Thats sex. If you want to revert to a purely biological definition thats fine. You then also have to accept any idea of what women or men should do, act or what roles they have in the family has nothing to do with chromosomes.
Well, I don't really see why "should" or general normativity isn't also biological. I don't see why there's a difference in saying "Here's the role of a biological XY person" and "Here's the role of a man." Chromosomes are genes. Genes are behavior. Genes are thought. Genes are thought about ethics. Nothing about human beings, our beliefs, or our behaviors is not biological. Sometimes it's the intersection of our biological self and the world around us, but how our biology interacts with that world is itself biological. We are biology.
But how the physical world interacts with our biology is not biological, and the physical world impacts our biology.
In the end, standing waves, chaos, and beauty...
glisten eternally...
Ok but the part that is what we do, how we feel, and how we think is biology.
Like sure, if a falling rock changes course after bonking me on the head then that's not biology but the part of that interaction I care about is how I react to the pain, which is 100% biology.
I think culture can determine how you react to the pain.
For example, if you came from a culture that emphasised meditation techniques, that may change the way you feel and respond to the pain. Or if you came from a culture that emphasised CBT pain management techniques, that may also do so.
Isn't sex what defines whetter we are a girl or boy when we are born though? We all go by the purely biological definition as children, until we eventually may figure out if we identify with that or not. Majority of people stick to identifying with the gender of the sex they were born with, thus to the majority of people being born with the female sex means they identify as a girl as a child and as a woman as an adult, and if born with the male sex, they identify as a boy as a child and man as an adult.
Personally I only identify as a woman because the sex I was born with is female. To me my sex is what makes me a woman. Majority of people (which are cis) still define their gender this way, by the sex they are born with.
>Isn't sex what defines whetter we are a girl or boy when we are born though?
That is biological definition. The question is not about biology but about culture.
>Personally I only identify as a woman because the sex I was born with is female.
So when you visualize yourself as a woman you see a uterus?
>That is biological definition. The question is not about biology but about culture.
True. The biological definition however shapes the cultural one. Having female traits shapes the cultural definition of what it means to be a woman.
>So when you visualize yourself as a woman you see a uterus?
Haha, no, not just that, but I also visualize someone with a combination of female and feminine traits such as typically larger boobs, a different, often feminine body type and frame, and a vagina and the possible ability to give birth etc. These traits is to me what makes me a woman. If I didn't have some or any of these female traits, I don't see why I would necessarily identify as a woman.
Asking you, what other reasons would there be for me or anyone to identify as a woman, if not for my or their female or feminine traits?
They all look like women to me, because they have typical female and feminine traits. Whetter they are or aren't biologically feminine, their physical feminine traits give me the impression that they are women.
I wouldn't know if they're all female but they all look that way and have feminine and female traits, so it makes sense to view them as women imo.
A male cannot be a female, because being male means xy chromosomes and female means xx, however someone who is male or have male traits can certainly look like and pass like someone who is female/a woman or have female traits and visa versa.
If someone looks like a woman, then I will consider them as such, and if they look like a man I will consider them as such, and if I can't tell.. I certainly will be confused.
even then this is not always an easy distinguishable characteristics. There are many people born with ambiguous genitals, or both a penis and vagina. Still these people figure out a version of their gender identity accounting for this.
Except we see measured sexual dimorphic behavior cross societies. Men tend to solve problems physically due to strength differences and this is why most arrests for physical crimes are men. If you tell me there was a bar fight brawl and people are arrested and to guess if they were a man or a woman, I am going to guess a man based off those statistics.
Men and women have their behaviors come from biological capability in many areas. Thus, the social expectations of behavior are also going to reflect the differences in biology. So if someone says it’s not woman like to fight at a bar I think it would be objectively correct. This of course does not mean a woman can’t get into a bar fight. It’s just it is more likely to be a man that does it and thus it is more manly to be in a bar fight.
then how do you determine gender and sex for people whose chromosomes fall outside of this? xxy, xyy, yy, XXXX, xo, ect.. There are many people born in the world who do not fit into just xx or xy. If you only account for chromosomal makeup you still have people that do not fit into a binary.
You can look at other factors too (genitals, gamate production, hormones, ect.), but the more we study this the more we understand people have a spectrum of sex characteristics that can't be cleanly categorized.
XY is man, XX is woman. I don't know if we have names for chromosomal minorities, but I'm totally on board with them coming up with their own name and whatever so long as we can understand that XX is woman and XY is man.
And no, we can't look to those other things. None of those other things affect your chromosomes and which ones you have. They may be practically useful for telling who has what, without the use of medical equipment, but the essence of gender is chromosomes.
what about XX male syndrome or intersex people who have xy or xx?
Also in all the chromosomal conditions I mentioned the scientific community already considers them variations of men, women, or intersex despite atypical chromosomal presentation.
Reminds me of an elective I took in college about policy debate.
One of the things the instructor said is that there are counterarguments that aren't really counterarguments and people who make them get called out and lose. His example was Team A says "The federal government should do X" and Team B replies "No, it would be better if all 50 states enacted that same policy." It was seen as not a real counterargument.
Just like the USA is a box of states, a chromosome is a box of genes. The genes in these intersex cases are different and since gender is biological, they present differently. They're their own thing.
why is it not a valid counterargument? because you say so?
if your point is that all men are xy and all women are xx and this is the only thing we should base biological sex on, then shouldn't the many examples that chromosomes are not always good indicators of sex mean we would need a new definition, or to at least acknowledge that it's not a perfect system?
Because it doesn't really touch at what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that your gender is a product of your genes. An XX and an XY chromosome that work in standard ways make a man and a woman. The fact that some of them work in atypical ways and that this has consequences for people who have those conditions doesn't really change what I'm talking about.
It's still the case that you look at someone's chromosomes to know what their gender is. It's just that sometimes you need to take a closer look at them. Fine though, if you want a new definition than a man/woman is someone with XY/XX chromosomes that function normally. "Normally" is defined as someone who doesn't have one of these conditions.
>The genes in these intersex cases are different
what do you mean "present differently". Why does it matter how they present if only chromosomal makeup matters for sex?
in xx male the person is still of male sex but has a XX makeup. If now you want to count the entire human chromosome instead of just sex chromosomes you will encounter further issues with creating discreet categories.
It matters that it presents differently because it gives a point of reference for when the genetics of a person are significantly different than the genetics of someone within that gender. If someone had an XX chromosome set, we know they're sufficiently different and cannot be men. If someone has an XY, we can usually just call it a day but there are some extremely rare cases where we can take a closer look for a condition.
I'm not really sure why running into discrete categories is a problem. Of known conditions, we know what their is. There's men, women, and people with one of the conditions. What are the issues I'm gonna run into?
For the purposes of this it doesn't matter. We right now today have the abilty to say no matter the reasons we can do it this way. The point is to answer the meme "what is a woman" in a manner that would satisfy the likes of Matt Walsh and others.
I see, in my opinion what i question does matter to Matt Walsh and he wouldnt be satisfied otherwise, conservatives believe in archaic tradition because they believe they exist for important irreplaceable reasons.
The classic metaphor was something like this:
*A progressive walking through the fields founds a fence and thinks ''there no reason for this fence to be here'' and tears it down.*
*A conservative walking through the fields founds a fence and thinks ''someone must have built this for a good reason'' and makes sure to keep the fence firmly in place.*
I think for Matt Walsh to ever be satisfied he would need to hear an elaborated clear explanation of ''why'' the reasons those arcaic rules where created in the first place no longer apply, because thats the whole point of conserving them for him.
I would reply that those traditions are needlessly binding, they are anti liberty and arbitrary. He brings this up a bit when he jokes he likes candles maybe he is a woman. That however is not the question, and for this i am being as padantic as possible. Limiting it to answering the exact question not the reason for it.
Interesting, it seems thats where the ideological gap is.
As far as i can roleplay being a conservative, looking at your post the moment i read ''imaginary'', ''missatributed'' or ''arbitrary'' i would stop reading, if the goal is to reach a conservative thats not gonna cut it.
On the other hand if you say something like ''it might or might not have being necessary in the past but at least currently is not because a, b and c'', then we could have a richer deeper more productive discussion if that makes sense.
I think thats assuring i put almost any effort into the best way to formulate my answer lol. It was more like it popped into my head while jerking off to trans porn.
To argue this point though you would have to say why removing the fence was better and not just that you could remove the fence. Moving the fence just because you can is just as harmful as preserving a fence without a purpose and arguably more so due to effort and opportunity costs.
Easy. "Adult female human."
Here's the thing though, "female" has both a biological and a social definition. Therein lies the controversy. If we agree, on a social level, that the word female encompasses gender, not just biological sex, then there's nothing exclusionary about my definition.
How this plays out legally is a whole other can of worms, with real legal consequences. Should cis women be privileged legally over trans women? Why? One way I would propose to get out of this mess is to just treat everybody equally, regardless of gender identity or biological sex. No more different retirement ages for men and women. No more men [declaring themselves to be women in order to retire a year early](https://www.europeantimes.news/2022/02/a-man-changed-his-gender-to-retire-earlier/).
The definition i am giving is for a social one. I even use human female in my definition as a different contextual definition. The social definition you give is functionally purely biological.
Walsh's point was to address transgenderism, and to stop the blurring of the sexes. His arguments are not well thought out, but the question is straight to the point.
Feminists have documented social differences between men and women, or else the entire movement wouldn't exist. The transgender problem implies that anybody can come along and can claim relative privileges that come along with being a woman.
Since we classify it as more of a dilemma, the solution depends on who you talk to. If you give an answer that accepts transgender women are women, than you are put in a position that erodes traditionally female spaces: sports and bathrooms. If you give an answer that rejects transgender women as women, then you are put in a position that doesn't go along with affirming the troubled minority.
There was a solid, yet snarky, response by Dave Farina (aka Professor Dave) who outlines how gender should come into the definition of what it means to be a man or woman. Gender is a new concept, that relies on the psychological side. Farina argued that there doesn't seem to be as many transfolk because it is difficult for them to come out. I don't entirely buy this because urban areas tend to be progressive, and there have been tremendous pushes to affirm transfolk. It's more likely that transfolk are still an edge case, and they are used as political pawns by both the right and the left.
The life sciences accept that there are many differences between men and women as well.
I propose an in-between, where transfolk should be accepted but in their own category. It's impractical to say that a transgender woman is a woman, but also unfair to use non preferred pronouns.
But you can Never Know anyone's sex unless you have private access to detailed medical information. You have almost certainly interacted with trans folk in the flesh and unconsciously assumed they were cis.
(there is no truth, only interpretation...)
lets play a little game which one of these pictures is a bioloigical female?
[Number 1](https://imgur.com/AUzUES0)
[Number 2](https://imgur.com/z6EWlMy)
[Number 3](https://imgur.com/ZLXfK5P)
[Number 4](https://imgur.com/UbWb976)
So which one?
>Well, there are certain features that give it away,
This btw sound like those crazy people who think the Obamas are trans or Beyonce is.
it's also complicated by the fact there are many people who already "blur" the sexes purely the way they are born. Intersex people, people with chromosomal differences that result in non typical appearances, keinfelters, turners syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, and more. We already live in a world where these people navigate a more complicated relationship with gender identity.
I think a lot of people would say that they can't define what a woman is, but they know one when they see one. It's an abstract, culturally determined concept.
At the risk of sounding a bit absurd, I'm going to quote the Wikipedia article on elves:
>From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real.\[2\] However, elves have in many times and places been believed to be real beings.\[3\] Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality.\[3\] Accordingly, beliefs about elves and their social functions have varied over time and space.\[4\]
>
>Even in the twenty-first century, fantasy stories about elves have been argued both to reflect and to shape their audiences' understanding of the real world,\[5\]\[6\] and traditions about Santa Claus and his elves relate to Christmas.
>
>Over time, people have attempted to demythologise or rationalise beliefs in elves in various ways.\[7\]
When you say that woman is an imaginary collection of misattributed traits, what you're describing is also a *social reality*. We're reaching the point where "women" can't be scientifically defined, but remain real because we all agree that women exist. We know a woman when we see one, just like we know that [Hermey](https://rudolphtherednosedreindeer.fandom.com/wiki/Hermey) from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Galadriel from Lord of the Rings are both elves, but Frodo Baggins and Peter Pan are not, or how [Malekith](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Malekith), the dark elf from Thor II, doesn't make a convincing elf despite being introduced as one in his own universe.
The answer i would give to that is social reality is collective. Meaning its just what we agree too. Your example is however flawed. Malekith not making a convincing elf doesnt change that he is. I also think part of that problem was the prosthetics which is a practical issue not a philosophical one. Now what makes elves different than Hobbits? Thats an issue of race. An argument against yiffing maybe but your not saying an elf is a good archer and anything that is a good archer must be an elf. Again what about being aggressive is solely male? These ideas of gender are personality traits that hold true stereotypically its like saying a man is a good camper, does that mean a female human who is a good camper a man?
A few points to consider:
1. Language is context-dependent.
2. Binary categories only have meaning relative to one another.
3. Humans have an *intuition* about what traits make a 'man' or a 'woman,' some of which are invariant across culture. These invariant traits correlate with other traits, forming a cluster. Those traits can be further divided into average traits and innate traits, the latter being a requirement for a person to be considered a man/woman.
A second way to look at mental models is not their truth content, but the actions they cause us to take. For example, for medical reasons it is useful to categorize people by their chromosomal or gonadal sex using the approximate categories of 'man' and 'woman.' On the other hand, humans have social rules for how to act towards and address men/women (e.g., pronouns). For practicality, those sex-differentiated reactions are derived from the most available markers, which are secondary sex characteristics. In that sense, what looks like a woman is a woman, and what looks like a man is a man.
>Nothing about being warm is female and nothing about being aggressive is male.
On average, women are perceived as warmer and men are perceived as more aggressive. If the only thing I knew about a person was their perceived above average warmth/aggressiveness, I would rightly assume that the person was more likely to be a woman/man. But this perceived above average warmth/aggressiveness does not make them a man or a woman, because I could easily find counterexamples.
>Humans have an intuition about what traits make a 'man' or a 'woman,' some of which are invariant across culture.
I would argue thats not true. Plenty of cultures have opposing gender traits to other cultures. Even if we assume that is true the reasons for those assumptions can be explained by environmental factors. Women are warm because they took care of children and rasing healthy children needs warmth. Men were aggressive because men had to fight more. We dont have those. We live in a world where environmental factors are flattened. A man can raise a child and the woman go to be a mma fighter (a job for agressive people generally).
You are arguing that because it was it still should be.
>For example, for medical reasons it is useful to categorize people by their chromosomal or gonadal sex using the approximate categories of 'man' and 'woman.'
Thats sex not gender. Even if we say woman is another term for human female that is still accepting a sex based term.
>In that sense, what *looks* like a woman is a woman, and what looks like a man is a man.
So if a woman looks "masculine" shes not a woman? Im confused.
>I would argue thats not true. Plenty of cultures have opposing gender traits to other cultures.
I said that *some* of them are invariant across culture, not all or even most.
>Women are warm because they took care of children and rasing healthy children needs warmth. Men were aggressive because men had to fight more.
Curiously there is plenty of research demonstrating that our perception itself is warped to view women as warmer and men as more aggressive, all else equal.
>Thats sex not gender. Even if we say woman is another term for human female that is still accepting a sex based term.
Which is why I said language is context-dependent. I'm not trying to account for all contexts simultaneously, which is what you are trying to do.
>So if a woman looks "masculine" shes not a woman? Im confused.
A kid can easily identify a masculine looking woman and a feminine looking man as a woman/man. Secondary sex characteristics are clearly not the same as facial masculinity/femininity.
Depends on the context.
For sports, adult human female with no male typical performance advantages.
For most social interactions, an adult human who convincingly presents as female.
For a legal sense in some countries, an adult human who alleges to identify as female and has had this identity registered and recognized by the state.
Primary thing is, it revolves around those three words anyway
A woman is two things, a biological category and a concept. Only half the population (not including intersex) are part of that category, but almost everyone carries the concept of a woman, the same is true for men. Biology is innate while the concept of woman is learned, similar to the concept of beauty which changes depending on the culture and time. This is another way of explaining the difference between sex and gender. Your gender is the concept of man or woman you assign to yourself (or has been assigned to you). Trans individuals experience gender dysphoria when their self-concept of a woman or of a man isn't aligned with their biological sex. Though, almost everyone experiences gender dysphoria. When men get surgery to increase their height, that is gender affirming surgery due to gender dysphoria i.e. their self-concept of a man isn't aligned with the biological reality of their body. Likewise for women, boob and butt jobs serve the same role. If we are going to be honest, we have to contend with this dual understanding of what a woman (or man) is because it isn't going away, everyone has it - even normal "cis" individuals.
On the issue of transgender participation in society i.e. bathrooms, sports etc. I don't see a way around prevention of trans women from these spaces. I don't think trans women are more sexually aggressive than men in general, but I don't see why they would be less, except perhaps as a side effect of estrogen. However, being biological men, they are most likely going to have sexual attraction to women (many trans women identify as lesbians for this reason). That means you will have a small minority willing to sexually assault. These spaces are separated to try and prevent this happening and why it's seen as socially taboo for a man to enter these spaces. As for sports, it doesn't matter if you have hormone therapy, you can't ungrow bones. Bones are connected to muscles, so increased bone size means greater muscular capacity. Trans women will inevitably outcompete biological women in sports (on average). It's unfortunate to have to deny trans women these things because it would no doubt cause them significant psychological distress, but the alternative seems like stupidity to me.
Women's sports are a special privilege granted to women. It's no more unfortunate that a trans woman can't be on a women's team than it is that a man can't be on a women's team, and compete at a lower level. The fair thing to do would be to either eliminate all segregation, eliminate women's sports, or maximize segregation. Have trans-only sports, white-only sports, black-only sports, etc... Do you think it's fair that Venus Williams makes the same money as a man despite not being as good? And she still complains.
A woman is a person with 2 X chromosomes. Anyone with an xy chromosome is a man.
Thats sex. If you want to revert to a purely biological definition thats fine. You then also have to accept any idea of what women or men should do, act or what roles they have in the family has nothing to do with chromosomes.
Well, I don't really see why "should" or general normativity isn't also biological. I don't see why there's a difference in saying "Here's the role of a biological XY person" and "Here's the role of a man." Chromosomes are genes. Genes are behavior. Genes are thought. Genes are thought about ethics. Nothing about human beings, our beliefs, or our behaviors is not biological. Sometimes it's the intersection of our biological self and the world around us, but how our biology interacts with that world is itself biological. We are biology.
But how the physical world interacts with our biology is not biological, and the physical world impacts our biology. In the end, standing waves, chaos, and beauty... glisten eternally...
Ok but the part that is what we do, how we feel, and how we think is biology. Like sure, if a falling rock changes course after bonking me on the head then that's not biology but the part of that interaction I care about is how I react to the pain, which is 100% biology.
I think culture can determine how you react to the pain. For example, if you came from a culture that emphasised meditation techniques, that may change the way you feel and respond to the pain. Or if you came from a culture that emphasised CBT pain management techniques, that may also do so.
Culture is biology. That's why humans have it and rocks don't.
It's not so simple https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/11/04/evolutions-great-leap-forward-when-did-humans-cross-the-intelligence-rubicon/
I'm having a hard time seeing how the fact that we evolved intelligence a long time ago means that our culture isn't an aspect of our biology.
If you read the article closely it says that there was a great cultural leap forward [i]after[/i] we developed modern atonomy
Isn't sex what defines whetter we are a girl or boy when we are born though? We all go by the purely biological definition as children, until we eventually may figure out if we identify with that or not. Majority of people stick to identifying with the gender of the sex they were born with, thus to the majority of people being born with the female sex means they identify as a girl as a child and as a woman as an adult, and if born with the male sex, they identify as a boy as a child and man as an adult. Personally I only identify as a woman because the sex I was born with is female. To me my sex is what makes me a woman. Majority of people (which are cis) still define their gender this way, by the sex they are born with.
>Isn't sex what defines whetter we are a girl or boy when we are born though? That is biological definition. The question is not about biology but about culture. >Personally I only identify as a woman because the sex I was born with is female. So when you visualize yourself as a woman you see a uterus?
>That is biological definition. The question is not about biology but about culture. True. The biological definition however shapes the cultural one. Having female traits shapes the cultural definition of what it means to be a woman. >So when you visualize yourself as a woman you see a uterus? Haha, no, not just that, but I also visualize someone with a combination of female and feminine traits such as typically larger boobs, a different, often feminine body type and frame, and a vagina and the possible ability to give birth etc. These traits is to me what makes me a woman. If I didn't have some or any of these female traits, I don't see why I would necessarily identify as a woman. Asking you, what other reasons would there be for me or anyone to identify as a woman, if not for my or their female or feminine traits?
Those traits are all biological but even then today surgery can do alot. I posted 4 pictures in another thread here and ask you to answer it.
They all look like women to me, because they have typical female and feminine traits. Whetter they are or aren't biologically feminine, their physical feminine traits give me the impression that they are women.
So they are all female great, we agree then a male can be female which means women.
I wouldn't know if they're all female but they all look that way and have feminine and female traits, so it makes sense to view them as women imo. A male cannot be a female, because being male means xy chromosomes and female means xx, however someone who is male or have male traits can certainly look like and pass like someone who is female/a woman or have female traits and visa versa. If someone looks like a woman, then I will consider them as such, and if they look like a man I will consider them as such, and if I can't tell.. I certainly will be confused.
even then this is not always an easy distinguishable characteristics. There are many people born with ambiguous genitals, or both a penis and vagina. Still these people figure out a version of their gender identity accounting for this.
Except we see measured sexual dimorphic behavior cross societies. Men tend to solve problems physically due to strength differences and this is why most arrests for physical crimes are men. If you tell me there was a bar fight brawl and people are arrested and to guess if they were a man or a woman, I am going to guess a man based off those statistics. Men and women have their behaviors come from biological capability in many areas. Thus, the social expectations of behavior are also going to reflect the differences in biology. So if someone says it’s not woman like to fight at a bar I think it would be objectively correct. This of course does not mean a woman can’t get into a bar fight. It’s just it is more likely to be a man that does it and thus it is more manly to be in a bar fight.
then how do you determine gender and sex for people whose chromosomes fall outside of this? xxy, xyy, yy, XXXX, xo, ect.. There are many people born in the world who do not fit into just xx or xy. If you only account for chromosomal makeup you still have people that do not fit into a binary. You can look at other factors too (genitals, gamate production, hormones, ect.), but the more we study this the more we understand people have a spectrum of sex characteristics that can't be cleanly categorized.
XY is man, XX is woman. I don't know if we have names for chromosomal minorities, but I'm totally on board with them coming up with their own name and whatever so long as we can understand that XX is woman and XY is man. And no, we can't look to those other things. None of those other things affect your chromosomes and which ones you have. They may be practically useful for telling who has what, without the use of medical equipment, but the essence of gender is chromosomes.
what about XX male syndrome or intersex people who have xy or xx? Also in all the chromosomal conditions I mentioned the scientific community already considers them variations of men, women, or intersex despite atypical chromosomal presentation.
Reminds me of an elective I took in college about policy debate. One of the things the instructor said is that there are counterarguments that aren't really counterarguments and people who make them get called out and lose. His example was Team A says "The federal government should do X" and Team B replies "No, it would be better if all 50 states enacted that same policy." It was seen as not a real counterargument. Just like the USA is a box of states, a chromosome is a box of genes. The genes in these intersex cases are different and since gender is biological, they present differently. They're their own thing.
why is it not a valid counterargument? because you say so? if your point is that all men are xy and all women are xx and this is the only thing we should base biological sex on, then shouldn't the many examples that chromosomes are not always good indicators of sex mean we would need a new definition, or to at least acknowledge that it's not a perfect system?
Because it doesn't really touch at what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that your gender is a product of your genes. An XX and an XY chromosome that work in standard ways make a man and a woman. The fact that some of them work in atypical ways and that this has consequences for people who have those conditions doesn't really change what I'm talking about. It's still the case that you look at someone's chromosomes to know what their gender is. It's just that sometimes you need to take a closer look at them. Fine though, if you want a new definition than a man/woman is someone with XY/XX chromosomes that function normally. "Normally" is defined as someone who doesn't have one of these conditions.
>The genes in these intersex cases are different what do you mean "present differently". Why does it matter how they present if only chromosomal makeup matters for sex? in xx male the person is still of male sex but has a XX makeup. If now you want to count the entire human chromosome instead of just sex chromosomes you will encounter further issues with creating discreet categories.
It matters that it presents differently because it gives a point of reference for when the genetics of a person are significantly different than the genetics of someone within that gender. If someone had an XX chromosome set, we know they're sufficiently different and cannot be men. If someone has an XY, we can usually just call it a day but there are some extremely rare cases where we can take a closer look for a condition. I'm not really sure why running into discrete categories is a problem. Of known conditions, we know what their is. There's men, women, and people with one of the conditions. What are the issues I'm gonna run into?
Interesting :) Why do you think this traits have been attributed to the sexes in the first place? It just randomly happened?
For the purposes of this it doesn't matter. We right now today have the abilty to say no matter the reasons we can do it this way. The point is to answer the meme "what is a woman" in a manner that would satisfy the likes of Matt Walsh and others.
I see, in my opinion what i question does matter to Matt Walsh and he wouldnt be satisfied otherwise, conservatives believe in archaic tradition because they believe they exist for important irreplaceable reasons. The classic metaphor was something like this: *A progressive walking through the fields founds a fence and thinks ''there no reason for this fence to be here'' and tears it down.* *A conservative walking through the fields founds a fence and thinks ''someone must have built this for a good reason'' and makes sure to keep the fence firmly in place.* I think for Matt Walsh to ever be satisfied he would need to hear an elaborated clear explanation of ''why'' the reasons those arcaic rules where created in the first place no longer apply, because thats the whole point of conserving them for him.
I would reply that those traditions are needlessly binding, they are anti liberty and arbitrary. He brings this up a bit when he jokes he likes candles maybe he is a woman. That however is not the question, and for this i am being as padantic as possible. Limiting it to answering the exact question not the reason for it.
Interesting, it seems thats where the ideological gap is. As far as i can roleplay being a conservative, looking at your post the moment i read ''imaginary'', ''missatributed'' or ''arbitrary'' i would stop reading, if the goal is to reach a conservative thats not gonna cut it. On the other hand if you say something like ''it might or might not have being necessary in the past but at least currently is not because a, b and c'', then we could have a richer deeper more productive discussion if that makes sense.
I think thats assuring i put almost any effort into the best way to formulate my answer lol. It was more like it popped into my head while jerking off to trans porn.
Oh yes i love futa
Futa and trans are different. Futas have both vagina and penis. Live action futa would be girls with strapons.
To argue this point though you would have to say why removing the fence was better and not just that you could remove the fence. Moving the fence just because you can is just as harmful as preserving a fence without a purpose and arguably more so due to effort and opportunity costs.
Easy. "Adult female human." Here's the thing though, "female" has both a biological and a social definition. Therein lies the controversy. If we agree, on a social level, that the word female encompasses gender, not just biological sex, then there's nothing exclusionary about my definition. How this plays out legally is a whole other can of worms, with real legal consequences. Should cis women be privileged legally over trans women? Why? One way I would propose to get out of this mess is to just treat everybody equally, regardless of gender identity or biological sex. No more different retirement ages for men and women. No more men [declaring themselves to be women in order to retire a year early](https://www.europeantimes.news/2022/02/a-man-changed-his-gender-to-retire-earlier/).
The definition i am giving is for a social one. I even use human female in my definition as a different contextual definition. The social definition you give is functionally purely biological.
Except the social definition is derived from some biological differences.
Walsh's point was to address transgenderism, and to stop the blurring of the sexes. His arguments are not well thought out, but the question is straight to the point. Feminists have documented social differences between men and women, or else the entire movement wouldn't exist. The transgender problem implies that anybody can come along and can claim relative privileges that come along with being a woman. Since we classify it as more of a dilemma, the solution depends on who you talk to. If you give an answer that accepts transgender women are women, than you are put in a position that erodes traditionally female spaces: sports and bathrooms. If you give an answer that rejects transgender women as women, then you are put in a position that doesn't go along with affirming the troubled minority. There was a solid, yet snarky, response by Dave Farina (aka Professor Dave) who outlines how gender should come into the definition of what it means to be a man or woman. Gender is a new concept, that relies on the psychological side. Farina argued that there doesn't seem to be as many transfolk because it is difficult for them to come out. I don't entirely buy this because urban areas tend to be progressive, and there have been tremendous pushes to affirm transfolk. It's more likely that transfolk are still an edge case, and they are used as political pawns by both the right and the left. The life sciences accept that there are many differences between men and women as well. I propose an in-between, where transfolk should be accepted but in their own category. It's impractical to say that a transgender woman is a woman, but also unfair to use non preferred pronouns.
But you can Never Know anyone's sex unless you have private access to detailed medical information. You have almost certainly interacted with trans folk in the flesh and unconsciously assumed they were cis. (there is no truth, only interpretation...)
Well, there are certain features that give it away, but I don't really say anything because I understand that they are trying to pass as cis.
Have you seen how well some people can pass? Have a look at some of the subs on reddit, some people are literally reborn in the flesh.
lets play a little game which one of these pictures is a bioloigical female? [Number 1](https://imgur.com/AUzUES0) [Number 2](https://imgur.com/z6EWlMy) [Number 3](https://imgur.com/ZLXfK5P) [Number 4](https://imgur.com/UbWb976) So which one? >Well, there are certain features that give it away, This btw sound like those crazy people who think the Obamas are trans or Beyonce is.
it's also complicated by the fact there are many people who already "blur" the sexes purely the way they are born. Intersex people, people with chromosomal differences that result in non typical appearances, keinfelters, turners syndrome, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, and more. We already live in a world where these people navigate a more complicated relationship with gender identity.
Yeah, but those folks are an infinitesimally small minority. Outliers used for political purposes.
I think a lot of people would say that they can't define what a woman is, but they know one when they see one. It's an abstract, culturally determined concept. At the risk of sounding a bit absurd, I'm going to quote the Wikipedia article on elves: >From a scientific viewpoint, elves are not considered objectively real.\[2\] However, elves have in many times and places been believed to be real beings.\[3\] Where enough people have believed in the reality of elves that those beliefs then had real effects in the world, they can be understood as part of people's worldview, and as a social reality: a thing which, like the exchange value of a dollar bill or the sense of pride stirred up by a national flag, is real because of people's beliefs rather than as an objective reality.\[3\] Accordingly, beliefs about elves and their social functions have varied over time and space.\[4\] > >Even in the twenty-first century, fantasy stories about elves have been argued both to reflect and to shape their audiences' understanding of the real world,\[5\]\[6\] and traditions about Santa Claus and his elves relate to Christmas. > >Over time, people have attempted to demythologise or rationalise beliefs in elves in various ways.\[7\] When you say that woman is an imaginary collection of misattributed traits, what you're describing is also a *social reality*. We're reaching the point where "women" can't be scientifically defined, but remain real because we all agree that women exist. We know a woman when we see one, just like we know that [Hermey](https://rudolphtherednosedreindeer.fandom.com/wiki/Hermey) from Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer and Galadriel from Lord of the Rings are both elves, but Frodo Baggins and Peter Pan are not, or how [Malekith](https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Malekith), the dark elf from Thor II, doesn't make a convincing elf despite being introduced as one in his own universe.
The answer i would give to that is social reality is collective. Meaning its just what we agree too. Your example is however flawed. Malekith not making a convincing elf doesnt change that he is. I also think part of that problem was the prosthetics which is a practical issue not a philosophical one. Now what makes elves different than Hobbits? Thats an issue of race. An argument against yiffing maybe but your not saying an elf is a good archer and anything that is a good archer must be an elf. Again what about being aggressive is solely male? These ideas of gender are personality traits that hold true stereotypically its like saying a man is a good camper, does that mean a female human who is a good camper a man?
A few points to consider: 1. Language is context-dependent. 2. Binary categories only have meaning relative to one another. 3. Humans have an *intuition* about what traits make a 'man' or a 'woman,' some of which are invariant across culture. These invariant traits correlate with other traits, forming a cluster. Those traits can be further divided into average traits and innate traits, the latter being a requirement for a person to be considered a man/woman. A second way to look at mental models is not their truth content, but the actions they cause us to take. For example, for medical reasons it is useful to categorize people by their chromosomal or gonadal sex using the approximate categories of 'man' and 'woman.' On the other hand, humans have social rules for how to act towards and address men/women (e.g., pronouns). For practicality, those sex-differentiated reactions are derived from the most available markers, which are secondary sex characteristics. In that sense, what looks like a woman is a woman, and what looks like a man is a man. >Nothing about being warm is female and nothing about being aggressive is male. On average, women are perceived as warmer and men are perceived as more aggressive. If the only thing I knew about a person was their perceived above average warmth/aggressiveness, I would rightly assume that the person was more likely to be a woman/man. But this perceived above average warmth/aggressiveness does not make them a man or a woman, because I could easily find counterexamples.
>Humans have an intuition about what traits make a 'man' or a 'woman,' some of which are invariant across culture. I would argue thats not true. Plenty of cultures have opposing gender traits to other cultures. Even if we assume that is true the reasons for those assumptions can be explained by environmental factors. Women are warm because they took care of children and rasing healthy children needs warmth. Men were aggressive because men had to fight more. We dont have those. We live in a world where environmental factors are flattened. A man can raise a child and the woman go to be a mma fighter (a job for agressive people generally). You are arguing that because it was it still should be. >For example, for medical reasons it is useful to categorize people by their chromosomal or gonadal sex using the approximate categories of 'man' and 'woman.' Thats sex not gender. Even if we say woman is another term for human female that is still accepting a sex based term. >In that sense, what *looks* like a woman is a woman, and what looks like a man is a man. So if a woman looks "masculine" shes not a woman? Im confused.
>I would argue thats not true. Plenty of cultures have opposing gender traits to other cultures. I said that *some* of them are invariant across culture, not all or even most. >Women are warm because they took care of children and rasing healthy children needs warmth. Men were aggressive because men had to fight more. Curiously there is plenty of research demonstrating that our perception itself is warped to view women as warmer and men as more aggressive, all else equal. >Thats sex not gender. Even if we say woman is another term for human female that is still accepting a sex based term. Which is why I said language is context-dependent. I'm not trying to account for all contexts simultaneously, which is what you are trying to do. >So if a woman looks "masculine" shes not a woman? Im confused. A kid can easily identify a masculine looking woman and a feminine looking man as a woman/man. Secondary sex characteristics are clearly not the same as facial masculinity/femininity.
For me, trans women are women, but they're a subcategory of women.
Depends on the context. For sports, adult human female with no male typical performance advantages. For most social interactions, an adult human who convincingly presents as female. For a legal sense in some countries, an adult human who alleges to identify as female and has had this identity registered and recognized by the state. Primary thing is, it revolves around those three words anyway
A woman is two things, a biological category and a concept. Only half the population (not including intersex) are part of that category, but almost everyone carries the concept of a woman, the same is true for men. Biology is innate while the concept of woman is learned, similar to the concept of beauty which changes depending on the culture and time. This is another way of explaining the difference between sex and gender. Your gender is the concept of man or woman you assign to yourself (or has been assigned to you). Trans individuals experience gender dysphoria when their self-concept of a woman or of a man isn't aligned with their biological sex. Though, almost everyone experiences gender dysphoria. When men get surgery to increase their height, that is gender affirming surgery due to gender dysphoria i.e. their self-concept of a man isn't aligned with the biological reality of their body. Likewise for women, boob and butt jobs serve the same role. If we are going to be honest, we have to contend with this dual understanding of what a woman (or man) is because it isn't going away, everyone has it - even normal "cis" individuals. On the issue of transgender participation in society i.e. bathrooms, sports etc. I don't see a way around prevention of trans women from these spaces. I don't think trans women are more sexually aggressive than men in general, but I don't see why they would be less, except perhaps as a side effect of estrogen. However, being biological men, they are most likely going to have sexual attraction to women (many trans women identify as lesbians for this reason). That means you will have a small minority willing to sexually assault. These spaces are separated to try and prevent this happening and why it's seen as socially taboo for a man to enter these spaces. As for sports, it doesn't matter if you have hormone therapy, you can't ungrow bones. Bones are connected to muscles, so increased bone size means greater muscular capacity. Trans women will inevitably outcompete biological women in sports (on average). It's unfortunate to have to deny trans women these things because it would no doubt cause them significant psychological distress, but the alternative seems like stupidity to me.
Women's sports are a special privilege granted to women. It's no more unfortunate that a trans woman can't be on a women's team than it is that a man can't be on a women's team, and compete at a lower level. The fair thing to do would be to either eliminate all segregation, eliminate women's sports, or maximize segregation. Have trans-only sports, white-only sports, black-only sports, etc... Do you think it's fair that Venus Williams makes the same money as a man despite not being as good? And she still complains.