QT: If women can be male, wtf is a woman then? What term, if any, should we use to describe the female sex?

submitted by SnowAssMan from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (79 children)

A (non-trans) woman, trans woman, or intersex person who identifies as a woman.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

If I were to ask you what a marsupial was, would you just list a bunch of marsupials & pretend you answered the question, or would you just answer the question?

If men can be male or female & women can be male or female, then there is no reason to even use either label. It also means there is no reason to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men. Ironically advocating that trans-womxyn are women just ends up making them men again, because the sexes still exist.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

If I were to ask you what a marsupial was, would you just list a bunch of marsupials & pretend you answered the question, or would you just answer the question?

No, but not all definitions need to be set based.

If men can be male or female & women can be male or female, then there is no reason to even use either label. It also means there is no reason to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men. Ironically advocating that trans-womxyn are women just ends up making them men again, because the sexes still exist.

Literally none of that logically follows.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

but not all definitions need to be set based

What definition? Where?

'Woman' is meaningless if it has no definition, meaning that any sentiment that includes the word is also meaningless. If the argument is: 'trans-womxyn are not men, but women', but neither 'man' nor 'woman' has a definition, then it's as if nothing was said at all & we are just left with the sexes again; we're left with distinguishing between the sexes & grouping people based on sex.

Saying "trans-womxyn are women" is just as accurate/inaccurate as saying that they are men. What's the difference between men & women? Why on earth should anyone distinguish between them?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (43 children)

A set based definition is still a definition. You are welcome to disagree but neither of us is going to move.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

What is a “set based” definition? I googled it and nothing came up.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (41 children)

Defining something by a group. For instance: A mammal is a warm blooded vertebrates that have hair, produce milk to nourish young, and have live births; or a monotreme.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

lol no, that's just a definition of mammal, a "set based" definition would be to just list some mammals: bear, cow, whale. Do set based definitions only replace definitions whenever convenient?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

It literally included two discreet sets the traditionally conceived mammals and monotremes.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

So your "set based definition" of woman should have read: a woman is an adult human female; or an adult human male. So we are back to square one. If women can be male, wtf is a woman?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

So a set definition is defining a something that makes sense to put together as group. Yet you separated females from intersex and trans people, in the set definition you created? Like- humans are mammals, but a mammal isn’t a set on its own, when we say a being is a mammal, we still have to know what that being is, aside from being a mammal, right?

So a mammal would be the set- but it includes humans, dogs, cats, horses, etc. But they all function the same way reproductively, and are still separated by species, and within the species, by sex. So why would humans be the only mammals in the set of mammals were a male would be grouped with females? TW and women are already linked by being the same species.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It just seems like, the “set” would be

Mammals

then

Human

Then human gets split into male and female. (And males and females get split into adolescents and adults)

I still don’t get why we’d mix the males and females into one word when they are already a part of the “set” of humans and only got split into male and female based on sex.

So what I’m trying to understand is, why do we create a set within a set (TW and “natal” women) , within a set (male and female humans- humans being the set) within a set (mammals)?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

But not all mammals function the same way reproductively. Monotremes don’t. That’s why the definition separated them.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

But transwomen aren’t monotremes...

TW were born capable of functioning like most mammals.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

That’s not an answer to the question you were asked. If you say a woman is a ___ woman, nobody knows what a woman is to begin with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

You’ve made clear that you don’t approve of my use of set based definitions. The horse is dead.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

It’s not about approving or disapproving- it’s just an unavoidable truth that you can’t define a word with itself. I don’t know why you take it to what I personally approve of, it’s just fact that your “definition” doesn’t define anything. It’s unclear. It’s not an opinion. You’re literally saying “woman: one of various types of a woman”. That tells us nothing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It is a set based definition. If you separately define (natal) woman, trans woman, and intersex person, it isn’t self referential. You are stuck on the idea that woman = natal woman and not properly looking at the definition. But we are never going to agree on semantics.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

So then we still need a clear separate definition of “natal” women, and it would have to be something that a male can fit into, right?

You can’t say a woman is an adult female human, and then say that a TW is a woman who (we’d need your definition to go here so I can’t even offer anything)- because the word female is not defined by identity or appearance. It’s defined by reproductive class and typical function.

So what’s a natal woman, and how do we then take that definition and tie it together to make a category that includes both natal and trans women, while excluding trans men?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

A “natal” woman is an adult human female that is not transgender.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

So a trans woman is what?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

An adult human male who is transgender or an intersex person who identifies as a trans woman.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

You did it again. You defined trans women as identifying as a trans woman. It doesn’t explain anything.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

so you're using the term to define the term and you're using cirular logic, and your'e doing it all to avoid the well established definition for woman: Adult human female. The term as defined there works fine.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

No it’s not using the term to define the term because the term refers to the male or intersex person, is identity component itself also wouldn’t be self referential even if it was the object because x is anything who thinks itself c wouldn’t be circular because the focus of definition on the thing and presence of belief not what x is within that belief.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

you are actually using the term in the definition, so yeah you are using the term to define itself. It's a shame you pretend that isn't obvious. You literally use the term "woman" in your fake definition of woman that that erases women. "Woman" is not an identity, it is one of the two sexes of humans. What is an identity? Can you answer that?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That definition isn’t self referential. Women isn’t the same as “ natal women” nor “ identifies as a woman.

For instance one might posit a definition that a geek is anyone who considers themself a geek. That isn’t self referential because the object of the definition is “anyone” not “geek” and geek isn’t the same as “considers themselves a geek”.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you still aren't defining woman, and you certainly aren't giving any reason for anyone to use a definition you might provide if you could provide one that does not fail due to circular logic.

Even in your own example of "geek", you don't actually define it. In both cases you are pretending there is a word that serves as a label but you can't even pin down WHAT that label describes, because you want to deny the existence of WOMEN: adult human females.

Application of the words women or woman do not require anyone to "identify as" anything because it describes a physical and objectively-observable reality. You want the word to mean nothing, and you deny the physical objectively-observable reality the word describes.

Even your phrase "identify as" means nothing other than "am lying that I am or am being overly verbose and confusing for no reason about my being": "I 'identify as an attack-helicopter' (a favorite among Trans activists for some reason) = "I am lying that I am or am being overly verbose and confusing for no reason about my being an attack-helicopter".

A "woman" can not mean anyone who Identifies as a woman because that would make a self-described "transwoman" into something they are not when they are men pretending to be women. Even if they live the lie as fully as possible, it only ends up being a self-delusion the the only solution appears to be to accept actual reality or crash the world in a mass-delusion.