There was an attempt as a non-circular definition. https://i.imgur.com/gQN05s0.png

submitted by M1GarandDad from medium.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

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

That's still a circular definition though, they've just used more words to obscure that it's circular. The secondary definition just boils down to "Anyone who identifies with traits commonly associated with women, even if they don't embody those traits". So, anyone who identifies as a woman.

[–]M1GarandDad[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm actually making a serious effort to find an unambiguous formal definition of the term "gender identity", backed up by trans and trans-positive sources, that won't immediately be dismissed as a transphobic strawman. Even if it turns out to be a circular definition, I'd like to be able to say "look, the trans community agrees on this definition, this is what trans people actually believe" to the trans person I have the misfortune of arguing with.

A fool's errand, I know, but it's far better than the Romans 1:20 non-argument of asserting the other side knows I'm right and they're just lying because they're evil.

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But you forget- in many cases, these are cluster-B fuckheads. Even if you have 100% proof literally every member of the trans community agrees with it and it's what is believed, that one person will say "well, I disagree so I win"- and they WILL lie and say they don't if they have to- and they'll say their claim matters because, as a cluster-B, they will believe themselves to be king/queen of the trans community and what they say goes.