New definition of woman just dropped

submitted by Datachost from imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]r2d2_21 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They're male, but not necessarily a man

If they're male then they're men. It's part of the definition of the words.

(reading from other comments in the thread)

Yes, there are stereotypes for men and women that don't exactly involve reproduction. If you look for a lumberjack, it's more likely that it will be a man than a woman. Or a ballet dancer will most probably be a woman. Stereotypes ultimately derive from statistics and probability, but they don't imply causation. A woman that becomes a lumberjack won't become a man. A man that takes ballet lessons won't turn into a woman.

The definitions of men, women, male and female all come from our reproductive roles. We can derive roles and trends after that, but our biological reality doesn't change just because we start following the trends of the other sex.

A man that gets surgery and hormones is still a man. A woman that gets surgery and hormones is still a woman. It doesn't matter how good they become at lying to themselves and society.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Yes this is all true, but I'm not suggesting that men can literally be women, but rather that new labels could be used. These new labels can be cleverly close to "man" and "woman" because these labels already have some gray areas like tomboys and feminine men.

To boil it down, the main problem is self-identification, not labeling a woman as man necessarily. The problem is that when people ask to be treated as the opposite sex, they are actually asking for people to believe that they weren't born the way they were born. The labeling is not a big problem otherwise. We already use these shortened labels everywhere else. We shorten "website" into "site", "movie theater" into "theater", "bicycle" into "bike", and I don't see why "trans woman" can't be "woman" when the details aren't needed (*as long as it's clear... i.e. "bike" can be clarified to be "bicycle" or "motor bike").

[–]r2d2_21 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We shorten "website" into "site", "movie theater" into "theater"

Within this same train of thought, we DON'T shorten “sea lion” into “lion” or “air fryer” into “fryer” because the adjective is actually crucial in the definition of these terms.

[–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well those differences are inherently important. A lion is a completely different species than a sea lion. I think dropping "trans" in a social situation isn't going to make a difference in many cases, which btw is NOT what the left is advocating for because I'm saying it's fine to know who is a real woman and who isn't. Additionally I don't think it should be forced or encouraged, or punished at all. I'm just saying the problem isn't really what we call them but the underlying framework of reality.

[–]r2d2_21 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A lion is a completely different species than a sea lion

The same way a trans woman is a completely different sex than a woman.

I'm just saying the problem isn't really what we call them but the underlying framework of reality.

And I'm saying that what we call them just makes the problem worse. The only way to fix it is to call them what they really are.