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 -  (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.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You can blow smoke up your own ass all you want, but I described accurately what you did here. you expect us to confuse some verbal description of set notation where you create a set called women, and put undefined things in that set but that is not a definition. you are basically define "human" by naming the people you think are human. And, in the contest of what the thread is about, you offer this as if it should be used by others over the standard actual definition of woman: adult human female.

You do not have a workable definition, and I have to conclude that the word, not the set you created but the word which, has a definition that is not advantageous to your position. Nothing convinces me more clearly of the invalidity of the gender identity concept than looking at the arguments its proponents put forth and in this case you can't even define a word. If you want anyone to believe you don't know the difference between a word and a set, then what you're really asking us to believe is that you are too stupid or disingenuous to bother with. Good luck!