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 →

[–]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.