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 →

[–]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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

I’ve literally defined woman in this thread already.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

All you did was reiterate the first half of my question: that women can be male. That doesn't answer the question. My question is, if women can be male, wtf is a woman? I never asked: "who is included under the umbrella: 'woman'?" – which appears to be the question you'd much rather answer.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

I’ve already defined it. That’s my answer.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

You have not defined anything, and here you have been pretending to use some kind of "set notatation-like" thing as if that serves as a definition of words. You seem to be trying to provide a discreet set of members of a set you are calling "women", as if it were a data array, but it is not and you do not define what "woman" means. As a result,the flaw of using circular logic is at work in your faux-set notation thing where the "set" of woman or women includes "woman" which you wont' define.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It’s not circular and I gave a definition. Disagree if you want but you can’t just act like it didn’t happen.