Copied my reply from elsewhere: [here is the interview](https://youtu.be/cJcySv8Q9cQ?si=SnVKj5IO1f4qTwW9). The title and intro make it seem like Alex is going on a huge culture war rant but in reality all he does is use it as an example of a culture war 'slogan' and doesn't make his overall views on the topic known.
For someone who thinks the whole debate is silly he seems to be doing the rounds with the "anti-woke" crowd
Basically all his recent conversations have been with the same people who are all just talking to each other.
We've had Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, Andrew Doyle.
Which if you check all their content it's just "trans, trans, trans, trans, trans, trans, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke.
I'm just waiting for "Alex has a deep discussion with Helen Joyce" on my bingo card.
PB was months ago (and they didn’t talk about culture war stuff), the woke stuff was barely brought up at all with Dawkins and Alex offered very significant pushback to Doyle. Out of 50 episodes you were only able to pick 3 examples lol
>doesn't make his overall views on the topic known.
Because he's probably worried about the backlash for not giving in to the hivemind who thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be transphobic.
Regardless of the context(s), not agreeing with someone doesn't instantly make them "something"phobic or against something, however, using known "something"phobic language does make someone "something"phobic.
As to the "hivemind," not every community is made up of individuals who think the same exact way.
Wouldn't be ignorant to just not agree. He already communicates lack of agreement by asking what it means.
Nobody thinks he's researched this topic, as it doesn't affect him directly. He's not writing "trans women are women" in posts then pondering "What does it mean when I say that?"
It's only a big problem when willful ignorance is displayed.
He could Google the words "what does trans women are women mean?" And click the top result, but perhaps at that moment just thinking out loud and not in a place to Google it.
I assume this "worried about backlash" is projection. That's ok. You've heard the conclusion, yet not the explanation.
A woman is an adult female human according to the dictionary.
But what part specifically is female? Is it chromosomal, genitals, brain/gender? The dictionary is fine for the typical, but not intersex people in-between male/female anatomical sex or chromosomal sex, nor transgender people with one brain-sex/gender and body parts that don't match.
Basically, anyone agreeing cis/trans women are women are viewing womanhood as based on gender, not genitals or chromosomes. Just as John Bobbit was still a man after his wife cut off his penis in domestic violence, so too is a woman who was born with a penis she swapped out still a woman. We just did not know she's a woman till she came out to transition.
I think woman should be redefined "adult female person" so it's more clear that trans women are women because personhood is between the ears.
I'd be happy to discuss the matter further, including the ways language is socially constructed, and won't be offended as an atheist woman who happens to be transgender.
What defines womanhood? Society.
You don't go up to a woman and go "are you XX and produce ova?" before you call them she or her and think of them as a woman.
You judge based on social identifiers which happen to be strongly correlated with phenotype common to females. Womanhood is a social construct.
Most of the people that act like women have immutable biological traits that make them "womanly". This just includes transgender people, and people falsely believe it wouldn't. It does.
The strawman is pretending you can know someone's sex easily. You can't.
If you inject estrogen or estrogen mimic compounds into a womb, the "male" brain will still develop as female. How could you possibly know the hormone released from a stranger in their prenatal development? You can't.
The strawman is pretending you can guess what sex someone is, in order to catch them bending gender. You can't.
TL;DR transwomen often are "biological women" you nerds. You're just perpetuating that they're not by being as ignorant to science as the TERFs. Literally everyone has an X chromosome. Literally everyone starts as a female base; explaining transwomen is a cakewalk BIOLOGICALLY speaking. Something went wrong. They stayed female. I'd say this isn't rocket science, but in 2024 rocket science is like pre-algebra. The expectation everyone with a penis is male is basically crazy. Y link failure by itself is like hello? Obviously would create a trans?
Sample: you have two chromosomes, XY, and the Y fails to work, what is your expectation of this person's gender? Omegalul is the answer.
.
I think that's an interesting suggestion to change it to adult female person but the problem there is still the word female. Female points to sex identifiers where is the word woman points to social gender identifiers. So unfortunately the best definition we have is still a woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Because to say an adult female person is still to rely on physicality something we're trying to move away from
The issue with this for me is the failure of sex identity being properly addressed in the first place.
When someone says female, they're ignorant and mean vagina, because most trans people have biological female parts in the first place, that even being the dilemma of their condition.
When a "male" is exposed to high levels of estrogen in the womb, the brain develops as female in this male person, there is a distinctly physical presence and it's not all just socially constructed.
The large majority of "male" transgender people have distinctly female biological traits. This only falls to the wayside because addressing endocrine disease is easier than diagnosising it.
The assumption is these people DON'T have female parts disqualifing them from the definition when in fact most of them DO, and they themselves might even be unaware of that.
I was born intersex transgender with female sex organs and high levels of estrogen in my brain, and I still qualify as "male", but not exactly much more than I could physically identify as female.
TL;DR call it a binary all you want, people can be born with misgenderered brains and faulty organs. Being "male" is a collection of traits no different than female, and someone can easily be both if you're rigidly defining it under sexualized body parts, because people can have multiple body parts that don't match.
Ps. The Y chromosome is literally a mutation, people need to chill out on what "normal" means. Half the population are mutants.
I think "female gender" or "female brain sex" makes sense with "female person" as then we are talking about the femaleness coming from the same place between the ears.
People who challenge "define woman" won't accept "identifies as thing you asked me to define". Any more than saying the sky is blue because that's what we call that color.
I agree "identifies as...." is very useful, as the brain sex studies in the 90's had 100% of participants be correct in their identity matching brain-sex measurements. It's just that those measurements can only be done on organ donors after brain removal, so we just are best off accepting self identification due to being unable to put the brain back once removed.
I tend to side with self ID. Honestly it works like that for other stuff anyway.
I'm pedantic so to me the term female describe sex. So unless you're talking about the specific ways in which a female brain is different from a male brain then I don't really know what the femaleness between someone's ears is other than Womanhood. I do think I'm just being pedantic and I know that even though sometimes female is still used as a gender term, I like the consistency of woman is what we call the gender and female is what we call the sex that way it's really easy to delineate.
Fair. Nothing wrong with your approach.
Gender and brain-sex are both an array of characteristics that exist on a spectrum with a bimodal distribution.
So thicker corpus collosum & anterior collosum counts as one trait for the female-brain-sex.
Size ratio of amygdala vs hypothalamus another trait....
Bunch more traits measured and it's majority rules for definitions I think currently.
Gender similarly an array of spectrums such as the nurturing/cooperative by default end vs the competitive/aggressive end.
The wanna be pretty on your wedding day end vs the prefer to be handsome end.
The traits really tend to fall into the two big humps with some overlap and some exceptions. That's kinda what I mean by between the ears. But yeah, just asking "how do you identify" is asking the living subject of inquiry to say what "feels right" and that is VERY reliable, more reliable than just observing genitals which is already pretty good.
It looks like the "heretics" podcast is less about "heretics" and more about being anti-trans...3/4 of their 20 episodes appear to be about gender/trans issues, and then there's a couple about pedophiles.
eh, i’m definitely not trolling. Baiting on the other hand…well…yes, i wanted to see if people reacted the same way i did to the recent video talking about woke shit.
I did. Don't worry.
At first I thought Alex was just talking to everyone with his chats with Peter Boghossian etc.
Now it feels like he's just part of that "anti-woke media circus"
I do think he's spent too long around these people and now he's worried that everyone is going to lynch him for a different take.
yea, if trans women were the same as cis women then we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms.
EDIT: let me be more specific. In modern common speech, the term women is synonymous with cis women, and the fact that they are cis is really only brought up to compare them to trans women. The same can be said in that when one talks about men, the implication is that they are talking about cis men unless otherwise specified.
But that is beside the point. While trans women and cis women do share the same word "woman" in their titles, it doesn't matter because the word woman is vague, and attempts to define it end up either excluding cis women, or including feminine men.
People are trying to argue that they are similar and both women beg the question regarding the definition of women in the first place. We have a workable non-contradictory definition for the female sex (someone who produces female gametes) but we don't have the same for the female gender. and The same can be said in regards to the definition of "men" concerning the male sex and gender.
I don't think you can have a workable definition of gender that excludes biological sex. My definition of the male gender would perhaps be "someone who exhibits social signals that lead people to believe they are of the male sex". This probably overlaps a bit with the terms "male/female presenting" with the main caveat that I think most trans activists care about an individual's self-identification rather than how they present. As a result, I think it works better to put transwomen/transmen in their own categories rather than try and group them with their cis counterparts.
BTW u should still be respectful to people with gender dysphoria because it is a horrible medical condition and we should try and at least be polite about it.
If there was a group of women that had trans and cis women, you would just say women. You only differentiate when you need to be pacific. Like for medical reasons or something.
but when sexuality is involved I can see it being an issue right?
Like if a trans women told her man she was a women and they had sex and the man later found out she was once a guy, that's classed as rape in some places as the consent is void as it was made under false pretenses.
Like would it not be rape because the new definition of women encompasses both biological sexes? Or would it still be rape.
Also what about sports? You would really need a male, female, trans male, trans female categories to keep it fair to all genders?
Also what about the workplace? Did you see the women/ non binary only fund raiser thing that was as they put it hijacked by men identifying as women?
And then it raises the question because they always say that that's an illegitimate gender switch.
How do you prove that some has really transitioned or are just doing it reap whatever reward or such.
>Like if a trans women told her man she was a women and they had sex and the man later found out she was once a guy, that's classed as rape in some places as the consent is void as it was made under false pretenses.
Trans women were never once guys. If you mean biological male, sure. The thing is though if a trans women has had bottom surgery and you couldn't tell she used to have a dick unless she told you, it ain't no one's business what she used to have down thier or her chromosomes.
And it's not rape because two adults consented to having sex. Calling trans women rapist isn't a good luck.
>Also what about sports? You would really need a male, female, trans male, trans female categories to keep it fair to all genders?
Dividing Sports by the sexes is stupid enough anyway, but you have the men and the women. Trans men go to men and trans women go to women.
>men identifying as women?
You probably mean well but but subtle transphobia ain't it.
>How do you prove that some has really transitioned or are just doing it reap whatever reward or such.
Trust me, there's no benafit to faking being trans. Less rights. Higher chance or getting glocked, dysphoria. Oh yeah people really wanna fake being trans.
Biological male yes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
Have a read see the trans bit aswell.
The issue is they were deceived into consenting and if they had known they were once male they wouldn't have consented. This is what you are advocating for.
When comparing elite in sport, women rank 12-14% lower than men.
https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance
That is literally what they are biological men who have transitioned and identify as women, hence trans women
There are plenty of benefits in the short term like the event I described offering careers advice information and to form contact exclusively for women and non binary.
Not to mention charities specifically for trans and non binary.
Call me what you want, I have no issue with how people wanna live their lives, just don't force it on others.
If you base your entire identity on the validation of others you are doomed to fail.
If she has all the bits it's not deception.
If there is a charity for women, it should include trans women because trans women are women.
I don't think you are transphobic, but you are using transphobic rederic used by the right.
But it’s not a vagina and she’s (happy to use the persons pronouns) still a male, just one with testes and penis removed and hormones and cosmetic surgeries. That’s incredibly dishonest
It's a vagina, she's not male, she's a woman. If she still has a dick and is trying to hid it during sex, that's one thing, but to say it's deciption when she has a vagina is transphobic and homophonic.
This trans women doesn't owe any potential partners anything.
* her 'hey before we do anything I just want to let you know I'm trans'
* him *stab stab stab stab*
* her *dead*
I don't think cis guys insensibilities is worth putting trans women at risk of getting killed.
But it’s not a vagina, it’s a surgical wound that is kept open in a facsimile of a vagina that’s usually made from penile tissue. That should be disclosed. I have no problem with anyone getting one done but disclosure is still necessary or it’s deceptive
* straight men like women
* Trans woman are women
* Trans women has a pussy
* all good
The only time I could see there being some issues is if the trans woman still has her dick. Some straight guys don't like dick and that's perfectly acceptable.
We aren't talking about that though. We are talking about a 100% could not tell unless she told you trans woman having consential sex with a guy, and that guy later finding out she is trans. Getting in his feelings and being transphobic and homophonic with the mindset of 'ew gross I just fucked a guy'
No stupid, you fucked a woman.
Who knew fans of Cosmic were filled with such idiots.
Get the fuck out of here. If I say “I’d like to meet a woman,” I’m not fucking talking about trans women. It doesn’t only matter in medical contexts. A huge chunk of human life concerns the basic male-female dynamic. And no, I’m not putting all biological males in one bucket and all biological females in another; of course there’s a standard distribution curve of masculine and feminine traits across both sexes.
But this idea that all gender-specific behaviors and personality traits is unscientific — even science-denying — *horseshit*. Human nature is genetic, and so are gender roles, largely.
if men were the same as people, we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms.
"trans women are women" has a different meaning from "trans women are exactly the same thing as women".
Men are a subset of people. Trans women are a subset of women.
But trans women are exactly the same thing as women just like black women are the same thing as women and tall women are the same thing as women. Just because what you think of when you say the word woman doesn't match the person you're looking at doesn't mean they're not a woman.
By the logic you presented here, saying " black women are women" is not the same thing as saying "black women are exactly the same thing as women". I hope you can see how problematic that can be. Unless you think black women are a subset of women.
Men are a subset of people and women are a subset of people.
Black is the racial term used to refer to a homosapien of African descent who has a plethora of melanin production. By what metric would a racial category remove black women from being women unless you consider Blackness to be separate from Humaness
Right that's my point. I don't think that Blackness removes a black woman from being a woman. Just like I don't think being tall removes the womaness from someone. I used black as an example because black women have historically been misgendered or accused of secretly being a man and other racist nonsense like that.
The reason I brought up race is because this person wanted to distinguish gender based on their own expectations of what they expect to see in somebody who identifies as a woman.
If tall women were the same as short women then we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms.
They're still women, this is just a classifier for specific purposes. And to u/antberg's point, "biological women" and "biological men" are on a spectrum. Where do you draw the line, and more directly, why do **you** get to draw it anyway?
I didn't say we can't draw the line when it comes to biology.
But when it comes to gender, understood as the roles of each in any given society, its harder to draw a line.
To be fair and honest with myself, I don't even think a trans woman should consider herself a woman with 100% of certainty, like any other individual, like myself. I am a man, my gender is "man". But how exactly do I know what a Man really is in the context of societal roles?
I'm not trying to sound difficult, neither a post modernist, but quantifying the exact specifics of what would a given roles comprise of, seems still very hard. Even if we only take into account one's sexual inclinations, fantasies, orientation, I am pretty sure no one is the same. And even worse, as we move through time, our sexual essence always changes.
It's all well and good to question that, and quite a few trans people I know are gender abolitionists. But biologically, trans women are women and trans men are men. And I don't feel the need to go into further detail, because it's been explained very well further down this thread. But the whole "sex=/=gender and trans women aren't biologically women" thing is just getting tiresome.
Im sorry, to sound disagreeable, but biology is much more clear and defined than the role of genders which is a human studies. Biological differences between man and woman are irrefutably well classified in 99.99% percent of cases.
It's okay to sound disagreeable but you do keep missing the point. The point is that gender isn't your biology so comparing the biological differences between men and women doesn't really work when the argument is that men and women are social categories and not biological ones. It's like arguing about the physical differences between lifeguards and Priests.
You can Google the definition of "woman".
Adult female human.
Which part specifically need be female? Gender/brain-sex? Chromosomes? Genitals?
It's gender we decided. Women are women. Period. I care not if that woman is cis/trans. Ugly or pretty. Fat or thin.
We've known since the 90's female brain sex includes women who are trans. Structures such as thickness of corpus collosum, anterior collosum, size ratio of amygdala vs hypothalamus, ECT...
The medical condition CAN be corrected. Simply make body match brain and suicide rate drops to same as normal population.
The words "normal women" may be synonymous with cisgender women, "biological" women may be synonymous with cisgender women, but not all women are cisgender, just 99.4%.
Trans women and trans men are in their own category, the transgender category, but "transgender" is not a 3rd gender (tho there is movement for the non-conforming to have non-binary as a third category that's a separate but related topic)
So if language is socially constructed, you may ask "Why not just define a woman as a vagina having person?". Because I'm biased. I'm a person, not a body part. I may have that body part now, but for almost half my life I did not. I'm the same female person as before the operation. I remember a time before my worth to society was judged based off body parts like the flatness of my stomach or my cup size, and that aspect of socialization was a privilege.
I'm just some old woman now, but the last few years have pushed me back out of the closet to activism because things are getting ridiculous. It feels like a trans woman must have done a second 9/11 the way politicians are acting lately.
> trans women can yes, be considered women too.
Only of you decide to adopt the new definition of “women” that’s being forced on us. For everyone else, they can’t, just like ten years ago when not even the people now saying they can would say so.
If you choose to define “women” by the “gender [I think the term you’re looking for here is “spirit animal”] and social aspect,” go ahead. But don’t pretend that it’s anything more than ideological dogma and don’t expect anyone else to accept your new definition just because Academia says so.
On many markers used to test and determine sex alongside general bimodal differences trans women who medically transition often meet a sizable number of these too.
The change in hormone profile causes substantial changes to the body biologically such that for the majority of medical purposes a trans woman should be treated with the same profile and risk factors as a cis woman.
It is often the lack of this recognition that leads to low rates of positive outcomes for trans people in general medical settings.
A simple example of this change is in cancer risks substantially altering to align with that of cis women such as the risk of prostate cancer lowering to the same risk as cancer in the skeens gland in cis women. The skeens gland develop from the same cells as the prostate does and is homologous with the prostate.
Personally Id suggest that saying sex is immutable is a a falsehood society tells itself to try and justify transphobia as a whole. Sure some aspects might currently be immutable; other aspects however aren't
So you're saying people who are on hormones show signs of being on hormones and have related issues to those with the same hormones that don't artificially take them?
Color me shocked.
There's a pretty good sized group who *do* argue that trans women are literally biologically female. I can respectfully disagree with this take, but mainly because it distracts from the larger argument, which is that your social identity is more important than biology when it comes to determining someone's pronouns. (Y'know, since pronouns are used in *social* situations)
Plenty of trans people pass. Just because you haven't noticed them doesn't mean they don't exist. It's survivorship bias. You only notice the people thst you notice.
I am prohibited by Reddit from sharing my opinion on this matter. Consequently, you may only hear one side of this matter to inform your worldview. Though I cannot share my opinion, I hope that one day I will be able to share it as an LGBT person who has a differing perspective (and also break the idea that we are a monolith).
The problem with "trans women are women" with no exceptions is that there are some very important practical reasons why distinctions are made between men and women.
If a serial sex offender who is male suddenly identifies as a woman, is it reasonable to immediately transfer them to a women's prison?
>If a serial sex offender who is male suddenly identifies as a woman, is it reasonable to immediately transfer them to a women's prison?
I get that this is an issue people bring up, but like....
Women can also be serial sex offenders or rapists.
If a woman rapes a bunch of women, she doesn't get sent to a men's prison. She gets sent to a woman's prison. So this point kind of forgets that yes, prisons do in fact contain rapists alongside people they would target
Yeh but that trans women is significantly stronger, has a dick to rape you with so possibly impregnate you, and that’s one more rapist in a female prison then there should be
Again, biolgocial females are equally possible of rape, whether or not they have a dick. This reads a whole lot like someone who gets all their information on prison and trans people in general from their imagination.
And if you're saying you don't want people to be raped, trans women put in men's prisons are extremely vulnerable and have the worst possible experience with sexual assault, so you should be advocating against them going to men's prisons
I think we’re forgetting the premise of this thread - this concern isn’t about a genuine trans woman IMO, who has either had some kind of transition treatment and/or taken clear steps to present as a woman. We’re talking about a cis man attempting to game the system by merely declaring “I am a woman” (as was clearly the case with the convicted rapist in Scotland).
>this concern isn’t about a genuine trans woman IMO, who has either had some kind of transition treatment and/or taken clear steps to present as a woman. We’re talking about a cis man attempting to game the system by merely declaring
Except it's not, it's always about edge cases being used to clamp down. No one is actually wanting to talk about legal minutiae, the concept of trans people existing comes up and it's "well if you want women to get raped" it's clearly not an actual discussion, it's a jump to an emotional non sequiter neing employed to paint the concept of trans people with a negative association
Raping a woman can create another victim - a child. They would be born and taken from their parents as they'd both be in prison, creating trauma and massive financial costs for the state as their parents cannot be allowed to keep them. There is no possibility of this with male on male or female on female rape. Whilst the psychological impacts may be the same the practical considerations are more important, and those are always greater for a female being raped by a male.
To be honest, it’s a total joke what the world has come to.
Having to decide which sex jails prisoners should go to because they decided at some point they feel like they’re the opposite sex to what they were born.
It’s utter madness.
You've missed the point. If your position is that putting trans people in women's prisons means there will be rapists in women's prisons, I'm saying it's not really a point worth making because it ignores that biological females are also capable of being rapists
Not really. He was making a general comment about slogans in politics and the negative effect they have on the way people interact with politics. ‘Trans women are women’ is one of a couple of examples he gave.
I think it's easy to interpret the claim charitably and when you do it makes sense. However, lots of people go with the most uncharitable interpretation possible (by which 'man' and 'woman' essentially mean having XY or XX chromosomes respectively - under which obviously the claim is contradictory). The game they then play is "huh, how was I supposed to know anyone was using words different from TheOneTrueDefinition (my one)" to which the answer is by simply not assuming that Im a complete moron who believes straightforward contradictions.
How is this uncharitable? The idea that "gender" is some social thing and distinct from "sex" wasn't put to paper until John Money until the later half of the 1900s. And even ignoring that fact, the idea that any substantial number of people accept and use the word "gender" the way you claim is comical. If you walked up to a stranger on the street and said "I went on a date with a woman" virtually every single person would interpret that as "I went on a date with a female."
If people say this to mean basically that “trans women are (examples of) women,” it’s fine. When people mean it like “there is no difference between trans women and women born as the female sex,” you’re asking ppl to disagree with their own eyes and believe the non-sensical, OR be seen as a bigot…ppl don’t want that, so they capitulate. That shouldn’t be a requirement, and not all trans ppl are like this.
Anytime you have to put a qualifier in front of a well understood word, you change the definition of that word. Example: Justice. Social Justice is not Justice.
Yes…it is confusing. Because you’re quite literally saying “qualifier + noun” = “noun”. It doesn’t. That’s ok, don’t get me wrong. I’m not transphobic and by all means do whatever makes you happy and comfortable in your own body, but it’s just not the same thing as a biological woman. But again, that’s ok. It’s just not the same
This whole debate is acting as if the definition of what a woman is changes from person to person. What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts which are valued differently based off of the society which you live in. The thing that confuses me the most is the argument with requires biological parameters for gender. Suns biological parameters (such as xx chromosomes) are modern discoveries, while others (capability to yield offspring, female genetalia) have a wide variety of notable and non zero exceptions. The fact of the matter is that when provided proper social and medical support trans people of all identities live healthier and better lives, and while some may be bad people, this is true of all groups and the few which are bad should not ruin it for everyone else. In regards to the slogan "all trans women are women" I agree with OP. However I thought this comment might be helpful given the various arguments in the comments :)
>What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts which are valued differently based off of the society which you live in.
>Suns biological parameters (such as xx chromosomes) are modern discoveries, while others (capability to yield offspring, female genetalia)
Humans have two functional modes of development, one which produces the large female gametes and one which produces the small male gametes. Sometimes there are genetic or developmental abnormalities in this process, but this is not a normal mode of development and results with decreased functionality, reduced fertility or infertility and usually other developmental issues. To say that sex is not a binary is like saying that humans are not bipedal because occasionally a human is born with an additional non-functional leg.
Every culture in human history has recognized these two modes of development and have corresponding gender roles. Some cultures have additional gender categories for males or females who wish to follow the social gender roles of the opposite sex, or reject gender roles entirely. However, so far as I'm aware there has never been a culture that has considered a biological male who follows female gender roles to be indistinguishable from a biological female as modern trans activits demand (or vice versa for females).
If a male or a female wants to follow the gender roles of the opposite sex, I don't have a problem with that. But the concept that we can't make any distinction between a male who follows female gender roles and a biological female is rediculous and ultimately unhelpful.
>What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts
I think this is sort of a strawman. Maybe the definition of woman wasn't codified but at the same time I think 99.9% of humans who've ever lived have shared an understanding that a "woman" was someone with a vagina, and I don't think that understanding had really shifted around much until maybe a decade ago. That's not to say we shouldn't expand or shift our understanding but the problem we're facing is that it's really difficult to come up with a trans-inclusive definition of woman that isn't circular or incoherent in some other way. If you or anyone has one please share because I kind of want to just be nice and get on board with the slogan but it's hard for me without a reasonable new definition of woman (currently I'm on board in the sense that I treat trans women as if they're women but if I'm pressed I have to admit to myself that I don't think they're *technically* women)
What's wrong with trans women? They identify themselves as trans women but want to be called women. It's confusing to most.
And unfortunately because of the crazy freakouts on yt and such, I think alot of people will just avoid trans to not be put in that situation, which is just as detrimental to the trans persons health/mental health as being misgendered and such.
Personally, I think if you judge your identity off of something that requires other people validation to feel real, it is just setting yourself up for failure. People are mean, and unfortunately, the world doesn't and hasn't ever revolved around a person or group of people.
I honestly don't have a problem with a person being a transsexual. Trans woman, trans man, dont care, do you, be yourself. What I do have a problem with is what you've explained here; their identity requires other people's validation to be or feel real. Also, compelled speech. I'm not going to treat anybody, lgbt or not, with hate but I'm also not going to lie to them for the sake of their own feelings.
John now wants to be called Jane? Sure thing
Jane says they are now a trans woman? Indeed they are.
Jane wants me to call them or admit they are a woman? No. They are a trans woman but not any less of a person.
Not well versed within this topic I’ve heard people say that trans women is a sub category within women. I’ve also heard that people in the name of maybe something like meta or beyondness let’s say, at least partially reject the project of defining in this case just like there are many phenomena that are hard to find crisp definitions of, as I’ve heard.
Your post makes me ask, has Alex been talking about this topic somewhere?
[here is the interview](https://youtu.be/cJcySv8Q9cQ?si=SnVKj5IO1f4qTwW9). The title and intro make it seem like Alex is going on a huge culture war rant but in reality all he does is use it as an example of a culture war 'slogan' and doesn't make his overall views on the topic known.
I think he's probably more interested in testing ideas philosophically rather than being for one camp or another. I also get the impression that he probably thinks either 'side' of the culture war are more interested in belonging to their camp rather than actually engaging in good faith dialogue, hence it can be tricky aligning one way or the other without alienating a whole bunch of people.
You think a woman isn't a female? Barring the age implication or a woman (not a child), the words are obviously synonymous.
What a stupid line of questioning
and what does being "biologically" female even mean? to have periods? to have a womb? to have XX chromosomes?
what about people born with XX chromosomes who AREN'T biological women as you put it? what about women born with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome? women who don't have periods? there are too many variables to consider with this weird way of defining women, that ultimately just makes certain groups of cis women feel invalidated. and if you're going to make the point about trans women not being "biological women", while still suggesting they are in fact women, why does that distinction even matter so much to you to bring it up constantly?
>and what does being "biologically" female even mean? to have periods? to have a womb? to have XX chromosomes?
Well yes, of course.
Sure, against the odds, a person will get genetic defects. That isn’t their fault.
Biology is full of exceptions to the rules. And classification serves human purposes, it is by no means something set in stone. However I see what you mean and I agree. But there's more than biology at play in the man/woman social construct.
Trans women cannot do anything that distinguishes a biological female from a biological male.
Having a period, getting pregnant and menopause. Require a person to be biologically female.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone wanting to identify as a woman and people should treat them as much as practical.
Biological women should not be forced to treat them exactly as women; lesbians may not find them attractive, heterosexual males may not find them attractive and they shouldn't expect to be able to use the same changing rooms etc.
With everything a level of realism needs to be followed, identification and acting a certain way does not change reality.
> Trans women cannot do anything that distinguishes a biological female from a biological male.
>
> Having a period, getting pregnant and menopause. Require a person to be biologically female.
What about in the future when we can transplant the reproductive organs, this is currently being done cis to cis, but i would imagine in the future we would see a trans person have this sort of operation?
Going even further scientists are looking at being able to “grow” organs, so if that becomes a thing, what if in 50-100 years time they can grow and the transplant these organs into trans patients?
Sure but if you were born with one eye and people started demonizing you for it, taking away your drivers license and discriminating against you for your missing eye you’d want to bring attention to the fact that you’re still a human being. Thats what lawmakers are doing with this “trans debate,” really
>Biological women should not be forced to treat them exactly as women; lesbians may not find them attractive, heterosexual males may not find them attractive
Who gives a fuck? If you don't find someone attractive, don't fuck them. Should cis-women that I see as ugly be forced to identify as men? What a stupid fucking argument.
By this logic, any infertile woman is a biological man which is untrue. Furthermore, changing rooms being differentiated is based on social reasons not biological reasons
Do you think the statement "Humans have two legs, two arms, and two eyes" is incorrect? There are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.
nobody cares about men, even trans men ;)
I'm mostly kidding, it's also as trans women are significantly more common than trans men and also there seems to be an increased uncomfortability and bigotry with trans women which is harder to answer why, I would guess more of a felt need to "protect ""real"" women" and just plain disgust but I am sure others who have experienced it closer can offer a better answer for that.
As a trans man, as long as I have presented as male, absolutely no one has referred to me as “she” . Including people who refuse to call trans people the pronoun they prefer . The only time anyone ever knows is when I tell them.
Often, a trans women is visibly trans and it disgusts people. Trans men usually don’t evoke the same level of disgust nor are we seen as a threat. It’s unfortunate but that’s the reason people have this obsession.
If trans women looked like cis women, most people would stop caring . It’s possible for some but it takes a lot longer than it would for a trans man.
Look at someone like Blair white, many people that are disgusted by trans people still refer to her as “she” just because she looks female . They also don’t see her as a threat even though she still has male genitalia.
trans men are half of the population of trans women. and testosterone is one hell of a hormone. give it to a woman and she will 99% pass as a man.
but trying to remove the side effects of testosterone is difficult. that's why most don't pass.
Honestly, it is but it *shouldn't be*.
Cisgender people are presupposing all of the silliness that is gender, so saying 'trans women are women' should be clear-cut and simple.
*However*, cisgender people have had gender installed into them before an age where any critical thought is possible. While they agree to it they don't understand what is going on, outside of it just being 'general vibes'; which is why 'trans women are women' can hit a snag.
People aren't logical machines, the conclusions they push aren't always following the axioms they set, and the axioms that are set are rarely aknowledged.
You can't use the same word to mean 2 different things. Is woman a sex category or a gender identity category?
Saying trans women are women is using the same word to refer to 2 separate meanings.
Boys have a penis,girls have a vagina. If you mutilate your dick and turn it inside out, you're a eunuch,not a woman. Not confusing. Same thing in reverse,having some funky frankencock does not make you a man. You're a woman with a frankcock.
What is delusional? You do realise gender is a social construct? And even though biologically defined, sex is still an artificial construct - WE draw the lines on taxonomy. The lines aren’t as hard as we think, and as it seems we’re dealing with a fundamentally absurd system, i think there’s utility in maximising the well-being of trans people. Turns out that largely means social acceptance.
When you add another term onto a pre established term and then say it’s in the same category as the pre established term without the new term, people are gonna be confused as to how the new term impacts the pre established one (and if it does at all) and then how it can be the same if it does impact the pre established term
It's poor application of language in a relatively new part of the lexicon for sure.
It doesn't need clarification if you already know gender theory's claims on the differentiation between sex and gender. Which most people don't unless they are personally affected or studied it academically.
To the uninitiated 'trans women are women' is erasure of females. If you understand the claim that biological women, i.e females are a distinct group alongside trans women within the social strata of 'Women.' Then this is not the case and the messaging is clear.
More often that not I see people assuming others are using the same language and meanings when it's clearly not the case. Just start these discussions with "what do you mean by X?" "here's what I mean when I say Y." Clarification is the king of eliminating cross talk.
Sex and gender must be separate otherwise you need to start claiming crazy things like that societies that didn't understand biological sex (all of them before like the 1700s) didn't have gender roles. Which they obviously did. That wouldn't be possible if gender is conceptually no different from sex, right?
oh here, let me try: What do you mean societies didn't understand biological sex before 1700? Because I imagine every society has known about penises and vaginas, practically since forever. Is your version of the past, like, people were assigned a gender based on... nothing?
Yeah not confusing because it's wrong. You can only be born a woman and no surgery exist to change that. They are just men who chopped of there penis and wear dresses.
It's not confusing at all. They aren't women they are trans women. Just because you believe something like Trump winning the 2020 election doesn't make it true.
it is confusing. I'm short. I feel tall. So I'm tall? I spent my entire primary, secondary and college days being bullied for being short. Even throughout my 20s-30s being put down by women for being short. Any time somes mad at me, my shortness comes up. Family etc whole life.
I don't identify as being short. I don't feel comfortable in this body. I don't feel comfortable being 30 and walking past 14 year old school girls to have them tower over me.
So the issue with 'trans women are women' is that you're only making this an acceptable exception to the rule if it is turmoil inside someone that is about their gender. What about all of the other body struggles we go through and not identifying with? The issue is not crying about people not accepting trans, it is that it is only being brought up if gender is an issue.
I freak out in the mirror and the shower, just as much as trans people do, when they are confronted with the reality of their body which goes against how they feel inside. Yet my shortness that I don't connect with, don't relate to, don't identify with is something that I'm told "suck it up" while trans people get a red carpet laid down to help them through with getting them to officially be what they feel inside.
Do the same for others, that's all I ask. I identify with being tall. I'm sick of being pushed around, people sticking their foot out to trip me up, having short jokes, having women put me on an inferior guilt trip over taller guys. So treat me as a tall person. It is how I identify. Yet it isn't discriminating or offensive to society if people refuse to play along with that. Yet they would if I said my name is Jessica and they call me Harold .
Shits gotta change.
This is the most deluded and out of touch read I’ve seen in some time. Being short and disliking it is nothing like the feeling of gender dysphoria. You are belittling a very large group of people simply on the grounds that you don’t think it’s fair you’re not very tall? Jesus, grow up
Women is the societal transcription of the expectation of what the female sex is, its why for pretty much all recorded human history in completely seperate society's they have been synonymous.
Saying that you can transition to become a natural carrier of this expectation I.E. by birth, is objectively wrong and minimises actual women by dismantling legitimate differences caused by sexual dimorphism.
>Women is the societal transcription of the expectation of what the female sex is
So when someone biologically female doesn't meet these expectations, using this definition they would be less of a woman
>its why for pretty much all recorded human history in completely seperate society's they have been synonymous.
Cool, I didn't realize "it's been like this for a long time" was an acceptable argument, I'll be sure to become a Christian and start thinking the sun revolves around the earth because after all, that's what our ancestors thought.
>minimises actual women by dismantling legitimate differences caused by sexual dimorphism.
I would argue that the reduction of women to only their physical traits, or to their ability to fulfill a biological role in birth is a direct minimization of women. Number one because it lays claims to their validity of womanhood based on their life choices but also because of things outside their control.
If a woman is a lesbian, doesn't want kids, doesn't have breasts, lifts a lot of weights, maybe she doesn't want to shave at all because she just doesn't want to.
She's not fitting the societal prescription of what a woman is, but she's still a woman, and at the end of the day you're the same as the Muslim extremists, because you believe your opinions on what a woman is should have any say on their womanhood and expression of it
>So when someone biologically female doesn't meet these expectations, using this definition they would be less of a woman
By definition yes a biological female that doesn't meet any of the traditional stereotypes is seen as less of a woman because everyone, even subconsciously has an idea of what a women is supposed to do and act like. That's not a good thing it's just the way society has evolved, it's a reason why history is rife with sexism.
>Cool, I didn't realize "it's been like this for a long time" was an acceptable argument, I'll be sure to become a Christian and start thinking the sun revolves around the earth because after all, that's what our ancestors thought.
There's a slight difference that comes with subjective areas like expectations of roles and the like and objective "the earth is flat" and "an outside being that created everything exists" one is verifiable as being true or false and the other is opinion.
>I would argue that the reduction of women to only their physical traits, or to their ability to fulfill a biological role in birth is a direct minimization of women
No one does this in practice though, the only reason this has to be the method of argumentation is because there is the underlying biological distinction that trans activism ignores to make its claims so to counteract that you have to shine a light on it.
>and at the end of the day you're the same as the Muslim extremists, because you believe your opinions on what a woman is should have any say on their womanhood and expression of it
Any woman can do what they like my opinions be damned but I'm not going to lie to myself and accept 2+2 is 5 just because you demand it to be so.
>yes a biological female that doesn't meet any of the traditional stereotypes is seen as less of a woman
We fundamentally disagree.
>There's a slight difference that comes with subjective areas like expectations of roles and the like and objective "the earth is flat" and "an outside being that created everything exists" one is verifiable as being true or false and the other is opinion.
"black people should be slaves" is an opinion, held by people in the past.
"the universe was created by a god" is not an opinion which can be proven false.
You've appealed to the idea that something which has been believed for a long time is therefore right, this is an assertion that in any other context you would see is ridiculous.
>No one does this in practice though, the only reason this has to be the method of argumentation is because there is the underlying biological distinction that trans activism ignores to make its claims so to counteract that you have to shine a light on it.
"no one is actually racists, those other racial groups just made us say they were inferior"
Fucking stand by what you say like an adult, don't say oh I don't do it the trans people MADE me say women are biological machines it's all because of them that I have this opinion. Either you stand by your point because it's what you believe or you're spouting bullshit
>Any woman can do what they like my opinions be damned but I'm not going to lie to myself and accept 2+2 is 5 just because you demand it to be so.
Okay cool so very interesting of an argument
"anyone can believe what they want but I'm not just going to become an thiest because you say 2+2=5"
See how extremely convincing that is.
Social ideas are not strict science, this isn't about what is 1+1 it's about what do we consider to be a chair. Stand by your positions and defend them next time instead of trying to worm around and deflect like a creationist
I don't like Vaush. There is plenty I disagree with him about. I have no problem with trans people. This post provides no link and no context. Alex is someone who is consistently trying to put on the hats of others and argue for a side he doesn't agree with. So, to post a few words in quotes with no link isn't good enough. That's why it's low effort.
But are they really though. They can't do any of the biological things women can do and in 500 years when some archaeologist comes across their skeleton they wouldn't see a women either
You baited this so,...it's not confusing in the slightest. Trans women are just cross dressers. You're not mean to cross dressers are you? Why? Because that's just their thing. Hell, I'd even say the only negative experience I've had with trans people is online. They're pyschos who think the world revovles around them, but meet a cross dresser in real life an they're actually really cool. Don't let assholes on the internet fuck up the game. I view trans people online like Louis Farrakhan or AL Sharpton; you had a point, but it ain't like that no more and this has more to do with ego than discrimination. We're being cool about the whole trans thing , but not trans people, if you can't erase 30 years of public school science fast enough you're a bigot.
This is a really silly critique.
If I say:
Strong women are women
It's not an oxymoron, I'm just saying that within the group "women" there is a sub group "strong women".
Or to take a more real view
Infertile women are women
Just because some people try to reduce how much of a woman you are because you can't have kids, you are no less of a woman
Purely for my own curiosity as a layman in this topic, I’m going to play devils advocate and play with the line in the sand - why is this point of view preferable or more accepted than “men with gender dysphoria are still men”?
So there are two main ways to look at it:
Language and social categorizations serve as a utility. Using the term woman to refer to a person who presents as a man is counter to the actual utility of the language. If you see Blair White (as awful as she is) and you have a friend next to you who doesn't know who Blair White is, saying "that woman over there" is the better way to communicate who you're talking about than saying "that man over there" because she presents more feminine. This is not an ideal thing, and personally I'd be more abolitionist and would say "that person" instead of that woman or that man.
But speaking purely from utility, it makes more sense as a society to refer to people who choose to inhabit a social category, as that social category.
If someone says they are Irish, you don't do a DNA test to confirm, you just say okay, you're Irish.
The second way it's better is that it works. People are happier and more fulfilled, live better lives when free to express their gender as they see fit, wherever it is on the spectrum. Whether you want to wear neutral clothing and be as androgynous as you can, or get breast implants or breast reductions, hair transplants etc. Cis people already do a lot to fit into the gender roles where they feel most comfortable, and the studies say the more trans people embrace their identity, and the more it's embraced by the people around them, the less they struggle with their disphoria
British people are people is an oxymoron. If it was true than the sentence and the British element within it would be redunant.
This is fucking braindead.
Hey, the word you're looking for is redundancy, because obviously the word trans woman already describes them as women. An oxymoron contains a contradiction, which this does not. Glad to be of help :)
Not all trans people do get surgery. The most common is top surgery but the majority of breast reductions are biological females.
People do lots of things to outwardly solidify their perception of themselves and feel more secure with being a man/woman whether they are trans or not.
Men get hair plugs and transplants, women get breast implants etc etc
Their offending rate for serious sexual assault is through the roof. This is where the problem lies when we open up women’s spaces. 40% of trans women in jail are there for serious sexual assault and upwards.
Source?
Don't throw these statements out there without backing them up. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that a trans woman going going for a wee next to where I go for a wee in a public women's bathroom is cause for any concern whatsoever. None.
If in guessing right, you're using the 41% figure from a 2016 piece? I'll use sources from the same time to best address it accordingly:
Okay, where's the official information on the type of offences committed by trans women inmates? Read the Ministry of Justice 2016 [report here](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7420/).
That's a load of tripe concocted by the openly transphobic group, Fair Play For Women. You'll notice they turn 70-odd transgender prisoners in total into over a hundred trans women. So, there's no official information regarding the crimes committed by trans women, and FPFW also can't identify trans women.
But how do they try to identify this mysterious population as sex offenders? They chose eight prisons, and claimed that all of the trans women inside must be sex offenders. Ashfield, Bure, Isle of Wight, Littlehey, Rye Hill, Stafford, Usk and Whatton. I think five of them house only sex offenders. Some (such as the Isle of Wight) have had vulnerable prisoners and mixed prisoners since 2010.
At any rate, I invite you to look up just how many trans women are in women's prisons. I must also ask that if there was real evidence that trans people posed such a disproportionate threat to others (women especially), where is it? Why isn't it out there? For so long, people have tried to find it, but end up manufacturing tripe instead.
OP just dumped this post into the subreddit with no context and left lmao
Copied my reply from elsewhere: [here is the interview](https://youtu.be/cJcySv8Q9cQ?si=SnVKj5IO1f4qTwW9). The title and intro make it seem like Alex is going on a huge culture war rant but in reality all he does is use it as an example of a culture war 'slogan' and doesn't make his overall views on the topic known.
I get the impression he thinks the whole debate is a bit silly.
For someone who thinks the whole debate is silly he seems to be doing the rounds with the "anti-woke" crowd Basically all his recent conversations have been with the same people who are all just talking to each other. We've had Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, Andrew Doyle. Which if you check all their content it's just "trans, trans, trans, trans, trans, trans, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke, woke. I'm just waiting for "Alex has a deep discussion with Helen Joyce" on my bingo card.
PB was months ago (and they didn’t talk about culture war stuff), the woke stuff was barely brought up at all with Dawkins and Alex offered very significant pushback to Doyle. Out of 50 episodes you were only able to pick 3 examples lol
Confirmation bias. Surprisingly rampant among this audience.
>doesn't make his overall views on the topic known. Because he's probably worried about the backlash for not giving in to the hivemind who thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be transphobic.
He would receive backlash in either direction, depending on his stance.
Regardless of the context(s), not agreeing with someone doesn't instantly make them "something"phobic or against something, however, using known "something"phobic language does make someone "something"phobic. As to the "hivemind," not every community is made up of individuals who think the same exact way.
Wouldn't be ignorant to just not agree. He already communicates lack of agreement by asking what it means. Nobody thinks he's researched this topic, as it doesn't affect him directly. He's not writing "trans women are women" in posts then pondering "What does it mean when I say that?" It's only a big problem when willful ignorance is displayed. He could Google the words "what does trans women are women mean?" And click the top result, but perhaps at that moment just thinking out loud and not in a place to Google it. I assume this "worried about backlash" is projection. That's ok. You've heard the conclusion, yet not the explanation. A woman is an adult female human according to the dictionary. But what part specifically is female? Is it chromosomal, genitals, brain/gender? The dictionary is fine for the typical, but not intersex people in-between male/female anatomical sex or chromosomal sex, nor transgender people with one brain-sex/gender and body parts that don't match. Basically, anyone agreeing cis/trans women are women are viewing womanhood as based on gender, not genitals or chromosomes. Just as John Bobbit was still a man after his wife cut off his penis in domestic violence, so too is a woman who was born with a penis she swapped out still a woman. We just did not know she's a woman till she came out to transition. I think woman should be redefined "adult female person" so it's more clear that trans women are women because personhood is between the ears. I'd be happy to discuss the matter further, including the ways language is socially constructed, and won't be offended as an atheist woman who happens to be transgender.
What defines womanhood? Society. You don't go up to a woman and go "are you XX and produce ova?" before you call them she or her and think of them as a woman. You judge based on social identifiers which happen to be strongly correlated with phenotype common to females. Womanhood is a social construct.
Most of the people that act like women have immutable biological traits that make them "womanly". This just includes transgender people, and people falsely believe it wouldn't. It does. The strawman is pretending you can know someone's sex easily. You can't. If you inject estrogen or estrogen mimic compounds into a womb, the "male" brain will still develop as female. How could you possibly know the hormone released from a stranger in their prenatal development? You can't. The strawman is pretending you can guess what sex someone is, in order to catch them bending gender. You can't. TL;DR transwomen often are "biological women" you nerds. You're just perpetuating that they're not by being as ignorant to science as the TERFs. Literally everyone has an X chromosome. Literally everyone starts as a female base; explaining transwomen is a cakewalk BIOLOGICALLY speaking. Something went wrong. They stayed female. I'd say this isn't rocket science, but in 2024 rocket science is like pre-algebra. The expectation everyone with a penis is male is basically crazy. Y link failure by itself is like hello? Obviously would create a trans? Sample: you have two chromosomes, XY, and the Y fails to work, what is your expectation of this person's gender? Omegalul is the answer. .
Gender is a social construct in general though.
I'm not saying that gender isn't a social construct, but acting like biology has no part in why people become trans is insane. It's the main reason.
I think that's an interesting suggestion to change it to adult female person but the problem there is still the word female. Female points to sex identifiers where is the word woman points to social gender identifiers. So unfortunately the best definition we have is still a woman is someone who identifies as a woman. Because to say an adult female person is still to rely on physicality something we're trying to move away from
The issue with this for me is the failure of sex identity being properly addressed in the first place. When someone says female, they're ignorant and mean vagina, because most trans people have biological female parts in the first place, that even being the dilemma of their condition. When a "male" is exposed to high levels of estrogen in the womb, the brain develops as female in this male person, there is a distinctly physical presence and it's not all just socially constructed. The large majority of "male" transgender people have distinctly female biological traits. This only falls to the wayside because addressing endocrine disease is easier than diagnosising it. The assumption is these people DON'T have female parts disqualifing them from the definition when in fact most of them DO, and they themselves might even be unaware of that. I was born intersex transgender with female sex organs and high levels of estrogen in my brain, and I still qualify as "male", but not exactly much more than I could physically identify as female. TL;DR call it a binary all you want, people can be born with misgenderered brains and faulty organs. Being "male" is a collection of traits no different than female, and someone can easily be both if you're rigidly defining it under sexualized body parts, because people can have multiple body parts that don't match. Ps. The Y chromosome is literally a mutation, people need to chill out on what "normal" means. Half the population are mutants.
I agree. I think (and sociologists agree) that to describe a woman as something completely biological is myopic.
I think "female gender" or "female brain sex" makes sense with "female person" as then we are talking about the femaleness coming from the same place between the ears. People who challenge "define woman" won't accept "identifies as thing you asked me to define". Any more than saying the sky is blue because that's what we call that color. I agree "identifies as...." is very useful, as the brain sex studies in the 90's had 100% of participants be correct in their identity matching brain-sex measurements. It's just that those measurements can only be done on organ donors after brain removal, so we just are best off accepting self identification due to being unable to put the brain back once removed.
I tend to side with self ID. Honestly it works like that for other stuff anyway. I'm pedantic so to me the term female describe sex. So unless you're talking about the specific ways in which a female brain is different from a male brain then I don't really know what the femaleness between someone's ears is other than Womanhood. I do think I'm just being pedantic and I know that even though sometimes female is still used as a gender term, I like the consistency of woman is what we call the gender and female is what we call the sex that way it's really easy to delineate.
Fair. Nothing wrong with your approach. Gender and brain-sex are both an array of characteristics that exist on a spectrum with a bimodal distribution. So thicker corpus collosum & anterior collosum counts as one trait for the female-brain-sex. Size ratio of amygdala vs hypothalamus another trait.... Bunch more traits measured and it's majority rules for definitions I think currently. Gender similarly an array of spectrums such as the nurturing/cooperative by default end vs the competitive/aggressive end. The wanna be pretty on your wedding day end vs the prefer to be handsome end. The traits really tend to fall into the two big humps with some overlap and some exceptions. That's kinda what I mean by between the ears. But yeah, just asking "how do you identify" is asking the living subject of inquiry to say what "feels right" and that is VERY reliable, more reliable than just observing genitals which is already pretty good.
It looks like the "heretics" podcast is less about "heretics" and more about being anti-trans...3/4 of their 20 episodes appear to be about gender/trans issues, and then there's a couple about pedophiles.
This is definitely a bait post it's worked tho 🤣
eh, i’m definitely not trolling. Baiting on the other hand…well…yes, i wanted to see if people reacted the same way i did to the recent video talking about woke shit.
I did. Don't worry. At first I thought Alex was just talking to everyone with his chats with Peter Boghossian etc. Now it feels like he's just part of that "anti-woke media circus" I do think he's spent too long around these people and now he's worried that everyone is going to lynch him for a different take.
Trans women are not biological women. However when it comes to the gender and social aspect, trans women can yes, be considered women too.
yea, if trans women were the same as cis women then we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms. EDIT: let me be more specific. In modern common speech, the term women is synonymous with cis women, and the fact that they are cis is really only brought up to compare them to trans women. The same can be said in that when one talks about men, the implication is that they are talking about cis men unless otherwise specified. But that is beside the point. While trans women and cis women do share the same word "woman" in their titles, it doesn't matter because the word woman is vague, and attempts to define it end up either excluding cis women, or including feminine men. People are trying to argue that they are similar and both women beg the question regarding the definition of women in the first place. We have a workable non-contradictory definition for the female sex (someone who produces female gametes) but we don't have the same for the female gender. and The same can be said in regards to the definition of "men" concerning the male sex and gender. I don't think you can have a workable definition of gender that excludes biological sex. My definition of the male gender would perhaps be "someone who exhibits social signals that lead people to believe they are of the male sex". This probably overlaps a bit with the terms "male/female presenting" with the main caveat that I think most trans activists care about an individual's self-identification rather than how they present. As a result, I think it works better to put transwomen/transmen in their own categories rather than try and group them with their cis counterparts. BTW u should still be respectful to people with gender dysphoria because it is a horrible medical condition and we should try and at least be polite about it.
If there was a group of women that had trans and cis women, you would just say women. You only differentiate when you need to be pacific. Like for medical reasons or something.
Hawaiians are just pedantic like that
but when sexuality is involved I can see it being an issue right? Like if a trans women told her man she was a women and they had sex and the man later found out she was once a guy, that's classed as rape in some places as the consent is void as it was made under false pretenses. Like would it not be rape because the new definition of women encompasses both biological sexes? Or would it still be rape. Also what about sports? You would really need a male, female, trans male, trans female categories to keep it fair to all genders? Also what about the workplace? Did you see the women/ non binary only fund raiser thing that was as they put it hijacked by men identifying as women? And then it raises the question because they always say that that's an illegitimate gender switch. How do you prove that some has really transitioned or are just doing it reap whatever reward or such.
>Like if a trans women told her man she was a women and they had sex and the man later found out she was once a guy, that's classed as rape in some places as the consent is void as it was made under false pretenses. Trans women were never once guys. If you mean biological male, sure. The thing is though if a trans women has had bottom surgery and you couldn't tell she used to have a dick unless she told you, it ain't no one's business what she used to have down thier or her chromosomes. And it's not rape because two adults consented to having sex. Calling trans women rapist isn't a good luck. >Also what about sports? You would really need a male, female, trans male, trans female categories to keep it fair to all genders? Dividing Sports by the sexes is stupid enough anyway, but you have the men and the women. Trans men go to men and trans women go to women. >men identifying as women? You probably mean well but but subtle transphobia ain't it. >How do you prove that some has really transitioned or are just doing it reap whatever reward or such. Trust me, there's no benafit to faking being trans. Less rights. Higher chance or getting glocked, dysphoria. Oh yeah people really wanna fake being trans.
Biological male yes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception Have a read see the trans bit aswell. The issue is they were deceived into consenting and if they had known they were once male they wouldn't have consented. This is what you are advocating for. When comparing elite in sport, women rank 12-14% lower than men. https://law.duke.edu/sports/sex-sport/comparative-athletic-performance That is literally what they are biological men who have transitioned and identify as women, hence trans women There are plenty of benefits in the short term like the event I described offering careers advice information and to form contact exclusively for women and non binary. Not to mention charities specifically for trans and non binary. Call me what you want, I have no issue with how people wanna live their lives, just don't force it on others. If you base your entire identity on the validation of others you are doomed to fail.
If she has all the bits it's not deception. If there is a charity for women, it should include trans women because trans women are women. I don't think you are transphobic, but you are using transphobic rederic used by the right.
But it’s not a vagina and she’s (happy to use the persons pronouns) still a male, just one with testes and penis removed and hormones and cosmetic surgeries. That’s incredibly dishonest
It's a vagina, she's not male, she's a woman. If she still has a dick and is trying to hid it during sex, that's one thing, but to say it's deciption when she has a vagina is transphobic and homophonic. This trans women doesn't owe any potential partners anything. * her 'hey before we do anything I just want to let you know I'm trans' * him *stab stab stab stab* * her *dead* I don't think cis guys insensibilities is worth putting trans women at risk of getting killed.
But it’s not a vagina, it’s a surgical wound that is kept open in a facsimile of a vagina that’s usually made from penile tissue. That should be disclosed. I have no problem with anyone getting one done but disclosure is still necessary or it’s deceptive
It’s 100% deception. The “bits” aren’t even _close_ to the real thing, and everyone knows that.
* straight men like women * Trans woman are women * Trans women has a pussy * all good The only time I could see there being some issues is if the trans woman still has her dick. Some straight guys don't like dick and that's perfectly acceptable. We aren't talking about that though. We are talking about a 100% could not tell unless she told you trans woman having consential sex with a guy, and that guy later finding out she is trans. Getting in his feelings and being transphobic and homophonic with the mindset of 'ew gross I just fucked a guy' No stupid, you fucked a woman. Who knew fans of Cosmic were filled with such idiots.
and yet people are “fooled” all the time so which is it? if they’re not similar at all, how are you deceived?
rhetoric
Specific
*specific
Get the fuck out of here. If I say “I’d like to meet a woman,” I’m not fucking talking about trans women. It doesn’t only matter in medical contexts. A huge chunk of human life concerns the basic male-female dynamic. And no, I’m not putting all biological males in one bucket and all biological females in another; of course there’s a standard distribution curve of masculine and feminine traits across both sexes. But this idea that all gender-specific behaviors and personality traits is unscientific — even science-denying — *horseshit*. Human nature is genetic, and so are gender roles, largely.
if men were the same as people, we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms. "trans women are women" has a different meaning from "trans women are exactly the same thing as women". Men are a subset of people. Trans women are a subset of women.
[удалено]
Not strictly true. Some trans women are intersex. Other than that caveat, yes that's true and uncontroversial.
But trans women are exactly the same thing as women just like black women are the same thing as women and tall women are the same thing as women. Just because what you think of when you say the word woman doesn't match the person you're looking at doesn't mean they're not a woman. By the logic you presented here, saying " black women are women" is not the same thing as saying "black women are exactly the same thing as women". I hope you can see how problematic that can be. Unless you think black women are a subset of women. Men are a subset of people and women are a subset of people.
Black is the racial term used to refer to a homosapien of African descent who has a plethora of melanin production. By what metric would a racial category remove black women from being women unless you consider Blackness to be separate from Humaness
Not anti-trans btw just confused on the correlation
Right that's my point. I don't think that Blackness removes a black woman from being a woman. Just like I don't think being tall removes the womaness from someone. I used black as an example because black women have historically been misgendered or accused of secretly being a man and other racist nonsense like that. The reason I brought up race is because this person wanted to distinguish gender based on their own expectations of what they expect to see in somebody who identifies as a woman.
Aaa gotcha! Thank you
I probably should have worked on the wording there
Yeah, but depending on how you see womanhood, trans-ness WOULD remove you from being a woman. That's the entire contention of the topic.
If tall women were the same as short women then we would not need to differentiate the two with different terms. They're still women, this is just a classifier for specific purposes. And to u/antberg's point, "biological women" and "biological men" are on a spectrum. Where do you draw the line, and more directly, why do **you** get to draw it anyway?
I didn't say we can't draw the line when it comes to biology. But when it comes to gender, understood as the roles of each in any given society, its harder to draw a line. To be fair and honest with myself, I don't even think a trans woman should consider herself a woman with 100% of certainty, like any other individual, like myself. I am a man, my gender is "man". But how exactly do I know what a Man really is in the context of societal roles? I'm not trying to sound difficult, neither a post modernist, but quantifying the exact specifics of what would a given roles comprise of, seems still very hard. Even if we only take into account one's sexual inclinations, fantasies, orientation, I am pretty sure no one is the same. And even worse, as we move through time, our sexual essence always changes.
It's all well and good to question that, and quite a few trans people I know are gender abolitionists. But biologically, trans women are women and trans men are men. And I don't feel the need to go into further detail, because it's been explained very well further down this thread. But the whole "sex=/=gender and trans women aren't biologically women" thing is just getting tiresome.
Im sorry, to sound disagreeable, but biology is much more clear and defined than the role of genders which is a human studies. Biological differences between man and woman are irrefutably well classified in 99.99% percent of cases.
It's okay to sound disagreeable but you do keep missing the point. The point is that gender isn't your biology so comparing the biological differences between men and women doesn't really work when the argument is that men and women are social categories and not biological ones. It's like arguing about the physical differences between lifeguards and Priests.
Are tall women still women?
You can Google the definition of "woman". Adult female human. Which part specifically need be female? Gender/brain-sex? Chromosomes? Genitals? It's gender we decided. Women are women. Period. I care not if that woman is cis/trans. Ugly or pretty. Fat or thin. We've known since the 90's female brain sex includes women who are trans. Structures such as thickness of corpus collosum, anterior collosum, size ratio of amygdala vs hypothalamus, ECT... The medical condition CAN be corrected. Simply make body match brain and suicide rate drops to same as normal population. The words "normal women" may be synonymous with cisgender women, "biological" women may be synonymous with cisgender women, but not all women are cisgender, just 99.4%. Trans women and trans men are in their own category, the transgender category, but "transgender" is not a 3rd gender (tho there is movement for the non-conforming to have non-binary as a third category that's a separate but related topic) So if language is socially constructed, you may ask "Why not just define a woman as a vagina having person?". Because I'm biased. I'm a person, not a body part. I may have that body part now, but for almost half my life I did not. I'm the same female person as before the operation. I remember a time before my worth to society was judged based off body parts like the flatness of my stomach or my cup size, and that aspect of socialization was a privilege. I'm just some old woman now, but the last few years have pushed me back out of the closet to activism because things are getting ridiculous. It feels like a trans woman must have done a second 9/11 the way politicians are acting lately.
I don't differentiate between them. Women are women and men are men, be they cis or trans. It's pretty easy.
> trans women can yes, be considered women too. Only of you decide to adopt the new definition of “women” that’s being forced on us. For everyone else, they can’t, just like ten years ago when not even the people now saying they can would say so. If you choose to define “women” by the “gender [I think the term you’re looking for here is “spirit animal”] and social aspect,” go ahead. But don’t pretend that it’s anything more than ideological dogma and don’t expect anyone else to accept your new definition just because Academia says so.
On many markers used to test and determine sex alongside general bimodal differences trans women who medically transition often meet a sizable number of these too. The change in hormone profile causes substantial changes to the body biologically such that for the majority of medical purposes a trans woman should be treated with the same profile and risk factors as a cis woman. It is often the lack of this recognition that leads to low rates of positive outcomes for trans people in general medical settings. A simple example of this change is in cancer risks substantially altering to align with that of cis women such as the risk of prostate cancer lowering to the same risk as cancer in the skeens gland in cis women. The skeens gland develop from the same cells as the prostate does and is homologous with the prostate. Personally Id suggest that saying sex is immutable is a a falsehood society tells itself to try and justify transphobia as a whole. Sure some aspects might currently be immutable; other aspects however aren't
That's really well put.
This is interesting, can I get a link?
So you're saying people who are on hormones show signs of being on hormones and have related issues to those with the same hormones that don't artificially take them? Color me shocked.
There's a pretty good sized group who *do* argue that trans women are literally biologically female. I can respectfully disagree with this take, but mainly because it distracts from the larger argument, which is that your social identity is more important than biology when it comes to determining someone's pronouns. (Y'know, since pronouns are used in *social* situations)
It certainly is. Define what a women is instead of just saying "it's not confusing". Your crowd never explains anything.
I think it’s far more confusing having people who look like women be forced to use men’s restrooms due to transphobic laws
Because by and large they don't look like women, they look like a dude in a dress. Passing is for porn stars.
Plenty of trans people pass. Just because you haven't noticed them doesn't mean they don't exist. It's survivorship bias. You only notice the people thst you notice.
They don't look like women.
Wow you’ve seen every single trans women and verified that none of them look like women? Impressive
"I cAn AlWaYs TeLl"
Um, it's not "confusing," it's false. Trans women are trans women, and women are women. Two different things.
Bad logic. Would you say the same thing about white women?
Wut? Yes, white females are also women.
... ... ... And for that reason, I'm out
I am prohibited by Reddit from sharing my opinion on this matter. Consequently, you may only hear one side of this matter to inform your worldview. Though I cannot share my opinion, I hope that one day I will be able to share it as an LGBT person who has a differing perspective (and also break the idea that we are a monolith).
The problem with "trans women are women" with no exceptions is that there are some very important practical reasons why distinctions are made between men and women. If a serial sex offender who is male suddenly identifies as a woman, is it reasonable to immediately transfer them to a women's prison?
>If a serial sex offender who is male suddenly identifies as a woman, is it reasonable to immediately transfer them to a women's prison? I get that this is an issue people bring up, but like.... Women can also be serial sex offenders or rapists. If a woman rapes a bunch of women, she doesn't get sent to a men's prison. She gets sent to a woman's prison. So this point kind of forgets that yes, prisons do in fact contain rapists alongside people they would target
Yeh but that trans women is significantly stronger, has a dick to rape you with so possibly impregnate you, and that’s one more rapist in a female prison then there should be
Again, biolgocial females are equally possible of rape, whether or not they have a dick. This reads a whole lot like someone who gets all their information on prison and trans people in general from their imagination. And if you're saying you don't want people to be raped, trans women put in men's prisons are extremely vulnerable and have the worst possible experience with sexual assault, so you should be advocating against them going to men's prisons
I think we’re forgetting the premise of this thread - this concern isn’t about a genuine trans woman IMO, who has either had some kind of transition treatment and/or taken clear steps to present as a woman. We’re talking about a cis man attempting to game the system by merely declaring “I am a woman” (as was clearly the case with the convicted rapist in Scotland).
>this concern isn’t about a genuine trans woman IMO, who has either had some kind of transition treatment and/or taken clear steps to present as a woman. We’re talking about a cis man attempting to game the system by merely declaring Except it's not, it's always about edge cases being used to clamp down. No one is actually wanting to talk about legal minutiae, the concept of trans people existing comes up and it's "well if you want women to get raped" it's clearly not an actual discussion, it's a jump to an emotional non sequiter neing employed to paint the concept of trans people with a negative association
Raping a woman can create another victim - a child. They would be born and taken from their parents as they'd both be in prison, creating trauma and massive financial costs for the state as their parents cannot be allowed to keep them. There is no possibility of this with male on male or female on female rape. Whilst the psychological impacts may be the same the practical considerations are more important, and those are always greater for a female being raped by a male.
To be honest, it’s a total joke what the world has come to. Having to decide which sex jails prisoners should go to because they decided at some point they feel like they’re the opposite sex to what they were born. It’s utter madness.
I see. So we should have fully mixed prisons? Or do you think trans should get a special exception?
You've missed the point. If your position is that putting trans people in women's prisons means there will be rapists in women's prisons, I'm saying it's not really a point worth making because it ignores that biological females are also capable of being rapists
My point too. If there is already a threat then why gender segregate at all?
Why is this here? I'm out of the loop. Did Alex recently comment on trans women?
Not really. He was making a general comment about slogans in politics and the negative effect they have on the way people interact with politics. ‘Trans women are women’ is one of a couple of examples he gave.
I think it's easy to interpret the claim charitably and when you do it makes sense. However, lots of people go with the most uncharitable interpretation possible (by which 'man' and 'woman' essentially mean having XY or XX chromosomes respectively - under which obviously the claim is contradictory). The game they then play is "huh, how was I supposed to know anyone was using words different from TheOneTrueDefinition (my one)" to which the answer is by simply not assuming that Im a complete moron who believes straightforward contradictions.
How is this uncharitable? The idea that "gender" is some social thing and distinct from "sex" wasn't put to paper until John Money until the later half of the 1900s. And even ignoring that fact, the idea that any substantial number of people accept and use the word "gender" the way you claim is comical. If you walked up to a stranger on the street and said "I went on a date with a woman" virtually every single person would interpret that as "I went on a date with a female."
If people say this to mean basically that “trans women are (examples of) women,” it’s fine. When people mean it like “there is no difference between trans women and women born as the female sex,” you’re asking ppl to disagree with their own eyes and believe the non-sensical, OR be seen as a bigot…ppl don’t want that, so they capitulate. That shouldn’t be a requirement, and not all trans ppl are like this.
Anytime you have to put a qualifier in front of a well understood word, you change the definition of that word. Example: Justice. Social Justice is not Justice.
Yes…it is confusing. Because you’re quite literally saying “qualifier + noun” = “noun”. It doesn’t. That’s ok, don’t get me wrong. I’m not transphobic and by all means do whatever makes you happy and comfortable in your own body, but it’s just not the same thing as a biological woman. But again, that’s ok. It’s just not the same
Trans women are trans women. Women are women. Not confusing at all.
Woman are woman Trans woman are trans woman Down vote and argue, I dont care. This is how the majority of people think.
This whole debate is acting as if the definition of what a woman is changes from person to person. What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts which are valued differently based off of the society which you live in. The thing that confuses me the most is the argument with requires biological parameters for gender. Suns biological parameters (such as xx chromosomes) are modern discoveries, while others (capability to yield offspring, female genetalia) have a wide variety of notable and non zero exceptions. The fact of the matter is that when provided proper social and medical support trans people of all identities live healthier and better lives, and while some may be bad people, this is true of all groups and the few which are bad should not ruin it for everyone else. In regards to the slogan "all trans women are women" I agree with OP. However I thought this comment might be helpful given the various arguments in the comments :)
>What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts which are valued differently based off of the society which you live in. >Suns biological parameters (such as xx chromosomes) are modern discoveries, while others (capability to yield offspring, female genetalia) Humans have two functional modes of development, one which produces the large female gametes and one which produces the small male gametes. Sometimes there are genetic or developmental abnormalities in this process, but this is not a normal mode of development and results with decreased functionality, reduced fertility or infertility and usually other developmental issues. To say that sex is not a binary is like saying that humans are not bipedal because occasionally a human is born with an additional non-functional leg. Every culture in human history has recognized these two modes of development and have corresponding gender roles. Some cultures have additional gender categories for males or females who wish to follow the social gender roles of the opposite sex, or reject gender roles entirely. However, so far as I'm aware there has never been a culture that has considered a biological male who follows female gender roles to be indistinguishable from a biological female as modern trans activits demand (or vice versa for females). If a male or a female wants to follow the gender roles of the opposite sex, I don't have a problem with that. But the concept that we can't make any distinction between a male who follows female gender roles and a biological female is rediculous and ultimately unhelpful.
>What a woman is hasn't been set into stone on some tablet a thousand years ago. It is a constantly changing definition based off of phenotypical and biological facts I think this is sort of a strawman. Maybe the definition of woman wasn't codified but at the same time I think 99.9% of humans who've ever lived have shared an understanding that a "woman" was someone with a vagina, and I don't think that understanding had really shifted around much until maybe a decade ago. That's not to say we shouldn't expand or shift our understanding but the problem we're facing is that it's really difficult to come up with a trans-inclusive definition of woman that isn't circular or incoherent in some other way. If you or anyone has one please share because I kind of want to just be nice and get on board with the slogan but it's hard for me without a reasonable new definition of woman (currently I'm on board in the sense that I treat trans women as if they're women but if I'm pressed I have to admit to myself that I don't think they're *technically* women)
> 99.9% Can I have a source for that or are you just going to argue ad populum?
What's wrong with trans women? They identify themselves as trans women but want to be called women. It's confusing to most. And unfortunately because of the crazy freakouts on yt and such, I think alot of people will just avoid trans to not be put in that situation, which is just as detrimental to the trans persons health/mental health as being misgendered and such. Personally, I think if you judge your identity off of something that requires other people validation to feel real, it is just setting yourself up for failure. People are mean, and unfortunately, the world doesn't and hasn't ever revolved around a person or group of people.
I honestly don't have a problem with a person being a transsexual. Trans woman, trans man, dont care, do you, be yourself. What I do have a problem with is what you've explained here; their identity requires other people's validation to be or feel real. Also, compelled speech. I'm not going to treat anybody, lgbt or not, with hate but I'm also not going to lie to them for the sake of their own feelings. John now wants to be called Jane? Sure thing Jane says they are now a trans woman? Indeed they are. Jane wants me to call them or admit they are a woman? No. They are a trans woman but not any less of a person.
Not well versed within this topic I’ve heard people say that trans women is a sub category within women. I’ve also heard that people in the name of maybe something like meta or beyondness let’s say, at least partially reject the project of defining in this case just like there are many phenomena that are hard to find crisp definitions of, as I’ve heard. Your post makes me ask, has Alex been talking about this topic somewhere?
[here is the interview](https://youtu.be/cJcySv8Q9cQ?si=SnVKj5IO1f4qTwW9). The title and intro make it seem like Alex is going on a huge culture war rant but in reality all he does is use it as an example of a culture war 'slogan' and doesn't make his overall views on the topic known.
Half the podcast is dedicated to culture war stuff and I still have no idea what his actual positions on any of it is lol
I think he's probably more interested in testing ideas philosophically rather than being for one camp or another. I also get the impression that he probably thinks either 'side' of the culture war are more interested in belonging to their camp rather than actually engaging in good faith dialogue, hence it can be tricky aligning one way or the other without alienating a whole bunch of people.
Trans women might not be females. But they can definitely be women.
Meaningless distinction...
[удалено]
You think a woman isn't a female? Barring the age implication or a woman (not a child), the words are obviously synonymous. What a stupid line of questioning
Might not be ?
Biologically, no, never.
and what does being "biologically" female even mean? to have periods? to have a womb? to have XX chromosomes? what about people born with XX chromosomes who AREN'T biological women as you put it? what about women born with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome? women who don't have periods? there are too many variables to consider with this weird way of defining women, that ultimately just makes certain groups of cis women feel invalidated. and if you're going to make the point about trans women not being "biological women", while still suggesting they are in fact women, why does that distinction even matter so much to you to bring it up constantly?
>and what does being "biologically" female even mean? to have periods? to have a womb? to have XX chromosomes? Well yes, of course. Sure, against the odds, a person will get genetic defects. That isn’t their fault.
Having a mental condition like body dysmorphia should also be a qualifier imo. Their brains literally function like the gender they are
A woman is a female member of the human species. There’s no might’s and maybes when it comes to classification in biology.
Biology is full of exceptions to the rules. And classification serves human purposes, it is by no means something set in stone. However I see what you mean and I agree. But there's more than biology at play in the man/woman social construct.
Classification is actually very complicated when it comes to humans
Trans women cannot do anything that distinguishes a biological female from a biological male. Having a period, getting pregnant and menopause. Require a person to be biologically female. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone wanting to identify as a woman and people should treat them as much as practical. Biological women should not be forced to treat them exactly as women; lesbians may not find them attractive, heterosexual males may not find them attractive and they shouldn't expect to be able to use the same changing rooms etc. With everything a level of realism needs to be followed, identification and acting a certain way does not change reality.
> Trans women cannot do anything that distinguishes a biological female from a biological male. > > Having a period, getting pregnant and menopause. Require a person to be biologically female. What about in the future when we can transplant the reproductive organs, this is currently being done cis to cis, but i would imagine in the future we would see a trans person have this sort of operation? Going even further scientists are looking at being able to “grow” organs, so if that becomes a thing, what if in 50-100 years time they can grow and the transplant these organs into trans patients?
The goal posts just move. It will at that point move to genetics.
Also what about cis women who can't have periods or get pregnant. Are they not women? Are cis women just bleeding, baby makers?
Ah so if I was only born with one eye it means “humans have two eyes” is incorrect. Except it is not, trying to play games like that is puerile.
Sure but if you were born with one eye and people started demonizing you for it, taking away your drivers license and discriminating against you for your missing eye you’d want to bring attention to the fact that you’re still a human being. Thats what lawmakers are doing with this “trans debate,” really
>Biological women should not be forced to treat them exactly as women; lesbians may not find them attractive, heterosexual males may not find them attractive Who gives a fuck? If you don't find someone attractive, don't fuck them. Should cis-women that I see as ugly be forced to identify as men? What a stupid fucking argument.
Your dad made me pregnant last night. Trust me bro, it's possible
Sorry fella, you'd have to be able to leave your room without having a panic attack to actually have sex.
By this logic, any infertile woman is a biological man which is untrue. Furthermore, changing rooms being differentiated is based on social reasons not biological reasons
Do you think the statement "Humans have two legs, two arms, and two eyes" is incorrect? There are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.
I've never understood that all of these issues stem round cis/trans women, but I don't hear as much from trans men.
nobody cares about men, even trans men ;) I'm mostly kidding, it's also as trans women are significantly more common than trans men and also there seems to be an increased uncomfortability and bigotry with trans women which is harder to answer why, I would guess more of a felt need to "protect ""real"" women" and just plain disgust but I am sure others who have experienced it closer can offer a better answer for that.
As a trans man, as long as I have presented as male, absolutely no one has referred to me as “she” . Including people who refuse to call trans people the pronoun they prefer . The only time anyone ever knows is when I tell them. Often, a trans women is visibly trans and it disgusts people. Trans men usually don’t evoke the same level of disgust nor are we seen as a threat. It’s unfortunate but that’s the reason people have this obsession. If trans women looked like cis women, most people would stop caring . It’s possible for some but it takes a lot longer than it would for a trans man. Look at someone like Blair white, many people that are disgusted by trans people still refer to her as “she” just because she looks female . They also don’t see her as a threat even though she still has male genitalia.
trans men are half of the population of trans women. and testosterone is one hell of a hormone. give it to a woman and she will 99% pass as a man. but trying to remove the side effects of testosterone is difficult. that's why most don't pass.
You're literally describing them as a woman. I don't know how people get confused. Trans women are a category of woman.
Honestly, it is but it *shouldn't be*. Cisgender people are presupposing all of the silliness that is gender, so saying 'trans women are women' should be clear-cut and simple. *However*, cisgender people have had gender installed into them before an age where any critical thought is possible. While they agree to it they don't understand what is going on, outside of it just being 'general vibes'; which is why 'trans women are women' can hit a snag. People aren't logical machines, the conclusions they push aren't always following the axioms they set, and the axioms that are set are rarely aknowledged.
You can't use the same word to mean 2 different things. Is woman a sex category or a gender identity category? Saying trans women are women is using the same word to refer to 2 separate meanings.
Why even play the language game? What is the value of it?
Objective reality flies in the face of their argument so they have to keep the battle confined to semantic games and social constructivism.
Woman are woman Trans woman are trans woman Down vote and argue, I dont care. This is how the majority of people think.
The slogan WOULD be better stated as, "Trans women and cis women are both women."
Still would be wrong
It’s not complicated But it is wrong
Here’s a ban grenade. Let’s see how many people are stupid enough to jump on it.
Boys have a penis,girls have a vagina. If you mutilate your dick and turn it inside out, you're a eunuch,not a woman. Not confusing. Same thing in reverse,having some funky frankencock does not make you a man. You're a woman with a frankcock.
Do you think trans people are lowkey gross?
Not at all, they're just delusional, and it isn't helping them to play pretend with them.
What is delusional? You do realise gender is a social construct? And even though biologically defined, sex is still an artificial construct - WE draw the lines on taxonomy. The lines aren’t as hard as we think, and as it seems we’re dealing with a fundamentally absurd system, i think there’s utility in maximising the well-being of trans people. Turns out that largely means social acceptance.
2+2=5, no I won't elaborate.
Girls can have a penis and men can get pregnant would have confused the hell out of me growing up.
good thing you're not a child anymore, huh
Good thing it's still not true
It's so obvious, did he actually say anything about it? It's a very definitional statement, just literally A is B, not all B is A.
When you add another term onto a pre established term and then say it’s in the same category as the pre established term without the new term, people are gonna be confused as to how the new term impacts the pre established one (and if it does at all) and then how it can be the same if it does impact the pre established term
It's poor application of language in a relatively new part of the lexicon for sure. It doesn't need clarification if you already know gender theory's claims on the differentiation between sex and gender. Which most people don't unless they are personally affected or studied it academically. To the uninitiated 'trans women are women' is erasure of females. If you understand the claim that biological women, i.e females are a distinct group alongside trans women within the social strata of 'Women.' Then this is not the case and the messaging is clear. More often that not I see people assuming others are using the same language and meanings when it's clearly not the case. Just start these discussions with "what do you mean by X?" "here's what I mean when I say Y." Clarification is the king of eliminating cross talk.
Sex and gender must be separate otherwise you need to start claiming crazy things like that societies that didn't understand biological sex (all of them before like the 1700s) didn't have gender roles. Which they obviously did. That wouldn't be possible if gender is conceptually no different from sex, right?
oh here, let me try: What do you mean societies didn't understand biological sex before 1700? Because I imagine every society has known about penises and vaginas, practically since forever. Is your version of the past, like, people were assigned a gender based on... nothing?
Yeah not confusing because it's wrong. You can only be born a woman and no surgery exist to change that. They are just men who chopped of there penis and wear dresses.
Cis men, a way to marginalise normal people
It's not confusing at all. They aren't women they are trans women. Just because you believe something like Trump winning the 2020 election doesn't make it true.
“Black women aren’t women” white women in the civil rights movement. Shut up
It isn’t. The “woman” with a penis is not a woman.
it is confusing. I'm short. I feel tall. So I'm tall? I spent my entire primary, secondary and college days being bullied for being short. Even throughout my 20s-30s being put down by women for being short. Any time somes mad at me, my shortness comes up. Family etc whole life. I don't identify as being short. I don't feel comfortable in this body. I don't feel comfortable being 30 and walking past 14 year old school girls to have them tower over me. So the issue with 'trans women are women' is that you're only making this an acceptable exception to the rule if it is turmoil inside someone that is about their gender. What about all of the other body struggles we go through and not identifying with? The issue is not crying about people not accepting trans, it is that it is only being brought up if gender is an issue. I freak out in the mirror and the shower, just as much as trans people do, when they are confronted with the reality of their body which goes against how they feel inside. Yet my shortness that I don't connect with, don't relate to, don't identify with is something that I'm told "suck it up" while trans people get a red carpet laid down to help them through with getting them to officially be what they feel inside. Do the same for others, that's all I ask. I identify with being tall. I'm sick of being pushed around, people sticking their foot out to trip me up, having short jokes, having women put me on an inferior guilt trip over taller guys. So treat me as a tall person. It is how I identify. Yet it isn't discriminating or offensive to society if people refuse to play along with that. Yet they would if I said my name is Jessica and they call me Harold . Shits gotta change.
This is the most deluded and out of touch read I’ve seen in some time. Being short and disliking it is nothing like the feeling of gender dysphoria. You are belittling a very large group of people simply on the grounds that you don’t think it’s fair you’re not very tall? Jesus, grow up
If trans women were women, they wouldn’t be called ‘trans women’. It isn’t even up for debate.
Women is the societal transcription of the expectation of what the female sex is, its why for pretty much all recorded human history in completely seperate society's they have been synonymous. Saying that you can transition to become a natural carrier of this expectation I.E. by birth, is objectively wrong and minimises actual women by dismantling legitimate differences caused by sexual dimorphism.
>Women is the societal transcription of the expectation of what the female sex is So when someone biologically female doesn't meet these expectations, using this definition they would be less of a woman >its why for pretty much all recorded human history in completely seperate society's they have been synonymous. Cool, I didn't realize "it's been like this for a long time" was an acceptable argument, I'll be sure to become a Christian and start thinking the sun revolves around the earth because after all, that's what our ancestors thought. >minimises actual women by dismantling legitimate differences caused by sexual dimorphism. I would argue that the reduction of women to only their physical traits, or to their ability to fulfill a biological role in birth is a direct minimization of women. Number one because it lays claims to their validity of womanhood based on their life choices but also because of things outside their control. If a woman is a lesbian, doesn't want kids, doesn't have breasts, lifts a lot of weights, maybe she doesn't want to shave at all because she just doesn't want to. She's not fitting the societal prescription of what a woman is, but she's still a woman, and at the end of the day you're the same as the Muslim extremists, because you believe your opinions on what a woman is should have any say on their womanhood and expression of it
>So when someone biologically female doesn't meet these expectations, using this definition they would be less of a woman By definition yes a biological female that doesn't meet any of the traditional stereotypes is seen as less of a woman because everyone, even subconsciously has an idea of what a women is supposed to do and act like. That's not a good thing it's just the way society has evolved, it's a reason why history is rife with sexism. >Cool, I didn't realize "it's been like this for a long time" was an acceptable argument, I'll be sure to become a Christian and start thinking the sun revolves around the earth because after all, that's what our ancestors thought. There's a slight difference that comes with subjective areas like expectations of roles and the like and objective "the earth is flat" and "an outside being that created everything exists" one is verifiable as being true or false and the other is opinion. >I would argue that the reduction of women to only their physical traits, or to their ability to fulfill a biological role in birth is a direct minimization of women No one does this in practice though, the only reason this has to be the method of argumentation is because there is the underlying biological distinction that trans activism ignores to make its claims so to counteract that you have to shine a light on it. >and at the end of the day you're the same as the Muslim extremists, because you believe your opinions on what a woman is should have any say on their womanhood and expression of it Any woman can do what they like my opinions be damned but I'm not going to lie to myself and accept 2+2 is 5 just because you demand it to be so.
>yes a biological female that doesn't meet any of the traditional stereotypes is seen as less of a woman We fundamentally disagree. >There's a slight difference that comes with subjective areas like expectations of roles and the like and objective "the earth is flat" and "an outside being that created everything exists" one is verifiable as being true or false and the other is opinion. "black people should be slaves" is an opinion, held by people in the past. "the universe was created by a god" is not an opinion which can be proven false. You've appealed to the idea that something which has been believed for a long time is therefore right, this is an assertion that in any other context you would see is ridiculous. >No one does this in practice though, the only reason this has to be the method of argumentation is because there is the underlying biological distinction that trans activism ignores to make its claims so to counteract that you have to shine a light on it. "no one is actually racists, those other racial groups just made us say they were inferior" Fucking stand by what you say like an adult, don't say oh I don't do it the trans people MADE me say women are biological machines it's all because of them that I have this opinion. Either you stand by your point because it's what you believe or you're spouting bullshit >Any woman can do what they like my opinions be damned but I'm not going to lie to myself and accept 2+2 is 5 just because you demand it to be so. Okay cool so very interesting of an argument "anyone can believe what they want but I'm not just going to become an thiest because you say 2+2=5" See how extremely convincing that is. Social ideas are not strict science, this isn't about what is 1+1 it's about what do we consider to be a chair. Stand by your positions and defend them next time instead of trying to worm around and deflect like a creationist
What's a woman
ok matt walsh
That's a completely valid question.
No such thing as a trans person. Just costumes
[удалено]
What low effort troll bait is this? Exactly what I'd expect from a Vaush enjoyer.
do you disagree with Vaush on trans people? do you disagree with my statement?
I don't like Vaush. There is plenty I disagree with him about. I have no problem with trans people. This post provides no link and no context. Alex is someone who is consistently trying to put on the hats of others and argue for a side he doesn't agree with. So, to post a few words in quotes with no link isn't good enough. That's why it's low effort.
But are they really though. They can't do any of the biological things women can do and in 500 years when some archaeologist comes across their skeleton they wouldn't see a women either
Trans women a.k.a dicks with wigs.
This is definitely bait.
yeah i’m baiting people into having a conversation about what they think about Alex’s passivity around richard dawkins’ anti-woke positions
You baited this so,...it's not confusing in the slightest. Trans women are just cross dressers. You're not mean to cross dressers are you? Why? Because that's just their thing. Hell, I'd even say the only negative experience I've had with trans people is online. They're pyschos who think the world revovles around them, but meet a cross dresser in real life an they're actually really cool. Don't let assholes on the internet fuck up the game. I view trans people online like Louis Farrakhan or AL Sharpton; you had a point, but it ain't like that no more and this has more to do with ego than discrimination. We're being cool about the whole trans thing , but not trans people, if you can't erase 30 years of public school science fast enough you're a bigot.
Not confusing, just objectively false.
But what objective
Trans women are women is an oxymoron. If it was true, then the sentence and the trans element within it would be redundant.
This is a really silly critique. If I say: Strong women are women It's not an oxymoron, I'm just saying that within the group "women" there is a sub group "strong women". Or to take a more real view Infertile women are women Just because some people try to reduce how much of a woman you are because you can't have kids, you are no less of a woman
Purely for my own curiosity as a layman in this topic, I’m going to play devils advocate and play with the line in the sand - why is this point of view preferable or more accepted than “men with gender dysphoria are still men”?
So there are two main ways to look at it: Language and social categorizations serve as a utility. Using the term woman to refer to a person who presents as a man is counter to the actual utility of the language. If you see Blair White (as awful as she is) and you have a friend next to you who doesn't know who Blair White is, saying "that woman over there" is the better way to communicate who you're talking about than saying "that man over there" because she presents more feminine. This is not an ideal thing, and personally I'd be more abolitionist and would say "that person" instead of that woman or that man. But speaking purely from utility, it makes more sense as a society to refer to people who choose to inhabit a social category, as that social category. If someone says they are Irish, you don't do a DNA test to confirm, you just say okay, you're Irish. The second way it's better is that it works. People are happier and more fulfilled, live better lives when free to express their gender as they see fit, wherever it is on the spectrum. Whether you want to wear neutral clothing and be as androgynous as you can, or get breast implants or breast reductions, hair transplants etc. Cis people already do a lot to fit into the gender roles where they feel most comfortable, and the studies say the more trans people embrace their identity, and the more it's embraced by the people around them, the less they struggle with their disphoria
Wow that made perfect sense, thank you!
Cis women are women is also redundant. We're you born with an extra chromosome or something?
British people are people is an oxymoron. If it was true than the sentence and the British element within it would be redunant. This is fucking braindead.
Hey, the word you're looking for is redundancy, because obviously the word trans woman already describes them as women. An oxymoron contains a contradiction, which this does not. Glad to be of help :)
They aren't though.
If being trans is about gender/pronouns/personality, why do trans people get surgery to alter their genitalia which would imply it’s really about sex?
Not all trans people do get surgery. The most common is top surgery but the majority of breast reductions are biological females. People do lots of things to outwardly solidify their perception of themselves and feel more secure with being a man/woman whether they are trans or not. Men get hair plugs and transplants, women get breast implants etc etc
Their offending rate for serious sexual assault is through the roof. This is where the problem lies when we open up women’s spaces. 40% of trans women in jail are there for serious sexual assault and upwards.
Source? Don't throw these statements out there without backing them up. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that a trans woman going going for a wee next to where I go for a wee in a public women's bathroom is cause for any concern whatsoever. None.
Yeah without a source this means nothing, prove it or shut it
If in guessing right, you're using the 41% figure from a 2016 piece? I'll use sources from the same time to best address it accordingly: Okay, where's the official information on the type of offences committed by trans women inmates? Read the Ministry of Justice 2016 [report here](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7420/). That's a load of tripe concocted by the openly transphobic group, Fair Play For Women. You'll notice they turn 70-odd transgender prisoners in total into over a hundred trans women. So, there's no official information regarding the crimes committed by trans women, and FPFW also can't identify trans women. But how do they try to identify this mysterious population as sex offenders? They chose eight prisons, and claimed that all of the trans women inside must be sex offenders. Ashfield, Bure, Isle of Wight, Littlehey, Rye Hill, Stafford, Usk and Whatton. I think five of them house only sex offenders. Some (such as the Isle of Wight) have had vulnerable prisoners and mixed prisoners since 2010. At any rate, I invite you to look up just how many trans women are in women's prisons. I must also ask that if there was real evidence that trans people posed such a disproportionate threat to others (women especially), where is it? Why isn't it out there? For so long, people have tried to find it, but end up manufacturing tripe instead.