The witchhunt continues...

[Guitar's Cry]

XX is XX. Any attempt to make XX an XY, or visa versa, is a lie.

I don't need to answer questions beyond answering this one first. All other positions are mute until you can prove me wrong. The other questions are more of a distraction.

This is a simplistic look at sex; XX and Xy are genotypes. How the person develops is the phenotype. In something like androgen sensitivity syndrome, Xy develops features not necessarily seen in males, including full female external habitus.

Spoiler: Contains nudity

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Check out the pictures in the link above. Are those individuals male?

 

[crossfire]

Don't be silly, there are plenty of definitions of woman and of man.

Then please define the terms for me.

These are relational terms whose meaning is dependent upon context rather than absolute static terms. For instance, the word man can refer to humanity in general, a general term for an individual, as a reference to specific individual, as a familiar greeting, to reference a specific role, or to specifically reference a male.

 

[Kenny]

Straw man. Nobody at all is arguing otherwise. For starters, it would be impossible to remove all of those Y-chromosomes from somebody born with them. You also seem to be fond of calling people whose language you don't like liars but can't actually identify a lie.

Out of context and a straw man effort

 

[Kenny]

This is a simplistic look at sex; XX and Xy are genotypes. How the person develops is the phenotype. In something like androgen sensitivity syndrome, Xy develops features not necessarily seen in males, including full female external habitus.

Spoiler: Contains nudity

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Check out the pictures in the link above. Are those individuals male?

Phenotypes includes genetics... which we can't change... we can express ourselves however we want to express ourselves... our environment can affect it our we can choose not to let it affect us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No rule can change the heart. We can make the law "Thou shalt no commit murder" - and there will still be murder. However, does that mean I should passively keep quiet when murder has been committed? I am not equating murder with any single object that we are talking about but rather just the principle. A life without guidelines, imv, is the basis of anarchism.

Sometimes guidelines can be wrong and need to be changed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Out of context and a straw man effort

What makes you think that? It does not appear to be a strawman. He just left off your demand at the end where you attempted to shift the burden of proof at best.

 

[Patrick66]

I agree. LGBTQ+ people are being oppressed and marginalized.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Phenotypes includes genetics... which we can't change... we can express ourselves however we want to express ourselves... our environment can affect it our we can choose not to let it affect us.

So you ignored the link. You also seem to have the mistaken idea that definitions are set in stone. The definitions of terms quite often change as we learn more and more. That is why Pluto is no longer a "planet" instead it is a "dwarf planet". The article was there to show you some of the reasons that the definition of woman and man have changed. You may not like the change in definition. You may even refuse to use them. But that would be your choice. If you did so in public there could be consequences and you would be without excuse. There are reasonable reasons for the change. They almost certainly will not affect you personally so why the opposition to them?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wonderful but those are not definitions, they say nothing about what a man or woman are. If you identify as a man or a woman what are the characteristics you are identifying with? That is the real definition.

You know what, let's just do it your way. We'll label all trans people as inveterate liars and throw them in the can for dishonesty. Then you can be happy again.

 

[Patrick66]

We'll label all trans people as inveterate liars

Is this a woman?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this a woman?

View attachment 79646

Not enough information.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's hard to imagine anything more fundamental than knowing what a man is and what a woman is

What a man and woman is has no fundamental universal definition. (Neither does sex but man and woman are genders and not sexes) There are no common attributes to all women other than identity.

And yet, you seem willing to upend that most basic bit of society?

It is not a 'basic' part of society.

Whether or not you see this as risky doesn't change how risky it i

About as convincing as 'whether or not you see letting black/hispanic/jews/gay people in as risky doesn't change how risky it is.'

I am not transphobic

"I am not transphobic" and "Trans women aren't women" don't go together.

radical thinking

Radical to a right wing pundit maybe.

Just because you're trans, that does not somehow magically make you and expert in social justice, or childhood development, or the long term effects of puberty blockers, or legal protections, and on and on.

I'm not trans, but I am someone who has read the experts, who *overwhemingly" recognize gender identity, gender affirming care and puberty blockers (which have been studied for decades as they've been used extensively with far more cis children than trans.)
That's why you've not been talking about experts but nebulous 'women's fears.'

I have spoken to many women who pay attention to how the trans world is impacting society, and they are quite worried. They see that many of these initiatives are actually quite misogynistic. The fact that you don't think so doesn't really matter to me

It does really matter to you that I think you're listening to the Karen modern equivalents to segregationists.

How does it harm a trans woman to be categorized as a trans woman?

Trans women and cis women are both subsets of women and women also. Cis women are women. Trans women are women. I refer to cis and Trans adjectives only when relevent to the discussion. Otherwise I refer to either or both as women. And I don't care if cis women get their fee fees hurt over 'cis' either.

Didn't you learn in your philosophy class that you have to separate the message from the messenger?

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. I'm not interested in oversimplifications to remove uncomfortable historical contexts. Such as how these exact same arguments have been used during many other civil rights battles to keep a barrier and distance from minorities.

We must look at the argument on their own merits.

Yes, and its own merit includes where it's coming from and historical and cultural contexts in which it's used. Otherwise it's just reductivism.

 

[We Never Know]

Is this a woman?

View attachment 79646

Is this a woman?

"No hormone treatment, no nothing but choosing to live as a woman.

"This is Alex Drummond. She's a 51-year-old psychotherapist and photographer from Cardiff.

Six years ago, Drummond started living as a woman and kept her awesome bushy beard. She also decided not to opt for hormones or surgery."

This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier

"I'm widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman." Alex Drummond talks to BuzzFeed News about why she kept her beard after transitioning – and how others react.

www.buzzfeed.com

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Is this a woman?

View attachment 79650



"No hormone treatment, no nothing but choosing to live as a woman.

"This is Alex Drummond. She's a 51-year-old psychotherapist and photographer from Cardiff.

Six years ago, Drummond started living as a woman and kept her awesome bushy beard. She also decided not to opt for hormones or surgery."

This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier

"I'm widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman." Alex Drummond talks to BuzzFeed News about why she kept her beard after transitioning – and how others react.

www.buzzfeed.com

Yes, is this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I noticed that a little earlier in this thread you accused someone of shifting the goal posts.

This is a long thread with a lot of interleaved conversations going on. So I might be wrong, but it seems to me you just shifted the goalposts?

Can you refer me back to the post that started this particular exchange, because I want to give your response some consideration, and I spent a few minutes and I could not find it. thanks!

The thing to consider is filling your obvious gaps im knowledge. Such as, the first knowm medical transition happened over 90 years ago. We also have evidence among the oldest burial grounds we have found skeletons of one sex but where buried like the skeletons of the opposite sex. India has the Hijra, the Native Americans have two-spirits, a pre-Constitution mayor of New York had a portrait of himself where he's wearing drag, there were at least a few people who fought in Civil War who were born women but known to the world as men, even a Medieval account of someone born a male but living as a nun in a monastery.
They only thing that's new is shift in society leaning towards acceptance. Before today's times things like Jerry Springer, drag queens, and fetishes are what defined us to the public. But that's not so much the case anymore. What's new, is today's environment compared to '99, when Warner Brothers forced the character Switch in the Matrix into a cis-woman. Today she'd get to be portrayed as the trans-woman she was originally supposed to be. That's what's new.

 

[icehorse]

This is not a new concept. It is new to the news. And yes "activists" often do that. This is not the first time that the people affected by terminology have actively done so to protect their rights and it probably will not be the last. What is wrong with that?

We can find ways to protect their rights without damaging the rights of others.

Again, good intentions, but sometimes bad strategies.

 

[icehorse]

The thing to consider is filling your obvious gaps im knowledge. Such as, the first knowm medical transition happened over 90 years ago. We also have evidence among the oldest burial grounds we have found skeletons of one sex but where buried like the skeletons of the opposite sex. India has the Hijra, the Native Americans have two-spirits, a pre-Constitution mayor of New York had a portrait of himself where he's wearing drag, there were at least a few people who fought in Civil War who were born women but known to the world as men, even a Medieval account of someone born a male but living as a nun in a monastery.
They only thing that's new is shift in society leaning towards acceptance. Before today's times things like Jerry Springer, drag queens, and fetishes are what defined us to the public. But that's not so much the case anymore. What's new, is today's environment compared to '99, when Warner Brothers forced the character Switch in the Matrix into a cis-woman. Today she'd get to be portrayed as the trans-woman she was originally supposed to be. That's what's new.

none of which is germane to what we're actually debating. true stuff, but tangential.

 

[icehorse]

It's not common knowledge to me. Hence my questions. I've not heard anyone, nor read anything indicating that what you've said is true. You say something is a problem, I'm trying to figure out if it is. You don't want to show me that it is? Okay, we're done talking about it then, I guess.
I don't want to "blindly accept if I've heard it before, it must be true."

Also, we're in a debate forum where people are expected to back up their claims. This isn't a classroom. We're not having a coffee together at a restaurant. We're in a forum called "Political Debates."

Except when you haven't heard of something you might just try 2 minutes with your search engine?

Posters are often bringing new concerns or events to the forum. Do you think all the burden of discovery should be placed on them? Can we find a compromise? Something as simple as: "I did an internet search and didn't find anything to support your claim.."

 

[icehorse]

I don't think anybody minds if you never use the word woman to refer to a M-to-F transexual. It's enough to understand that others do so that you understand what they mean when they use the word that way.

There are numerous societal, legal, ethical, and safety issues when it becomes common to say a trans woman is a woman.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, that is the most recent definition of a woman in popular usage. The interesting thing for me here is why anybody objects to this. What is it they are resisting and why? It's more than how a word is used. Likewise with this use of the word lie here. What motivates that? These are visceral reactions that suggest that the objector feels threatened or is offended. Is there any other reasonable explanation for why people behave like this? They don't seem to be language purists.

Another word that makes many bristle is transphobia, which leads to analogous semantic quibbling and etymological fallacies about what the suffix -phobia is allowed to mean. But that's what this is - an aversion to transexuals that goes beyond not dating one to a refusal to be kind or polite.

I don't think anybody minds if you never use the word woman to refer to a M-to-F transexual. It's enough to understand that others do so that you understand what they mean when they use the word that way.

Straw man. Nobody at all is arguing otherwise. For starters, it would be impossible to remove all of those Y-chromosomes from somebody born with them. You also seem to be fond of calling people whose language you don't like liars but can't actually identify a lie.

Her female psyche.

He's given you the non-biological definition more than once. "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman, a man is a person who identifies as a man."

Once, there were only guitars. They generated music through resonance. Then, guitars that made sound by sending an electronic signal from a pickup to an amplifier speaker. They were called guitars, too, but now it was necessary to add the word acoustic or electric to be clear. Likewise with the word woman. "Trans" and "biological "do that for us here. "You see those two women over there? One's a biological woman, the other a transexual woman." What does the word woman mean in that comment? Go ahead and define what that word used that way means to the speaker. Not what you mean when the use the word. I presume that you would say something more like, "See what looks like two women there? Only one is a woman" That's a different meaning of the word. It's the biological definition.

Fine with me. Why shouldn't it be OK? Are you referring to mental health issues, as in would I think you're OK? Nice avatar, by the way. Is there a story

No. Do you realize that that is a different question? Now, you're claiming to be a cat, not just feeling like one.

How's that not a definition? Did you mean not yet in widespread usage? Did you mean that that definition is tautological? If so, I disagree.

Did you mean first definition? There is no real definition if by that you mean that there is only one way the word may be used.

*****WINNER*******

An absolutely excellent post. Especially the paragraph I bolded.