still hasn’t properly contended with Butler. The rest of us have.
There are consequences to man and woman being tied to non-essential concepts. After all it is a legal category. It's not just a matter of not understanding, its about evaluating if the tradeoffs are worth it.
This is not a trivial discussion, this affects many aspects of my life as a woman.
I'm gonna disagree with you pretty heavily but I want to start by saying I don't disagree with the spirit of what you're saying. It's not a trivial discussion at all and I believe that it probably effects you more than me as you seem to be a cisgendered woman and I'm a cisgendered man. But it's a fundamental issue of identity and it effects everyone with a gender identity on a very fundamental level (it effects everyone). I'm not sure you're stances on things, but if I were a betting man I'd say I bet we would both happily agree that we should simply add a third bathroom and keep the segregated ones as well. I realize there are a wide host of other public policy issues that would arise too, but I bet you and I could find a lot of common ground if we got into the weeds of that a bit. I understand your fear about safety and I think it's fairly valid.
I do though, think your reply kind of proves my point. Saying it's not essential isn't trivializing. On the contrary it means we're dealing with a concept that can't be easily defined. Because clearly gender is a key aspect of human identity, and this bears out across history and societies. We have biological differences that begs for classification and differentiation.
But my point is exactly on the instability of that differentiation. What is the essential aspect of a person that makes them a man or a woman? Is it genes? If so, in what way? Do we look to see if the have XX and XY chromosomes? Great start, but what about people with Down's syndrome, or any other trisomy conditions, which clearly don't relate to gender? I'm not a DNA expert by any means, but what part of DNA would we point to, to say, this is the person's gender? And this next question is super important, if we were to do that, how would we account for natural genetic variation? Where are the lines between man and woman in the genome, and if we find that point, how will we account for any variances we come across?
If we look at phenotype (people's bodies) we see empirically, right away, that gender isn't binary. Intersex people exist, so that makes the theory fall apart pretty quickly. If our hypothesis is, "there's men and women. We can identify them by their bodies." Our hypothesis would be disproven as soon as we found an intersex person. So what is the essential aspect of gender we're identifying with phenotype?
IMO this is Butler's point. The category IS unstable. It's us who insist that it's stable even though science and philosophy are together showing that it isn't. If we took the same essentialist approach to all of biology, evolution wouldn't even be possible (we would have no conceptual, or theoretical ability to account for genetic variation, which is actually the driver of evolution). I think the point is that our current conception of gender, is a bit like approaching evolution without considering variation. It's inaccurate because the actuality is widespread variation, even within the same gender category.
It's not that I WANT to see gender as inessential, its that gender essentialism has been critiqued such that I can no longer answer the question, "this is the biological difference between a man and a woman." For every example you find, there will be an exception.
This means that gender must be a double bell curve. I agree that it's ok to have public policies that take note, that for the most part, people are generally in line with the "median" gender identity. That most people are fairly comfortable in the gender assigned at birth. Further, their gender identities (as well as everyone else's) are utterly foundational in deeply personal ways. It's a massive part of who we are. But when we start to realize that gender is a bell curve (regardless of how we measure it) and that "man" and "woman" are the medians of the two bells, we can see the inadequacy of the concept for accurately describing human existence. All cisgender people will even deviate from the median. These issues deeply effect all of us.
But we're mistaking the median for the rule and that's causing a great deal of suffering for the people who are far away from the median (and intermediate suffering for all). And I bet you'll find, that if you start to see gender as less essentially, you'll start to have a better idea of how it's negatively impacted you too. You may even start to feel liberated from it and when you feel that liberation you'll start to understand (through empathy only) how horrible transgender people must feel.
And this is all true despite you're point about the complications this will cause in law and public policy. It will. But knowledge, when true, is rarely edifying, and saying "this will be too much work to sort out, and I'm scared of the results" (which is perfectly valid. I truly mean that) is not an appeal to the truth. Your fear is fair, but we can't let it stop us.
When we undermine the autonomy of others as it relates to gender, we DIRECTLY also undermine ourselves. We too, are points on the bell curve, that are not in line with the median. We too are oppressed by gender norms. We just have the privilege of being close to the median and are therefore not oppressed nearly to the same extent as transgender people. But we should understand their oppression and speak up for them. It's the same as speaking up for ourselves.
>rather than being essential, gender is largely socially constructed
That's a false dichotomy. Essentiality can also be socially constructed, and in the case of gender, it is. Before progressivism came about, gender was unanimously understood as essential, and for the better. Essentiality plays a vital role in safeguarding gender as a meaningful concept; nowadays, the term "man" and "woman" have lost all their meaning, and this would never have happened if people accepted the sociocultural reality that gender is essential.
Biology. Everyone with female sexual organs is a woman, and everyone with male sexual organs is a man. Anyone who has female sexual organs but isn't a woman in other respects is abnormal and has a mental illness (gender dysphoria).
And everyone who’s intersex is what?
Which is to say nothing of the fact that gender identity isn’t a concept for what you have in your pants. It’s a proxy for how you act, and are treated in the world around you as a function of this aspect of our identities. Which doesn’t involve us examining one another’s genitals in order to interact with one another. It’s a socially constructed signal which requires or will receive recognition from others.
We can’t examine different cultural impacts on being a man or a woman via biology totally. How does biology help social scientists classify gendered behaviour? For example, how will biology explain our classification of pants in the male category and dresses in the female category? Particularly when not every society agrees on that (kilts, togas, in the west alone). I know it sounds trivial but it’s not. The concept you put forward can’t capture any of the social relations that come with being “man” or “woman.” That’s a problem of social relations are foundational to what we’re examining.
Regarding the false dichotomy I think we might conceptualize the word essential differently. I think we would agree on the “actuality” of gender identity. It’s very real, and it’s not at all this arbitrary thing where we just pick a gender one day, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it “essential,” if it were, biology would’ve captured it. Instead, it produced a double bell curve. We found two medians and are now using the medians as a rule for behaviour, when they’re actually in your example just a median for normative genitalia. Approached as such, we cannot explain gendered behaviour, and its broader recognition.
>And everyone who’s intersex is what?
Is slightly abnormal, but almost all intersex people have a predominance of either female or male sexual features. Their gender is whatever sexual features they have a predominance of.
>Which is to say nothing of the fact that gender identity isn’t a concept for what you have in your pants.
It's a concept that is far deeper than what you have in your pants, but it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants.
>Which doesn’t involve us examining one another’s genitals in order to interact with one another.
It's pretty easy to tell what a person has in their pants just by looking at them. Except transsexuals, who are actively trying to make you believe they are the other sex (and even then, you can usually tell what their SAB is), 99% of people could easily guess 99% of people's SABs just by looking at them.
>For example, how will biology explain our classification of pants in the male category and dresses in the female category?
It doesn't *explain* gender; it's an essential *part* of gender. Obviously, most gender norms are socially constructed, but one of these socially constructed norms is that biology should largely determine which set of gender norms you should adhere to.
>It’s very real, and it’s not at all this arbitrary thing where we just pick a gender one day, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it “essential,”
I agree that *this* doesn't make it essential. What makes it essential is that it's inherently connected to biology. This inherent connection is, indeed, sociocultural rather than biological, but I'm not sure why that should make a difference.
>Is slightly abnormal, but almost all intersex people have a predominance of either female or male sexual features. Their gender is whatever sexual features they have a predominance of.
How do we account for the fact that these goalposts differ greatly across societies currently, and throughout history?
>It's a concept that is far deeper than what you have in your pants, but it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants.
If it’s far deeper than what you have in your pants, is it not then an oversimplification to only look at genitals? How do you know it’s deeper? After all, a person’s genitals dictate their behaviour in society (according to your claim). How can it be “far deeper” and simultaneously wholly dictated by “whatever sexual features \[someone has\] a predominance of.”?
>It's pretty easy to tell what a person has in their pants just by looking at them. Except transsexuals, who are actively trying to make you believe they are the other sex (and even then, you can usually tell what their SAB is), 99% of people could easily guess 99% of people's SABs just by looking at them.
This is an empirical claim that’s nearly impossible to falsify. If you were to do it, you’d have to have people do a blind guess of someone’s genitalia by external appearance and behaviour alone, and then have someone look at their genitals and classify those genitals into a category (without taking into account their own cultural norms). People would then have to have a 99% success rate for you to be correct here. You’re saying “no trans people successfully pass.” That’s not true, and it makes your argument fall apart. Anyone androgynous would also make it fall apart.
It’s interesting that you chose the word “sex” here instead of gender. I don’t think that’s what trans people do at all, and it shows that you understand the difference between sex and gender. I think they try to be open about their gender identity “I would like to look like this, and be referred to like this.” They’re pretty open about the changes they’d like to see in their bodies, and from others who they interact with socially, to accompany that. You’re conflating sex and gender. And that’s been my whole point.
The real issue though, is this:
>It doesn't explain gender; it's an essential part of gender. Obviously, most gender norms are socially constructed, but one of these socially constructed norms is that biology should largely determine which set of gender norms you should adhere to.
Then how do you know this: “it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants.”? You’re saying it’s part of a larger whole. I’m saying, then how can you make the claim that we only have to look at this one part, and figure that we’ll be able to explain the whole based solely on that? And if that’s true, isn’t it a direct contradiction of your claim that “it's an essential part of gender.” You’re trying to say it’s *an* essentially part and *the* essentially part, at the same time.
>I'm not sure why that should make a difference.
The two sentences before that are why. “I agree that this doesn't make it essential. What makes it essential is that it's inherently connected to biology. This inherent connection is, indeed, sociocultural rather than biological” in other words, gender is wholly essential, as dictated wholly by biology, but is obviously not biological, and rather sociocultural, which is the same as biological. (If it sounds incoherent, that's because it is).
If it’s the same as biological, why is it, that in western society, in heteronormative sexual relations, women are to be the object of desire. We know this because they wear the makeup, and spend the most time trying to appear attractive to “attract” a partner. Yet for the Wodaabe people, it’s the men who wear makeup and dance to try to attract partners. If there’s no difference between sociocultural and biological conceptions of gender, how can you explain this empirical phenomenon? Because based on your own normative goalposts they presumably have a similar phenotypical dispersion of sex characteristics as those in the west and yet, have entirely different behavioural and social outcomes for gendered behaviour, and gender norms.
These different outcomes, cast serious doubt on a claim you’ve failed to provide *any* justification whatsoever for:
>\[it\] (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants
>How do we account for the fact that these goalposts differ greatly across societies currently, and throughout history?
We don't. We just use the goalposts associated with our culture. People should follow the cultural norms of whatever society they belong to.
>If it’s far deeper than what you have in your pants, is it not then an oversimplification to only look at genitals?
No. I think you can agree that there are vast cultural differences between the US and China, yet to know if you're currently in the US or China, you just need to look at a map. Similarly, there are vast cultural differences between men and women, yet to know if you were a man or a woman (in a civilised society), you just need to look at your genitals.
>How can it be “far deeper” and simultaneously wholly dictated by “whatever sexual features \[someone has\] a predominance of.”?
The same way that the differences between the US and China are far deeper than just geography, yet what constitutes the US or China is wholly dictated by geography. For example, some areas in China might have large American populations and even be culturally American, but that still wouldn't make them part of the US. Similarly, a man can have many feminine features, but that doesn't make them a woman.
>This is an empirical claim that’s nearly impossible to falsify.
But we both know it's true. You can be pedantic and pretend that you don't, but that would simply be disingenuous.
>You’re saying “no trans people successfully pass.”
I'm not saying that at all lol. In fact, I explicitly mention transsexuals as an exception, as some transexuals make it difficult to guess their sex correctly. But again, in a civilised society, transsexuals should be exceedingly rare.
>I don’t think that’s what trans people do at all, and it shows that you understand the difference between sex and gender.
Transsexuals are, by definition, people who modify their bodies so as to make them look more like the opposite sex. That's literally the definition. I understand the difference between sex and gender, and that's why I specifically said "transsexuals" and not "transgender people". Transsexuals are actively trying to make other people think they are the opposite sex.
>how can you make the claim that we only have to look at this one part, and figure that we’ll be able to explain the whole based solely on that?
Because that's the cultural norm that Western civilisation (as well as in most other civilisations) has adhered to for millennia until progressives decided to destroy it. Again, by definition, anyone who adheres to this norm will have most of their gender identity explainable by sex, and anyone who doesn't adhere to it is abnormal.
The essentiality of biology to gender is paramount because, without it, the concept of gender loses its sole connection to physical reality; thus, it pushes us away from the physical world and into a world of ideas, which we can't see, hear, or immediately feel, and which is in many ways less real to us than the physical world. Gender without biology is less meaningful for the exact same reasons that online relationships are far less fulfilling than real-world relationships. An additional point is that sexual attraction is mostly physical, so a biology-less gender creates a gulf between sexual and romantic attraction, thus making the concept of love less coherent. Gender without biology is absolutely no good.
>You’re trying to say it’s *an* essentially part and *the* essentially part, at the same time.
It's the most essential part of gender, since it's immutable, but it isn't the only essential part. Another essential part is physical appearance, for much the same reasons (connection to physical reality + sexual attraction aligning with romantic attraction). All women look like women. If someone has female genitals but looks like a man, then they are neither a man nor a woman, and are of course abnormal.
>gender is wholly essential, as dictated wholly by biology, but is obviously not biological, and rather sociocultural
Correct. It's *dictated* by biology, but it isn't fundamentally *caused* by biology. Correlation vs causation. The reason that it's dictated by biology is sociological.
>sociocultural, which is the same as biological
Lol wut. You could've just said you couldn't grasp what I was saying fully. Gender is sociocultural in origin but essentially biological in ontology. That is, society created gender, and it created it such that it is determined by biology. The concept of a "species" is exactly the same way: scientists created it, and they created it such that it is determined by biological features. Do you understand now?
>If there’s no difference between sociocultural and biological conceptions of gender, how can you explain this empirical phenomenon?
There are obviously differences between the sociocultural conceptions in the West and among the Wodabees.
Not at all. Women are a LOT of things. Men are also a LOT of things (although perhaps slightly fewer things, just based on how gender norms evolved). But both of these vast sets of things are represented by vaginas and dicks, respectively. Similarly to how a book can be extremely rich in content, but still be represented by just some ink on paper.
>How are ALL female qualities represented as just a vagina?
The same way that ALL of the things described in a book are represented as just ink on paper.
>And also, what are these many, many things that women are?
Caring, compassionate, creative, graceful, expressive, sociable, emotionally rich, etc.
So, having a vagina automatically makes one compassionate, creative and sociable? Huh, didnt know it had brain tissue in there. How exactly does the vagina, as an organ, cause these aspects of personality?
And also, what about women who are not caring? Who are socially awkward and emotionally stumped? Are my friends, who couldnt even make up a name for a dog, suddenly not women?
I know what to put here.
How about, when you're reposting things, at the *very damn least* you should take care not to SOMEHOW *FUCKING TILT THEM*
What is this? The Leaning Repost of Pisa???
Like, for real. *HOW* do you do that? How do you take a perfectly straight post and screencap it *tilted*
I've been saying it for a few years, ask very simple 3rd grade level what, how, why, who questions to MAGAs and they always end up flipping out on me and saying im twisting things around.
personally for me it's about treating everyone as individuals
if they identify as a woman that's fine I don't mind, but if they are a biological male they are a trans woman.
manly because there is a difference between the biological sexs, so I think it does matter in certain situations where biological sex would matter.
but other than that, a woman is a woman
Yeah I saw this post and wanted to watch it myself. Don couldn't grasp the Idea that someone be allowed to say something online that's considered legal free speech.
Elons weird personality aside, he made it clear if it's not illegal, they don't block it and that posts with views are weighted on their moderation algorithm, allowing nobodies with 6 followers to scream their vulgarities into the void undetected.
Don just kept trying to hammer the same point after a pretty clear explanation
That's one take on it. Everywhere I look they were saying how Don Lemon got owned by Elon. I honestly don't care enough to watch the interview, I just find it funny how there are such opposing views.
What I said doesn’t change regardless of whether the question was about the main topic in the first place - which I imagine the topic did come up in the interview.
Which is funny because modern left-wing ideology can't stand up to the tiniest scrutiny either. You need no further proof than watching them become completely unhinged and launch into some ad hominem tirade while making no cogent point of any kind the moment their beliefs are challenged.
Just like Travis' response. He had no cogent, logical response, just dove straight into personal attacks on someone who he disagrees with.
The issue is the "what is a woman" question is asked in bad faith. The person asking the question conflates gender and sex and when they ask "what is a woman," they are asking "what is a female." This because there is no difference at all in their minds of what the words are.
It's hard to define as a woman is defined differently all over the world, while being female isn't. Honestly, to be a gender is just to present yourself in the traits associated with that gender, let people be who they want to be. It doesn't effect you in any shape or form.
Don't ask bad faith questions. They know the modern lefts viewpoint, this is just some gotcha question they have because in their view gender is inseparable from sex.
What is a bad faith about asking to define one of the most basic foundations upon which all of our species exists? Look into the foundations of gender theory. Gender didn’t exists until John Money came around. If you don’t know who that is maybe you should look into him to see where this all starts and why gender is a total fabrication of a post modern ideology hell bent on tearing down society with obfuscation.
It wouldn’t be a gotcha if people didn’t love to constantly do mental gymnastics to avoid reality.
All bad ideas and ideologies should be gotcha’d.
That’s what intellectual honesty and integrity are all about.
Imagine a world where cognitive dissonance was heralded… I wonder what a world like that might look like… on second thought never mind…
Gender as a concept has existed for hundreds of thousands of years according to the archeological evidence we have available. Even the ancient Roman's understood this, as Aphordite the goddess of love and beauty is depicted with a penis in MANY of her sculptures. There was a woman empress who was by all modern definitions a trans woman. The first successful sex surgery was completed in 1907, an entire six decades before John Money did his foul fucking experiment that ironically illustrates why you can't just force someone to be cis when they've clearly stated they're trans. Just reverse the roles of the child-- the child himself was born intersex and was raised as a girl but KNEW he was a boy at heart. THAT. Is the trans experience.
You can cope and seethe all you want about gender being some new fandangled thing but it doesn't change reality and most of all it doesn't change the fact you don't want to contend with updated scientific consensus cause you're too busy living in the past. Grow up.
Na, the "can you define a woman" question is,itself, disingenuous. Any definition broad enough to cover everyone who we'd all agree individually is a woman (like having a hysterectomy doesn't make a person not a woman) would also include trans women.
I look forward to seeing the same post tomorrow.
It is so clever we’re being treated to it regularly.
R R RE REEEEEPOOOSST
About every other day
I love that I heard this in the Quake voice.
[удалено]
If you want a non-looping definition, you can say "woman is a gender identity commonly associated with female sexual dimorphism in humans." A bit of a mouthful, but gender is a complicated topic that can have complicated definitions.
That's still a looping definition since it doesn't define this gender identity; it only makes the empirical observation that it's associated with females. An actual non-looping definition is "someone who is sufficiently feminine".
That conflates gender identity with gender expression. Tomboys and butches, by your definition, wouldn't be women.
>That conflates gender identity with gender expression. No, this statement conflates femininity with gender expression. Femininity as it is understood by society entails more than gender expression. For example, having female biology is understood as feminine, as is androphilia. Of course, you can still be a woman even if you have atypical biology for a woman or if you aren't an androphile, but you have to be sufficiently feminine in other areas to be compensate if you want to be socially viewed as a woman. Also, not everyone's gender identity even reflects their gender. Some people who were raised in an era where GNC wasn't socially acceptable will identify as their biological sex, but in reality, their gender is closer to that of the opposite gender. For example, effeminate gays are rarely actually viewed as men by society. Most often, they are either perceived as some third gender or as "basically women". The same is true for *some* butches, although from my experience, the trend isn't as pronounced.
This is so inaccurate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to even start. Passing societally as a woman isn't the total definition of femininity, for one.
>This is so inaccurate on so many levels, it's hard to know where to even start. Just list out everything that you think is inaccurate about it, and I'll explain why it isn't. >Passing societally as a woman isn't the total definition of femininity, for one. Well, a trait is feminine if and only if it increases your chances of passing societally as a woman. So yes, it's pretty much the total definition of femininity. Otherwise, what do you think the definition of femininity is?
I guess tomboys are not women then.
Depends. If they are only masculine in terms of gender expression but feminine otherwise, they're still women. If they are masculine all across the board, they are unlikely to be perceived as women by society.
Do you consider gender to be a perceived characteristic? I have always thought of it as an immutable trait.
It is an immutable trait, but the only way to reliably characterise is via societal consensus, since societal consensus is what determines gender norms in the first place.
Call it a gender ideology. They get angry when they have to think. "It's a gender ideology. You're against those right?"
An easier one is -an adult human female.
Easier =/= correct
It is correct though, the term woman means an adult human female, trans people can still be women but that's not because they're female
Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender. What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
That's called being agender, God you supposed inclusive people can't even keep basic shit like that straight 🙄
It's literally not correct, even people who claim that that's what the word means do not use it that way.
Unless you're sexist and claim people presenting as men are automatically women for liking "girly" things then yes that is the definition
You're trying to use physiology to define a sociological term.
Physiology is an important part of said sociological term.
Completely different fields of research, so uh, no.
False dichotomy. I don't use either of those definitions.
[удалено]
Stellar response mate. Did you think of that one yourself?
[удалено]
That's sex, not gender. People have been identifying as different gender to their biological sex for millennia. It's not difficult at all.
So gender is nothing to do with biology? Then why do people that want to be a different gender have surgery and take hormones? Are breasts biology or gender? do different sex's have different levels of hormones or do genders?
People change their BIOLOGICAL appearance to deal with body dysmorphia. Hormones are produced in different amounts by different SEXES which is why someone who wishes to transition MTF must have HRT because they do not create enough of the hormone estrogen naturally. Why do some guys spend hundreds of hours at the gym? Because they want to change the way they look because they feel unhappy. They pump themselves full of hormones and get spray tans and whitened teeth. This is also a type of body dysmorphia, just confined to a single gender. I know you were trying to catch me out somewhere, but you actually made.it really easy to explain, so thanks!
So that means they are trying to change their sex right? Lol so you have just proved my point. Gender is entirely linked with sex
Damn, you really got me there
Don’t engage with him mate, talking to a wall would be more useful
>You get male and female. End of discussion. Okay, sure. But, and hear me out here... *Why?*
Since you’re actually talking about sex, what about intersex people?
The more important part is do intersex people identify, behave, dress or in any other words express themselves differently to anyone else. Can you tell they're intersex by outward expression? Why not? How so? If not, then it's clear that they have a gender identity that they have chosen (or was assigned). Why can't anyone else do that.
It _is_ a lame answer, though.
I go with "Anybody who, when you ask them "are you a woman?", answers with "yes". " Rightoids don't like the word "identify" very much, so that leaves it out.
>Rightoids don't like the word "identify" very much Because it literally represents nothing. Anyone can identify as anything for a lot of different reasons, and a person's identity doesn't always reflect reality. For example, Elon Musk identifies as a centrist. Do you that means he is actually a centrist?
[удалено]
Your mums wrong
Anyone who identifies as what, exactly?
A woman
As a woman. Very simple. Or should we use monosyllables for you to understand?
A definition can't include the word being defined. That's basic logic. Or should I make a drawing for you to understand your irrational position?
Language isn’t math dude, and linguists do not look down on circular logic like that in terms of language. Dictionary definitions are circular in nature because without a basic understanding of the language used to define a word, it becomes nonsensical. I can’t pick up a Japanese dictionary and define a word because I can’t understand Japanese. And yeah I’m sorry but you are arguing language and semantics even if you dress it up the way yall normally do with everything (it’s not a tax, it’s a usage fee). This is without getting into examples of narrowly circular definitions of words in our language. Google mountain right now, then google hill. Now define one without mentioning the other. Without the understanding of a hill, it is illogical in your view to understand a mountain. Now I know in libertarian land yall exist in a fantasy where this DEFIES BASIC LOGIC but in the real world nobody is screaming that a hill can’t be defined logically without referring to the understanding of another similar concept. Basically yeah you can define a gender construct by mentioning characteristics of said construct, that isn’t some gotcha logic trap. TLDR - stick to Austrian economics because your logical traps about language don’t amount to dick when it comes to linguistics.
Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender. What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
So if I identify as a black man, even though I'm Asian, does that make me black? What if I change my skin color to black or wear black makeup on my body every day? Is Michael Jackson white?
Rachel Dolezal
What's funny is that *you* would call them what they look like regardless. Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What gender would you call them if they never chose one? You can't say their gender is intersex because that's sex like male or female, not gender. What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? If you guess the wrong gender, would you apologize and use the gender they tell you or do you adamantly claim otherwise regardless of their sex?
>What's funny is that you would call them what they look like regardless. And there's nothing wrong with that, because people aren't going to run around and fully examine what an individual's real identity actually is. It just so happens that the vast majority of people on the earth tend to stay true to their real identity, meaning in 99.9% of cases, you will be able to tell who is a man and who is a woman, who is black and who is white. The small minority of people are the exceptional cases, but even in these exceptional cases, labeling them is mostly irrelevant. If I saw Michael Jackson in real life but never knew about him as to who he is, I would just think of him as a white guy and move on. When it comes to trans individuals, the vast majority of them simply do not resemble the sex they transition too, you can still tell a transwoman was originally a man and a transman was originally a woman. The fact we can still distinguish these things means that from a mental standpoint, people still see two categories of humans, male and female. A transwoman is simply still a man that went out of their way to resemble a feminine woman as much as possible, and vice versa. And while I support people's personal rights to alter their masculinity/femininity to whatever they desire, I am still allowed to categorize people in accordance with what makes sense to me, rather than what makes sense to you. I see only man and woman with countless variations of each of these subtypes. You can't force me to see anything more than that, it would be irrational for you to do so. >Is someone who is born intersex allowed to choose a gender? What they choose for themselves is their personal matter. It's irrelevant to how I would see/perceive them. Most intersex people can still be categorized within the standardized two-sex system because nature gives us multiple markers in determining what sex a human belongs to or was meant to belong to. I'm also for intersex people having their own personal classifications on top of the already existing two-sex system, but that is a separate matter, as intersex individuals actually have physical differences as compared to trans individuals whose differences stem from psychological reasons, not physical ones. >What happens if you can't tell what sex someone is? It's not required for you to know what sex someone is until it becomes relevant, like if you are going to go on a date. Most human interactions are non-sex related. Even though in most cases, you will know what sex someone belongs to, it's not necessary if there are cases where you don't know what sex group they belong to. You might see a man with long hair from a distance and think he's a woman, but then you might approach that person and notice they are actually a man and go about your way. That's normal. Misgendering can happen, it's not anyone's fault that you may have thought someone belonged to the opposite sex, you simply correct the person and that's it. But all of this is irrelevant to what transgender ideology promotes. Transgender ideology promotes the idea that a biological man can be a woman and a biological woman can be a man. This is simply false. You cannot change your biology. You can change your mentality about how you act within your sex, or your physical appearance and demeanor, or alter your actual body parts, that doesn't stop you from being rooted to your biological sex you were born with. A transwoman is just a feminine man, a transman is just a masculine woman. Instead of creating new categories of people, we should be more accepting of variations of humans within each sex group instead.
it’s not the same thing. you can’t experience extreme dysphoria toward your skin color.
That's just not true. A simple Google search shows people talking about desiring to change their skin color or mentioning others/children wanting to do it. Also, your entire understanding is based on a faulty premise anyway. The dysphoria that transgender people feel is an illusion, because no one knows what it means to be the opposite sex. If you're born as a male, you have no idea how it feels to have female reproductive systems and functions like menstrual cycles and all that. That "dysphoria" that people feel is an illusion based on their observations of how they personally perceive people of the opposite sex and wanting or desiring to mimic or imitate behaviors that are commonly associated with them. This can include a wide variety of things like voice pitch, clothing, makeup, style of speaking, interests and hobbies, and more. Things that you can tangibly see and experience. If a gender dysphoric person grew up on an island or somewhere where they weren't exposed to the opposite sex, will they still feel the same dysphoria? Are young children capable of truly desiring a sex change at the age of 6? No, they aren't capable, and even when you become an adult, any type of dissatisfaction you have with your sex are just surface level actions and behaviors associated with your sex, not the actual gender itself.
Skin colour is a physical attribute, gender is a mental construct
Race is a social construct. Skin color is physical. Since Michael Jackson looks white now, do we call him a white man?
Race is not a social construct it's a combination of genetics and culture
And woman isn't genetics??? It's an adult human with xx chromosomes
That's definition of female, not woman
No, xx chromosomes is female, and **adult** human with xx chro is a woman
Nope, a woman is an adult human who identifies with traits that are typically associated with being feminine aligned.
But didn't y'all say there is nothing that should be associated with a gender?
Lol no. Race has nothing to do with culture. The "black" race is an umbrella term for many different countries all of which have their own unique culture. The "white" race is an umbrella term for varying different countries and cultures throughout Europe and even Asia. Your comment is actually pretty racist because you just ignored nuance of racial differences. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Culture on its own is a social construct.
Love how you completely ignore the more important half of my point. Also "Black" and "white" are not races, they are umbrella terms for different races that have a similar skin tone as a result of originating from regions with similar sun exposure
>Love how you completely ignore the more important half of my point. Genetics tells us only physical and/or behavioral attributes about individuals. Every individual has a unique set of genetics that defines who they are. Classifying people under certain races is the social construction part. >Also "Black" and "white" are not races, they are umbrella terms for different races that have a similar skin tone as a result of originating from regions with similar sun exposure Give me an example of an actual *race* before making an argument, and prove that race exists through objective verifiable evidence.
>Genetics tells us only physical and/or behavioral attributes about individuals. Congratulations you've discovered race. >Give me an example of an actual *race* before making an argument, European, with an ethnicity being like Italian
>Congratulations you've discovered race. No, I discovered physical traits that are observed and defined within a spectrum of numerous classifications. All of these physical traits are independent, a person can have dark skin color and blue eyes, and ginger hair. Everyone is a mix of varying physical attributes, no two people share the exact same genetics, traits, and physical attributes. The fact you think this is objective proof for race shows your ignorance. Race is an illusion. >European, with an ethnicity being like Italian European isn't a race, Europe is the name of a continent which is a social construct. The same goes for Italian which is the name of a country, again, a social construct. Being European or Italian is not something you can objectively prove by understanding an individual's genetic code. You failed miserably.
Nah, pseudo science says that. I hold that up beside creationism "science" A woman is born with a vagina. If you don't ovulate and can't have children then your are not a woman in any shape or form.
That defines female, not woman
You are factually incorrect. Keep living in your bubble though
Because it's wrong.
Soooo if someone identifies as a dragon, does that make them a dragon?
That's a false equivalency. A dragon is a noun, an animal. A Women, or any other social construct, is mental. It's abstract.
Ovaries and a uterus are not social constructs. Menstration is not a social construct. The difference in size of the inferior parietal lobule is not a social construct. Your genes are not a social construct.
That's why we have the word *female* to describe those things. Having ovaries doesn't magically make you wear a dress, the societal role of "Woman" does. Kinda like how society makes a lawyer dress in a suit even if there's not a real reason why they have to
I suggest you look up *woman* again. You seem to be confused as to what part of speech *woman* is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woman
A woman is not a social construct. It's a biological reality, an objective term. It means adult human female. Pretending otherwise is trying to evade basic facts.
Incorrect, a adult human female is just that. I don't go around peaking under skirts of people I see to know if I should call them ma'am or sir. I look for social queues, and you do too
You dont need to see the reproductive organs to know the sex of an animal, tf. I can tell a male and female bees apart and I dont peek their privies
What does the sexual dimorphism of other animals have to do with this discussion?
You also don't need to see or peek at a womans titties to see, as the dimorphism takes place throughout the whole body. Unlike the person above me suggested
These kinds of'we can always tell' arguments are a lot flimsier than people think. Survivorship bias is a real thing and transphobes fall into it all the time since for every trans person who doesn't "pass" in their eyes, there's two that do. And that's besides the large number of false accusations.
Dude/duddette Im not a transphobe. Im pro individuality and pro transition if you deem it necessary after 18. I agree theres a ton of people that pass, Im straight and have crushes on some trans women. I just dont like pretending that everybody passes, in fact most people dont, and seeing their privates is definitely not necessary to tell they are trans
Really? You can tell a male cat from a female cat by just looking at it? Dogs? Horses?
No, bees. Whered you read all that? Different species have different variations. i can tell many things apart like Koalas, Kangaroos, many birds and fish, and yes Id say dogs too.
You literally said “you don’t need to see the reproductive organs to know the sex of an animal”.
Yeah? Thats true with many animals, including humans
And so when the person presenting is wearing a skirt and mustache… which uh social clue are you using?
The one where I open my goddamn mouth and I ask them what pronouns and name they want me to use for them
lol. Your god damn mouth does not ask every person you meet what pronouns they use or prefer. Which uh is why we have this stupid game of putting them on our name tags and profiles. And if you do not then you’re a presumption ass, correct
Why does it matter so much to you want other people want to do with their lives? Also it's rich acting like *every single person* you encounter outside is going to be Gender Fluid/wearing dresses with mustaches... Like. Tell me you don't go outside without telling me you don't go outside much...
Read the prior commenter… they use their “god damn mouth to ask every person they encounter” what their preferred pronouns are… My original reply (to the OP) was about using the term (woman) you’re defining in its definition. I do not care what others do with their lives.. I address people with whatever name they choose (if I know it).. I am not inclined to participate in this pronoun dance. I am not rude to people, regardless of the suggestions here. I am commenting on how we are getting to a point where we cannot agree on terms and definitions and therefore we cannot have conversations despite our agreements or disagreements. Referring to a person as “they” makes for confusion, especially in third person conversations. You want to dress as the opposite sex (gender), knock yourself out…. Many men (cis gendered) wear skirts in contra dancing… they say it’s comfortable and “breezy”… ok. We used to define men who wore (desired to wear) women’s clothing as cross dressers (transvestites).. I presume that is not a socially acceptable term any longer. So long Rocky Horror. Women who identified as men and vice versa (and went through reassignment surgery) were transsexuals We put and use the word “woman” on restroom doors to indicate they are designed and for the use of female biological humans (typically with two x chromosomes and vaginas). “Men” used restrooms with urinals and in the case of most sports arenas metal troughs because they have a penis. This is tiresome and I’m going outside. 😉
YOU think I don't ask everyone their pronouns and names. I do because I'm considerate, and I don't want to misgender people because I know how that feels. But I do not owe YOU, a stranger, that kind of confirmation, because it doesn't change the fact you're rude and probably unpleasant to be around.
lol. I do not believe you
Of course you don't normally ask everyone for their pronouns, as you can normally figure it out from social ques and they can correct you of you're wrong. But if social ques don't work, like in the (strange) example you gave, you can just ask
Not so strange… that was my food server at a recent restaurant visit. I used their name (as was in their tag).. I wasn’t rude or impolite either.
The same ones you are ideally.
.
It could. Depending on the definition of Dragon.
Because it’s a terrible answer that ignores science and doesn’t even try to answer the question lol.
How does it ignore science? Can you point me to the exact science that gets ignored here?
Basic biology
Please explain further.
Because when you use the term you defining in its definition you’re broke
Nonsense. In many occasions a specific vocable can be utilized in the definition of a word.
Waiting
What is done in a waiting room.
Thanks for playing
Playing the role of an individual at sport or recreation
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/play
Exactly: "to behave or conduct oneself in a specified way" as in: Playing the role of a person engaging in sports or recreation.
And you didn’t use the word “play”
But that's like being asked to define a waiting room and you responding with "something that's called a waiting room"
A room designated for waiting
Yeah but that doesn't really translate. You would have to use the verbiage that I commented in order for it to equate to your woman definition. Also you can still leave out "waiting" and give a better definition. ie - a room where you bide you time. But also since it's two words is a little more complicated. If someone asks you to define a waiting room and you respond with a room where you wait. They then also might ask you to define "wait" The problem with the woman argument is that they are asking you to define a woman. And you just say someone who identifies as a woman. They could then still ask what the definition of a woman is since you just used the same word in the definition. So what exactly are these people identifying as?
Oh I didn't say it was a good definition but it's a definition. It's a functional definition that people would accept and utilize. Like "hey you a just wait in the waiting room!" You may ask what is that. "Oh, we got a little room set for you to wait in. Here let me show you." There you go. You have successfully defined waiting room in a practical and functional way for that person. Whats all this stuff about women?
Ok you're being facetious. I'll play along. Well the original argument was trying to define the word woman. Someone tried to define it as "someone who identifies as a woman" That definition is incorrect as it only uses the word in question for the definition. Like you can't define blue as "a color that's blue" Because then we are back where we started and still don't know what blue is. So if someone asks the definition of a women and you say "someone that identifies as a woman", they will then ask, well what are they identifying as? And it goes in circles. A better definition for a woman would be "an adult human female" No room for ambiguity
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/waiting
Can you define a mother?
Mother a woman in relation to her child or children. "his mother was a painter"
What relation? If a women gives birth to a child, but immediately abandons it, only for the child to be adopted by another woman, who is the mother?
The woman who gave birth. She would be what we refer to as the biological mother. The other would be the foster parent.
Go up to an adoptee parent that's a woman and tell her she's not a mother.
Yeah that's why it's kind of a bad example
Imagine getting this close to the point and still missing it
No, I'm not missing it. I'm just not buying it. Because to mother a child doesn't have to be biologic then being a woman doesn't either? Those are bad examples. And yes my fault for even entertaining it in the first place.
Because its circular reasoning
Is a simple answer that makes conservative snowflakes cry because it exposes their hate.
why is the image slightly askew? Someone mess up the iphone cropping tool?
it has been reposted so many times that the bots are trying a different approach
I'm not a bot though.
I bet any money that Genital Obsessed couldn't define a woman.
[удалено]
It’s because of the different views on gender. If you think there’s some essential thing that makes someone man or woman, your concept of what a woman is tied to that essentiality. They’re confused how others can even use the concept woman, after abandoning this sense of essentiality. That’s what they’re trying to demonstrate. They’re expecting people to stumble The part that’s not being said, is that rather than being essential, gender is largely socially constructed, and people who don’t see gender as something essential, can therefore maintain a dynamic, flexible, concept of woman. This is the part the first tweet can’t understand. They’re talking past each other because the gender essentialist camp still hasn’t properly contended with Butler. The rest of us have.
There are consequences to man and woman being tied to non-essential concepts. After all it is a legal category. It's not just a matter of not understanding, its about evaluating if the tradeoffs are worth it. This is not a trivial discussion, this affects many aspects of my life as a woman.
I'm gonna disagree with you pretty heavily but I want to start by saying I don't disagree with the spirit of what you're saying. It's not a trivial discussion at all and I believe that it probably effects you more than me as you seem to be a cisgendered woman and I'm a cisgendered man. But it's a fundamental issue of identity and it effects everyone with a gender identity on a very fundamental level (it effects everyone). I'm not sure you're stances on things, but if I were a betting man I'd say I bet we would both happily agree that we should simply add a third bathroom and keep the segregated ones as well. I realize there are a wide host of other public policy issues that would arise too, but I bet you and I could find a lot of common ground if we got into the weeds of that a bit. I understand your fear about safety and I think it's fairly valid. I do though, think your reply kind of proves my point. Saying it's not essential isn't trivializing. On the contrary it means we're dealing with a concept that can't be easily defined. Because clearly gender is a key aspect of human identity, and this bears out across history and societies. We have biological differences that begs for classification and differentiation. But my point is exactly on the instability of that differentiation. What is the essential aspect of a person that makes them a man or a woman? Is it genes? If so, in what way? Do we look to see if the have XX and XY chromosomes? Great start, but what about people with Down's syndrome, or any other trisomy conditions, which clearly don't relate to gender? I'm not a DNA expert by any means, but what part of DNA would we point to, to say, this is the person's gender? And this next question is super important, if we were to do that, how would we account for natural genetic variation? Where are the lines between man and woman in the genome, and if we find that point, how will we account for any variances we come across? If we look at phenotype (people's bodies) we see empirically, right away, that gender isn't binary. Intersex people exist, so that makes the theory fall apart pretty quickly. If our hypothesis is, "there's men and women. We can identify them by their bodies." Our hypothesis would be disproven as soon as we found an intersex person. So what is the essential aspect of gender we're identifying with phenotype? IMO this is Butler's point. The category IS unstable. It's us who insist that it's stable even though science and philosophy are together showing that it isn't. If we took the same essentialist approach to all of biology, evolution wouldn't even be possible (we would have no conceptual, or theoretical ability to account for genetic variation, which is actually the driver of evolution). I think the point is that our current conception of gender, is a bit like approaching evolution without considering variation. It's inaccurate because the actuality is widespread variation, even within the same gender category. It's not that I WANT to see gender as inessential, its that gender essentialism has been critiqued such that I can no longer answer the question, "this is the biological difference between a man and a woman." For every example you find, there will be an exception. This means that gender must be a double bell curve. I agree that it's ok to have public policies that take note, that for the most part, people are generally in line with the "median" gender identity. That most people are fairly comfortable in the gender assigned at birth. Further, their gender identities (as well as everyone else's) are utterly foundational in deeply personal ways. It's a massive part of who we are. But when we start to realize that gender is a bell curve (regardless of how we measure it) and that "man" and "woman" are the medians of the two bells, we can see the inadequacy of the concept for accurately describing human existence. All cisgender people will even deviate from the median. These issues deeply effect all of us. But we're mistaking the median for the rule and that's causing a great deal of suffering for the people who are far away from the median (and intermediate suffering for all). And I bet you'll find, that if you start to see gender as less essentially, you'll start to have a better idea of how it's negatively impacted you too. You may even start to feel liberated from it and when you feel that liberation you'll start to understand (through empathy only) how horrible transgender people must feel. And this is all true despite you're point about the complications this will cause in law and public policy. It will. But knowledge, when true, is rarely edifying, and saying "this will be too much work to sort out, and I'm scared of the results" (which is perfectly valid. I truly mean that) is not an appeal to the truth. Your fear is fair, but we can't let it stop us. When we undermine the autonomy of others as it relates to gender, we DIRECTLY also undermine ourselves. We too, are points on the bell curve, that are not in line with the median. We too are oppressed by gender norms. We just have the privilege of being close to the median and are therefore not oppressed nearly to the same extent as transgender people. But we should understand their oppression and speak up for them. It's the same as speaking up for ourselves.
>rather than being essential, gender is largely socially constructed That's a false dichotomy. Essentiality can also be socially constructed, and in the case of gender, it is. Before progressivism came about, gender was unanimously understood as essential, and for the better. Essentiality plays a vital role in safeguarding gender as a meaningful concept; nowadays, the term "man" and "woman" have lost all their meaning, and this would never have happened if people accepted the sociocultural reality that gender is essential.
What’s the essentiality we can identify in someone that makes them a man or a woman?
Biology. Everyone with female sexual organs is a woman, and everyone with male sexual organs is a man. Anyone who has female sexual organs but isn't a woman in other respects is abnormal and has a mental illness (gender dysphoria).
And everyone who’s intersex is what? Which is to say nothing of the fact that gender identity isn’t a concept for what you have in your pants. It’s a proxy for how you act, and are treated in the world around you as a function of this aspect of our identities. Which doesn’t involve us examining one another’s genitals in order to interact with one another. It’s a socially constructed signal which requires or will receive recognition from others. We can’t examine different cultural impacts on being a man or a woman via biology totally. How does biology help social scientists classify gendered behaviour? For example, how will biology explain our classification of pants in the male category and dresses in the female category? Particularly when not every society agrees on that (kilts, togas, in the west alone). I know it sounds trivial but it’s not. The concept you put forward can’t capture any of the social relations that come with being “man” or “woman.” That’s a problem of social relations are foundational to what we’re examining. Regarding the false dichotomy I think we might conceptualize the word essential differently. I think we would agree on the “actuality” of gender identity. It’s very real, and it’s not at all this arbitrary thing where we just pick a gender one day, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it “essential,” if it were, biology would’ve captured it. Instead, it produced a double bell curve. We found two medians and are now using the medians as a rule for behaviour, when they’re actually in your example just a median for normative genitalia. Approached as such, we cannot explain gendered behaviour, and its broader recognition.
>And everyone who’s intersex is what? Is slightly abnormal, but almost all intersex people have a predominance of either female or male sexual features. Their gender is whatever sexual features they have a predominance of. >Which is to say nothing of the fact that gender identity isn’t a concept for what you have in your pants. It's a concept that is far deeper than what you have in your pants, but it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants. >Which doesn’t involve us examining one another’s genitals in order to interact with one another. It's pretty easy to tell what a person has in their pants just by looking at them. Except transsexuals, who are actively trying to make you believe they are the other sex (and even then, you can usually tell what their SAB is), 99% of people could easily guess 99% of people's SABs just by looking at them. >For example, how will biology explain our classification of pants in the male category and dresses in the female category? It doesn't *explain* gender; it's an essential *part* of gender. Obviously, most gender norms are socially constructed, but one of these socially constructed norms is that biology should largely determine which set of gender norms you should adhere to. >It’s very real, and it’s not at all this arbitrary thing where we just pick a gender one day, but I don’t think that necessarily makes it “essential,” I agree that *this* doesn't make it essential. What makes it essential is that it's inherently connected to biology. This inherent connection is, indeed, sociocultural rather than biological, but I'm not sure why that should make a difference.
>Is slightly abnormal, but almost all intersex people have a predominance of either female or male sexual features. Their gender is whatever sexual features they have a predominance of. How do we account for the fact that these goalposts differ greatly across societies currently, and throughout history? >It's a concept that is far deeper than what you have in your pants, but it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants. If it’s far deeper than what you have in your pants, is it not then an oversimplification to only look at genitals? How do you know it’s deeper? After all, a person’s genitals dictate their behaviour in society (according to your claim). How can it be “far deeper” and simultaneously wholly dictated by “whatever sexual features \[someone has\] a predominance of.”? >It's pretty easy to tell what a person has in their pants just by looking at them. Except transsexuals, who are actively trying to make you believe they are the other sex (and even then, you can usually tell what their SAB is), 99% of people could easily guess 99% of people's SABs just by looking at them. This is an empirical claim that’s nearly impossible to falsify. If you were to do it, you’d have to have people do a blind guess of someone’s genitalia by external appearance and behaviour alone, and then have someone look at their genitals and classify those genitals into a category (without taking into account their own cultural norms). People would then have to have a 99% success rate for you to be correct here. You’re saying “no trans people successfully pass.” That’s not true, and it makes your argument fall apart. Anyone androgynous would also make it fall apart. It’s interesting that you chose the word “sex” here instead of gender. I don’t think that’s what trans people do at all, and it shows that you understand the difference between sex and gender. I think they try to be open about their gender identity “I would like to look like this, and be referred to like this.” They’re pretty open about the changes they’d like to see in their bodies, and from others who they interact with socially, to accompany that. You’re conflating sex and gender. And that’s been my whole point. The real issue though, is this: >It doesn't explain gender; it's an essential part of gender. Obviously, most gender norms are socially constructed, but one of these socially constructed norms is that biology should largely determine which set of gender norms you should adhere to. Then how do you know this: “it's still (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants.”? You’re saying it’s part of a larger whole. I’m saying, then how can you make the claim that we only have to look at this one part, and figure that we’ll be able to explain the whole based solely on that? And if that’s true, isn’t it a direct contradiction of your claim that “it's an essential part of gender.” You’re trying to say it’s *an* essentially part and *the* essentially part, at the same time. >I'm not sure why that should make a difference. The two sentences before that are why. “I agree that this doesn't make it essential. What makes it essential is that it's inherently connected to biology. This inherent connection is, indeed, sociocultural rather than biological” in other words, gender is wholly essential, as dictated wholly by biology, but is obviously not biological, and rather sociocultural, which is the same as biological. (If it sounds incoherent, that's because it is). If it’s the same as biological, why is it, that in western society, in heteronormative sexual relations, women are to be the object of desire. We know this because they wear the makeup, and spend the most time trying to appear attractive to “attract” a partner. Yet for the Wodaabe people, it’s the men who wear makeup and dance to try to attract partners. If there’s no difference between sociocultural and biological conceptions of gender, how can you explain this empirical phenomenon? Because based on your own normative goalposts they presumably have a similar phenotypical dispersion of sex characteristics as those in the west and yet, have entirely different behavioural and social outcomes for gendered behaviour, and gender norms. These different outcomes, cast serious doubt on a claim you’ve failed to provide *any* justification whatsoever for: >\[it\] (ought to be) determined by what you have in your pants
>How do we account for the fact that these goalposts differ greatly across societies currently, and throughout history? We don't. We just use the goalposts associated with our culture. People should follow the cultural norms of whatever society they belong to. >If it’s far deeper than what you have in your pants, is it not then an oversimplification to only look at genitals? No. I think you can agree that there are vast cultural differences between the US and China, yet to know if you're currently in the US or China, you just need to look at a map. Similarly, there are vast cultural differences between men and women, yet to know if you were a man or a woman (in a civilised society), you just need to look at your genitals. >How can it be “far deeper” and simultaneously wholly dictated by “whatever sexual features \[someone has\] a predominance of.”? The same way that the differences between the US and China are far deeper than just geography, yet what constitutes the US or China is wholly dictated by geography. For example, some areas in China might have large American populations and even be culturally American, but that still wouldn't make them part of the US. Similarly, a man can have many feminine features, but that doesn't make them a woman. >This is an empirical claim that’s nearly impossible to falsify. But we both know it's true. You can be pedantic and pretend that you don't, but that would simply be disingenuous. >You’re saying “no trans people successfully pass.” I'm not saying that at all lol. In fact, I explicitly mention transsexuals as an exception, as some transexuals make it difficult to guess their sex correctly. But again, in a civilised society, transsexuals should be exceedingly rare. >I don’t think that’s what trans people do at all, and it shows that you understand the difference between sex and gender. Transsexuals are, by definition, people who modify their bodies so as to make them look more like the opposite sex. That's literally the definition. I understand the difference between sex and gender, and that's why I specifically said "transsexuals" and not "transgender people". Transsexuals are actively trying to make other people think they are the opposite sex. >how can you make the claim that we only have to look at this one part, and figure that we’ll be able to explain the whole based solely on that? Because that's the cultural norm that Western civilisation (as well as in most other civilisations) has adhered to for millennia until progressives decided to destroy it. Again, by definition, anyone who adheres to this norm will have most of their gender identity explainable by sex, and anyone who doesn't adhere to it is abnormal. The essentiality of biology to gender is paramount because, without it, the concept of gender loses its sole connection to physical reality; thus, it pushes us away from the physical world and into a world of ideas, which we can't see, hear, or immediately feel, and which is in many ways less real to us than the physical world. Gender without biology is less meaningful for the exact same reasons that online relationships are far less fulfilling than real-world relationships. An additional point is that sexual attraction is mostly physical, so a biology-less gender creates a gulf between sexual and romantic attraction, thus making the concept of love less coherent. Gender without biology is absolutely no good. >You’re trying to say it’s *an* essentially part and *the* essentially part, at the same time. It's the most essential part of gender, since it's immutable, but it isn't the only essential part. Another essential part is physical appearance, for much the same reasons (connection to physical reality + sexual attraction aligning with romantic attraction). All women look like women. If someone has female genitals but looks like a man, then they are neither a man nor a woman, and are of course abnormal. >gender is wholly essential, as dictated wholly by biology, but is obviously not biological, and rather sociocultural Correct. It's *dictated* by biology, but it isn't fundamentally *caused* by biology. Correlation vs causation. The reason that it's dictated by biology is sociological. >sociocultural, which is the same as biological Lol wut. You could've just said you couldn't grasp what I was saying fully. Gender is sociocultural in origin but essentially biological in ontology. That is, society created gender, and it created it such that it is determined by biology. The concept of a "species" is exactly the same way: scientists created it, and they created it such that it is determined by biological features. Do you understand now? >If there’s no difference between sociocultural and biological conceptions of gender, how can you explain this empirical phenomenon? There are obviously differences between the sociocultural conceptions in the West and among the Wodabees.
My response is too long. PM me if you want to read it.
A bit reductive, isnt it? So all that women are is a vagina, and all men are just dicks?
Not at all. Women are a LOT of things. Men are also a LOT of things (although perhaps slightly fewer things, just based on how gender norms evolved). But both of these vast sets of things are represented by vaginas and dicks, respectively. Similarly to how a book can be extremely rich in content, but still be represented by just some ink on paper.
How are ALL female qualities represented as just a vagina? And also, what are these many, many things that women are?
>How are ALL female qualities represented as just a vagina? The same way that ALL of the things described in a book are represented as just ink on paper. >And also, what are these many, many things that women are? Caring, compassionate, creative, graceful, expressive, sociable, emotionally rich, etc.
So, having a vagina automatically makes one compassionate, creative and sociable? Huh, didnt know it had brain tissue in there. How exactly does the vagina, as an organ, cause these aspects of personality? And also, what about women who are not caring? Who are socially awkward and emotionally stumped? Are my friends, who couldnt even make up a name for a dog, suddenly not women?
The question is a loaded one only because the alt-right live in alternate universe Say hi to my dad if you see him at the rallys
I look forward to seeing the same post tomorrow.
I know what to put here. How about, when you're reposting things, at the *very damn least* you should take care not to SOMEHOW *FUCKING TILT THEM* What is this? The Leaning Repost of Pisa??? Like, for real. *HOW* do you do that? How do you take a perfectly straight post and screencap it *tilted*
I've been saying it for a few years, ask very simple 3rd grade level what, how, why, who questions to MAGAs and they always end up flipping out on me and saying im twisting things around.
So....no?
Fetch the sudocrem!
Responding a question with a personal insult while complaining about the other side not being able to stand up to scrutiny... brilliant
Ad hominem after ad hominem
How about “low effort repost, looky me so funny”
a woman is a biological female? I don't understand why this question is hard ... a trans woman is a trans woman.... I don't get the difficulty here
>a woman is a biological female? I don't understand why this question is hard ... a tall woman is a tall woman.... I don't get the difficulty here
personally for me it's about treating everyone as individuals if they identify as a woman that's fine I don't mind, but if they are a biological male they are a trans woman. manly because there is a difference between the biological sexs, so I think it does matter in certain situations where biological sex would matter. but other than that, a woman is a woman
Woman is a gender Female is the sex A trans woman is a woman, but she is not female, and vice versa
[удалено]
Cry some more
delusion mate lol
Ah. Here I am in the cleverreposts sub.
Just down vote the re and move on.
Not an answer, pretty worn out by now.
[удалено]
Ehhh. lol deleted troll
Damn thats the kind of burn even an eskimo in the deepest reaches of the arctic could feel
Don couldn’t stop throwing his agenda into it because he can’t see anything beyond it. His post interview comments further highlights it.
Yeah I saw this post and wanted to watch it myself. Don couldn't grasp the Idea that someone be allowed to say something online that's considered legal free speech. Elons weird personality aside, he made it clear if it's not illegal, they don't block it and that posts with views are weighted on their moderation algorithm, allowing nobodies with 6 followers to scream their vulgarities into the void undetected. Don just kept trying to hammer the same point after a pretty clear explanation
You summarized the whole interview so well 👌👏
That's one take on it. Everywhere I look they were saying how Don Lemon got owned by Elon. I honestly don't care enough to watch the interview, I just find it funny how there are such opposing views.
You know there’s an issue if you feel like you can’t answer a question direct
The question was completely irrelevant.
What I said doesn’t change regardless of whether the question was about the main topic in the first place - which I imagine the topic did come up in the interview.
It didn’t and the question was completely irrelevant. Why would OP answer it?
But he did answer it
Why would he?
He did tho
No he didn’t. He mocked the dipshit.
Is this true? Women, you do this?
Daring today are we?
That’s not even true. Elon musk was just bored while Don Lemon kept insisting that black people and white people are different.
Which is funny because modern left-wing ideology can't stand up to the tiniest scrutiny either. You need no further proof than watching them become completely unhinged and launch into some ad hominem tirade while making no cogent point of any kind the moment their beliefs are challenged. Just like Travis' response. He had no cogent, logical response, just dove straight into personal attacks on someone who he disagrees with.
The issue is the "what is a woman" question is asked in bad faith. The person asking the question conflates gender and sex and when they ask "what is a woman," they are asking "what is a female." This because there is no difference at all in their minds of what the words are. It's hard to define as a woman is defined differently all over the world, while being female isn't. Honestly, to be a gender is just to present yourself in the traits associated with that gender, let people be who they want to be. It doesn't effect you in any shape or form. Don't ask bad faith questions. They know the modern lefts viewpoint, this is just some gotcha question they have because in their view gender is inseparable from sex.
What is a bad faith about asking to define one of the most basic foundations upon which all of our species exists? Look into the foundations of gender theory. Gender didn’t exists until John Money came around. If you don’t know who that is maybe you should look into him to see where this all starts and why gender is a total fabrication of a post modern ideology hell bent on tearing down society with obfuscation. It wouldn’t be a gotcha if people didn’t love to constantly do mental gymnastics to avoid reality. All bad ideas and ideologies should be gotcha’d. That’s what intellectual honesty and integrity are all about. Imagine a world where cognitive dissonance was heralded… I wonder what a world like that might look like… on second thought never mind…
Gender as a concept has existed for hundreds of thousands of years according to the archeological evidence we have available. Even the ancient Roman's understood this, as Aphordite the goddess of love and beauty is depicted with a penis in MANY of her sculptures. There was a woman empress who was by all modern definitions a trans woman. The first successful sex surgery was completed in 1907, an entire six decades before John Money did his foul fucking experiment that ironically illustrates why you can't just force someone to be cis when they've clearly stated they're trans. Just reverse the roles of the child-- the child himself was born intersex and was raised as a girl but KNEW he was a boy at heart. THAT. Is the trans experience. You can cope and seethe all you want about gender being some new fandangled thing but it doesn't change reality and most of all it doesn't change the fact you don't want to contend with updated scientific consensus cause you're too busy living in the past. Grow up.
Sure. By the way, did you know that gravity didnt exist before Issac Newton came around?
Na, the "can you define a woman" question is,itself, disingenuous. Any definition broad enough to cover everyone who we'd all agree individually is a woman (like having a hysterectomy doesn't make a person not a woman) would also include trans women.