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] 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?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

In fact it did, my definition of trans woman later in the line called out male or intersex person who met other requirements.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Again, so we're back where we started: if women can be male then wtf is a woman? The answer to that question isn't simply restating that women can supposedly be male.

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

It was an example of set based definitions. Which you asked me to clarify the nature of. No one is claiming trans women are monotremes.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I’m saying if trans women aren’t monotremes, they’re just regular mammals. So they should be grouped and classed the way all mammals are: by sex.