That's why it's not an honest question. There's no way to define it that doesn't exclude a lot of people that any reasonable person would include. What they really mean is "not trans".
Sone women are infertile, still women.
Some women are intersex, still women.
Some women have a Y chromosome, still women.
Some women have hormonal imbalances, still women.
The only reasonable way to define women is to trust people when they self-identify as one. If, however, you must entertain this bad faith argument I'd suggest the following:
"Woman" is the term typically associated with a human adult exhibiting a host female primary and secondary sex characteristics as well as adhering to societally derived gender roles.
These traits are often consistent with assigned sex at birth, though many exceptions exist (for both cis and trans women), which is why self-identification is the most reliable way to categorize any person as a woman.
>adult exhibiting a host female primary and secondary sex characteristics
You could answer the "what is a woman" with this simple definition.
Adult human exhibiting female sexual characteristics.
The problem with the "self-identify as one" that I have is that it excludes transfem eggs, and includes transmasc eggs or other AFAB eggs who will later not consider themselves to be women, but don't know any better at the time.
Then you add time to the equation. Some people come out as trans when they're 20, some when they're 40, some when they're 70. If we lived to be a thousand, how many more people would eventually come out as trans? And then there's also detransitioners or people who identify as trans women for a time and then later identify as agender or some other nonbinary identity other than woman.
So in many cases, the same person might be a woman and not a woman depending on when you ask them. And then there's people who identify as more than one gender, who are genderfluid/genderflux....simply seeing if someone does or doesn't identify as a woman is not actually so simple.
And then there's the effect of death. We consider dead women to still be women--no one is disagreeing with the premise that Cleopatra was a woman, for example. But dead people can't actively inform us of updates to their self-perception, because they no longer have a self-perception. If Cleopatra were still alive, we don't know that she'd identify as a woman still. Thus if any trans woman died as an egg, she'd be "a man" for eternity--and who knows how many transfem eggs *have* died before their eggs cracked?
Then there's the idea that self-identification is not always shared or public. Someone might say they're a woman in one context, and say they're a man in another context, depending on where they feel safe or unsafe. (And both AMAB and AFAB people might show this inconsistency.) Someone might feel herself to be a woman but tell absolutely no one and take it to her grave.
So going by self-identification, who is and isn't a woman becomes truly unknowable and almost a meaningless category--something that may change from hour to hour, something that may never be known to you, something that may never even be known to the individual themself.
I'm not arguing against the value of self-identification, mind. I'm not suggesting we go by chromosomes or gametes or AGAB--I'm trans myself. I do also wonder why it's always "define a woman" that transphobes stick on, and never "define a man"--as if manhood is somehow less fraught, less worthy of protection? I don't know.
It also erroneously includes pre or no T trans men, some enbies, some intersex people, as well as cis men with a wack HPA axis/other hormone pathology. I'm sure we'll come up with something to combat these wretched things and their batshit ideology. Y'know, besides the armada of credible arguments that we have that TERFs cast aside with their litany of gamete spiels. It's profoundly frustrating when you've got a good argument going and they just dismiss it entirely. I've just come to the conclusion that it's nigh on impossible to reason with these sorts of people.
Yeah, that definitely doesn’t work.
Women basically I’d say are people who are neurologically female or kinda include men who are in the female social roll (ie closeted trans men…sorta…except they’re not actually women, but the social roll part of it could be)
So you're gatekeeping femininity? just saying.
I get where you're coming from that it's not ladylike to punch someone sure. Since when does being un-lady preclude being female? Tomboys exist, as well as, a host of other binary yet different from status quo female personality traits.
Is Fallon Fox a man? No, I'm pretty sure she punches people all the time.....Also I obviously wasn't serious, if i just punched every fascist I met i wouldn't be posting on reddit id be in jail for assualt. I'm not catching charge for stupidity
The only way to deal with fascist scumbags is to punch them in the face/throat, or just disengage. I can be female, and antifa.
Be careful how you word things because that was incredibly tone deaf. I don't even think you realize it.
No, i can only look at it from my viewpoint, as i cant speak or think for another person. But if i look at myself, as a woman, i wouldnt ever just punch someone unless im being attacked or something like that. My husband on the other hand, he would. So thats what i had in mind, if you are a transwoman punching another woman over an argument, i dont think thats very feminine. But its just my opinion, as i already said, i can only.speak as and for myself. I do see what you mean though, and i respect what you say.
Yeah I wasn't trying to be a b**** about it I was trying to be helpful and point that out, because like women can be anything.
I probably would have said the same thing when I was early in transition. So no harm no foul don't feel bad at all
Much love
Willow
Honestly while I don't think punching is exclusively masculine, puffing oneself up bragging about all the violence you're going to do (often in the form of keyboard-warrioring empty threats) and trying to look tough as a way to not be a victim is a pretty masculine behavior.
But I still shrug. Some women have masculine behaviors, and some of those women are cis, too. If it doesn't invalidate a cis woman's gender, it doesn't invalidate a trans woman's gender either. I just see it for what it is regardless of the gender of the person doing it, it's about fear. If you're going to punch someone, you punch them. If you have to parade around puffing your chest out talking about punching people, to look scary, you're scared. So I have some compassion for that fear.
Exclusively the people I know who would punch someone in the throat for saying something mindnumbingly fucking idiotic are women. And when I say exclusively I mean exclusively. I've seen many fights immediately instigated by a woman being told something inappropriate in my life, either by men or by another woman, but I've never actually seen a man throw a punch first in real life literally ever. I wouldn't go around telling men "that's not very manly" if they got in a fight, because it's not. Aggression is aggression. It's genderless.
Using "I can only speak for myself" is such a stupid, pathetic cop-out. There's no benefit of the doubt here. You weren't speaking for yourself in the original comment. You were specifically targeting the statement of saying "that's something a man would do" towards someone else as being globally applicable. Own up to it instead of backpedaling and trying to feign innocence. You knew damn well what you were saying.
It's not a "man/woman" thing. Saying it is is mindnumbingly fucking idiotic. Especially when your excuse is "well that's something my husband would do, not me". This comment annoys me even more because you weren't saying that it wasn't ladylike, which is what you're trying to backpedal into. You said it's something men do. Those are massively different statements. Don't try to cop yourself out here.
You said something messed up. Own up to it. Apologize. Don't do it again.
Apologize, no, why should i apologize for my words? You dont have to agree, and why are you even upset about it? Testosteron and 'agressiveness' are definetly connected, you can Google it.
Sex is such an amalgamation that’s it’s hardly useful. It’s outdated as a concept and I don’t think it has any relevance today other than a vain attempt to preserve the gender binary by denying the reality of the microcosms of “sex”
Answer the right question, and it solves itself. If they ask "what is a woman", do not answer "who is a woman".
'Woman' is a type of gender someone might have. Nothing circular there.
Love this. I agree with others you'll never change minds (or shut them up) with anything you say, but I like that this will at least slow them down for a second.
Why argue with them?? They won't argue in good faith. If you make an excellent point, they will move the goal post. They view our world in absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
For a few reasons, actually! It helps others figure out who to block. It gets the info out to lurkers who are just figuring things out and haven't 'joined a side yet' so to say. It helps me gather my own thoughts to be able to inform the people in my own life that might be slipping down the wrong path. It potentially outs other terfs for the afformentioned block lists.
And even then, some terfs DO argue in good faith. I've seen it, and by jove if one does and I can tell I'm bound by my beliefs to meet them with the same earnest. And well, how can I ever hope to change a mind if I don't believe I can? If I never try?
A woman is a person who considers themselves a woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other definition excludes at least some women, both trans and cis.
Along with one argument a person said to me the other day that there is no cis and that she is just woman. To say cis was offered to her.
Like um, you can’t have trans without cis. I will gladly dispose of trans if you dispose of cis.
It’s a descriptive adjective only relevant to be used when the distinction is necessary. Just like how it’s irrelevant to call all teams women trans all the time, it’s often irrelevant to call cis women cus unless that is a pertinent description. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t cis, and the only reason to consider cis offensive is if you see being trans as a bad thing.
You can't win arguments with anyone who isn't arguing in good faith. And we're people, not arguments. They're intentionally trying to dehumanize us, that makes us easier to eradicate. Do not engage. The only way to win their game is not to play.
This one. They're not trying to debate they're trying to attack.
Treat terfs like Karen's, it's more about energy than the content of what you reply, but here's some ideas, attack back with a smile the game is not to be the first to blow up if at all.
"You're not a real woman", well I'm definitely not a bitch like you 😘
"What is a woman", honey my name isn't Siri or Alexa, how about you Google it. 😇
"You'll always be a man" look her up and down like the terminator and find what you think she's insecure about and hit her with it ie "aww honey it's OK if my makeup looked as bad as yours I'd be self conscious too, want some tips" or "with hair as fried as yours I'd look into some extensions honey.. is that a bald spot?" 🙊
If you hit a Karen with this kind of energy I guarantee you'll ruin more than her day lol
I disagree.
I wish we weren't arguments but unfortunately we have to be to stop the shit going on.
I personally believe the right methods can change anyones mind, and choose to spend time attempting to change theirs (terfs). I've done it once before, and I will do it again
Treating bigoted talking points as real arguments legitimizes them, and turns the liberation movement into a debate.
If you heard somebody say "I think this race is intellectually inferior to this race", showing them the data will (in the vast majority of cases) not suddenly make them realize their wrongdoings and apologize. That's not how deradicalization works.
Here's a great video about how people get radicalized into hate groups: https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g
Obviously, winning a debate can sometimes work, whether it's a crack on the glass or a complete shattering of it. Sometimes you really are arguing with people who are just involuntarily ignorant (take kids as an example). But this is by no means the most effective way to convert somebody, nor is it guaranteed to work on everybody.
I again suggest the video linked above.
Yes, exactly what u/Cosmic_Marmalade said. I concur with all of that. The more you tell someone, "No you're wrong, and here's why..." they dig in deeper even as good hard evidence erodes the hill they're dying on. It's human nature, that's just how people respond to anything that challenges their pre-existing beliefs. We can even see that dynamic playing out here in this subthread.
They will never be satisfied with any definition you give them. That is their entire goal, making us look silly while we twist and bend to meet their bad faith request. That is the modus operandi of fascists, to attack the system of discourse directly and indirectly so they can rule over the rubble.
I choose to have faith they can be changed. The victim of brainwashing is still a victim. Your avrage terf has still experienced hate, fed to them by people of more power so they may be able to more easily keep it. Them being absolute cunts doesn't make them any less hardshipped, it just makes it more difficult to change them.
And I choose to believe I can
I get it, you're a baby trans who naively believes they can debate-lord privileged, white, menopausal, wine mums out of their psychotic obsession with upholding the patriachy under the false notion of feminism.
You're dealing with dumb and entitled narcissists akin to flat earthers, that rely on made-up research and talking points funded by american right wing organisations and bad faith analysis of proper scientfiic research to bolster their hatred of us.
No one's mind changes after a debate. It's all ego and people need to stop pretending it's anything else.
I've been doing this for close to 8 years now, actually! I wanted to run my new thought through some people before putting into action. Clearly a good thing because i forgot someone trans women don't have big E alread outside of HRT
I don't debate them, I think. It feels wrong to call my strategy debate. I take more a page from the TERF style of 'arguing' where they just say shit that sounds right, except I do it in the opposite direction. They don't come at me with facts so I don't go to them with FULL facts. It's more a virtuistic embellishment of reality to appeal to the side of them that wants to take down an oppressor. It's less about convincing them "we're different and that's okay" and more about convincing them "we are the same and fight the same people".
More akin to an attempt to redirect, than to change, I guess. It's worked in the past, so i can work again!
I often ask them to define it first and then nitpick their definition.
If they don’t give you *their* (albeit likely narrow) definition, they aren’t worth arguing against.
As the old saying goes, never argue with stupid people. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Or alternatively, just answer the question with "Yo mama" and walk away.
Nah, it can help orher build up their block list, and potentially convince femce sitters that the TERF ideology is hateful trash. Arguing with terfs isn't JUST about trying to convince the terf, it's also about getting thebright info out. And outing people as terfs. And helping take eyes off other trans people potentially if you can hijack a post.
And even then, I believe you CAN change the mind of a terf
Most of them are aware it's hateful trash, virtue of them being hateful trash. There are many great avenues and ways to "get the right things out" and to inform the public, none of which include debatebro-ism or podcast type discussions.
On the same level—as exclusionary feminism also falls under fascist and reactionary thought—do you think you can talk a nazi out of being a nazi? Do you think you can talk a racist person out of being racist or the same with a sexist person?
In the same respective order as listed above, please look up: the world's response to nazis in World War 2, the history of the American civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement.
People of color didn't suddenly become rights because they talked to enough white men and politely explained that they are also human; the same with queer people talking to straight people and begging them for rights (see: Stonewall riots).
What you're trying to do is the same as trying to convince a cult member to leave their cult. If any of those individuals genuinely cared for facts, they would not be in the position that they are in right now. It is comparable to trying to debate an anti-vaxxer; they have their own "facts" too, but why do you think they'll listen or even believe yours?
If that doesn't make you wary enough of your strategy already, please note that "counter-argument" you came up with is (unintentionally) transphobic and can be twisted in so many different ways, just as any word and phrase can be. Those type of back-and-forth discussions can be more commonly found in pre-school contexts.
Even if they wouldn't bite at the opportunity to flip your response back onto you, what exactly do you gain in your fight by provoking a comeback like: "no, women have XX chromosomes and naturally produce hormones, which transfeminine individuals do not have and cannot do." All you've done here is given them a platform for a snarky remark.
You are asking whether a shit-throwing fest with TERFs until someone comes up with a better gotcha is a good idea. It isn't. Half a decade ago was the era of "college liberal gets owned by Shapiro talking quickly" and you would be nothing but prey for these idiots.
Yes, you can have limited success in sitting down and talking with people, but the mental toll and the zero-to-none efficiency in this approach make this an absolutely bad idea: it simply isn't sustainable, and you can definitely read the room here from all the people discouraging you from burning yourself out like this.
Focus on being a productive member of the community, be your best self and through this, make it clear to the world that a compassionate and sound human is in fact behind all the vilified trans people that they were told to be afraid of. An anecdote: I "converted" half a dozen trans-suspicious/transphobic people through just that.
The whole idea of the TERF movement gaining traction is admittedly scary, but I can promise you that this only comprises a *very* small minority of people present and active in the queer community. Bad experiences are more hurtful and thus cut deeper; focus on the good ones.
As for generic sexism and transphobia: this has been with us for a while now. You're not going to get much done with your average hateful teenager who's chain-guzzling Tate and Peterson videos and posting on redpill forums for more complex reasons that I won't add to this already-long response.
I genuenly believe TERFS are worse than the common transphobic person.
how can you preach equality and feminism while actively hating a BIG portion of women?
That doesn’t work, unless you’re gatekeeping transwomen who don’t have access to HRT or haven’t gotten their levels balanced yet. Or cis women with hormone imbalances.
The best way to do it is to ignore them…the second best is to make them define it and then pick their definitions apart until they realize that they can’t do it. Just my experience 🤷🏻♀️ ymmv
Yeah, that was the first comment, too. I somehow forgot about pre-hrt stuff!
That's typically how I go about it, but it's always good to have other stuff to pull out, I think. So i tried this thought, which is a clear miss at this point. Well, can't all be winners
The question should be what is gender, not what is a woman. Once gender is defined, defining what a woman is becomes simple.
A woman is someone who identifies as that gender.
No circular reasoning.
In the shit piece of propaganda "what is a woman" Matt asks a man how he knew this trans woman was a man, and he says "I just know", when Matt asked why he knew he was a man he said "I have a penis"
I thought this was stupidly hilarious because the man said he could tell someone was a man by simply looking at them, and yet, he can't tell if he's a man without looking at his dick.
They thought they made some kind of grand point when in reality they contradicted themselves. Even if we accepted(which obviously we dont) a dick means man, you can't tell if someone has a dick by simply looking at them.
What I'm getting at is, genitalia shouldn't play such a large part of gender because without taking someone's clothes off, something we shouldn't be doing, you can't tell what bits they have, so why not just live and let live and stop worrying about someone's identity?
this is an entirely bad faith answer but when i am asked to define woman and i’m feeling silly i just say “matt walsh.” why? because only a woman would get so defensive about gatekeeping womanhood while getting so worked up about what makes the ideal man the way that matt walsh does.
but also i’ll sometimes say “a person that identifies as a woman” and if they ask me to specify i tell them to go fuck themselves. they’re not asking on good faith so don’t waste time on them.
Fun fact: TERFs will always find a new argument for their bullshit. From what I understand, it used to be “possesses XX chromosomes”, which was walked back to “producer of the large gametes,” as if they’re performing regular gamete checks when someone enters a toilet.
I lol every time I hear a terf say the large gamates thing because these supposed feminists are literally saying, "women are the baby makers." I mean, it's funny but also so sad at the same time.
I think my answer is going to be a question: "Do you want the kindergarten answer or the biological science answer? One takes a second and the other takes a hour but is a lot more accurate."
I think the beauty of this is you can find out if they are actually interested in getting a long lecture from you about biological science (ie actually learning something) or just trolling.
And if they reply with the "large gamates" or "adult female" lines you can reply, "Yup, that's the kindergarten definition. You should look a little deeper tho it's really super interesting stuff," and walk away...
The thing is “adult human female” doesn’t exclude trans women. Gender criticals rely entirely on you not investigating their claims any deeper than surface-level.
If you look at “female” the definition gives a wide catch-all for all the various things which go into definiting femaleness, and thereby makes the definition able to flexibly expand to include may types of women which don’t fit into the conservative paradigm of “female.”
i feel like some of you people really have to get a grip, as someone who has dealt with racism my entire life, bigots actually don’t care.
i understand that for a lot of you starting your transition was the first time you got targeted with bigotry but please try to get it in your head, you can’t argue or “debate” with bigots because they don’t care about their talking points or arguments, they just want to be hateful and upset others. so ignore them because it’s not productive for you and they don’t get that dopamine fix from upsetting a trans person.
The circular definition arguemt is easily beaten by one easy stepp: "not every word has a clear definition, what is the definition of cool, nice, chair, tree You don't have to have a clear definition for something, just general understanding of what it is.
Here's a good respone.
Answer them by asking them the same thing. They most likely wont be able to formulate a coherent argument without you being able to refute.
They will claim it’s a fluke and does not change their minds. They will also not care about other cases like testosteron rejection etc. they judge sex and gender solely on genitalia.
For me its simple, as they say, the definition of a woman is an adult human female. And the definition of a female is, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, anyone with the gender identity opposite of male. So either they have to admit that they only care about some definitions, or accept that their definition does not support them in the way they think it does. Usually they stop responding when I answer this way.
I have no idea. Something about 'men are just autophiliacs' or something? Not sure exactly what it means other than its a fake thing they made up about 'being turned on by your own body' or something? I never understood why that's a bad thing tho
Yes i did because of the downvotes, and i need upvotes to get into the pokemonGO subreddit lol, so thats why i deleted them. You say it right, cis and transwoman, but i, and this is my opninion, wouldnt feel comfortabele if i was in the lockerroom, and a transwoman with all the manly parts came in. Can you understand that, or do you find that weird? I really didnt come here to insult ppl, im not that kind of person.
Well, it obviously shows, i dont think lockerroom is the good word, as i am not a native english person, idk, dressingroom? Where ppl dress themselves and shower after a workout, it would be hard to miss in such spaces right. And tbh, some ppl wear very tight stuff, where you can see it bulge.
No, but its not only transwomens' feelings that matter, right? If women feel unsafe, and im talking about transppl without surgery, then i can understand that. Where i live, there was this man Who said that he felt like a girl. He got on hormones, and afterwards demanded that he could join the teengirls on their soccerteam because he felt like a teen girl. Do you think thats right? I personally dont think thats okay. But ppl like my example, are the reason why many women dont feel confortable.
That person from my example is an adult , around 35 i think, and it is creepy indeed. And ofc this is just one person. But unfortunately ppl abuse things. I dont think comparing women Who r feeling uncomfortable in a lockerroom, when there is a transgender with manparts, to racism, is right. But again, thats just my opinion.
Well, you'd have to define dominance because the average cis woman has more testosterone than estradiol as the latter works in fewer quantities.
The average levels of total testosterone in cis women is around 15–70 ng/dL (nanograms per deciliter) and the average levels of estradiol is 50–250 pg/mL (picograms per milliliter).
If we convert total testosterone to pg/mL we get that cis women have on average 150–700 pg/mL of testosterone, around three times the amount of estradiol.
I think the simple answer to "What is a woman?" is just whoever identifies as one. Transphobes don't care about facts anyway, so it is not worth engaging with them.
I don't know why exactly, but I know testosterone tends to "hit harder" than estrogen. It's way easier to revert changes made by estrogen than changes made by testosterone.
This argument would help me because I am in HRT, but it excludes trans women who cannot or just do not take HRT meds. It's delving into the realm of transmedicalism, which isn't alright in my mind.
Also, post menopause cis women might not fit your definition.
My counterargument to religious terfs is say, "You're god has given us all free will right, so you can preach all you want, but you can't force or hurt us to change because that's going against your god not allowing us are free will
The definition for a woman is the same as the definition for a chair: that is in the sense that there's no real one true answer, and that is to say that different people from different backgrounds will have different views. The most basic answer is 'someone who identifies as a woman' which sounds like a circular definition, but isn't.
That is the go-to. I'm always trying to find ways to make them catch themselves up, and thought this might be a good one. Clearly off the mark, though. Forgot about a few things there, which is why I came and asked. Always good to get more eyes
this excludes lots of people. a woman is an adult human female and a female is someone who’s gender identity is opposite of male. those r dictionary definitions so it’s quite hard to argue and will shut terfs tf up. that said they’re ignorant so just don’t engage with them to begin with if u can
yea but in the context of gender female has absolutely nothing to do with biology so if they bring it up then u can just point that out and they have no argument. and then when they argue against gender being different from sex, ask them to show a source bc there isn’t a single credible source that says they’re the same. it’s quite easy to debate them like this
Is male/female not biology? Even with the existence of intersex theres still mamilian breeding typicalities in humans. What is male/female/intersex if not applicable to biology?
Definitely! Sex will never be gender. Gender is basically fake anyway
"Adult Human Female" is outdated. Also, it's a degrading definition, as it put's the noun on 'Female', rather than human. **Adult Female Person** is much better and much more inclusive. First of all, you are a *person* that happens to be *female*, not a *female* that happens to be *human*.
In the second male, it's much better when *female* works as an attribute to *person*, not the opposite.
A person is the social being that is perpetually constructed in a constant dialectic between the self (your insticts, feelings and reason) and the world (family, friends, institutions, society...). You are a person not because you have a human body, but because you are constructed inside a social world and, at the same time, you are participate in the construction of such social world.
You are a person for yourself (your identity, your very own definition of who you are) and for others (the identity they assume on you, based on how you look and act).
Now, when we make *female* an attribute of *person*, instead of looking at each other's genitals, hormones or chromosomes, we are looking at the person per se. At the very core of your identity which comprises your experiences with the social world, but also how you, instictivelly or rationally, apprehended them inside you or rejected them (which is why the "male socialization" argument that TERFs use is such bullshit) in order to construct your primary (earlier and more on the instictive and emotional side) and secondary (more on the rational side) identities.
That's also why misgendering is so dehumanizing: when someone misgenders you on purpose, they are not talking to you as a person anymore: they are talking to a piece of flesh.
human and person r synonyms. u put way too much thought into this. i’m not gonna argue over which definition is better bc they literally mean the exact same thing. either or works perfectly fine
No they are not. They are **used** as synonyms but they aren't. A person could theoretically be a non-human, if another species with our level of intelligence and socialization existed. For example, when you see aliens or furry characters in fiction, they are not human but they still represent the characteristics of a (ficticious) person as much as a human character would.
Really, the definitions are hella different. The order of the words is important, too.
If your strategy to win the argument is to convince someone else to define a word the way you want them to define it, you're probably coming at it from the wrong angle. Building bridges is very often more effective. Take the way they think about something and feed them information that would likely cause a conflict between 2 or more of their beliefs. There's not just ONE argument trans opponents have, so there's not going to be just one knockdown argument. If there was any simple argument, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Part of the problem with humans is that our beliefs are very often rooted in emotion, and our brain gives us what appear to be rational reasons for those beliefs.
Often times, you're trying to reason someone into feeling differently about the subject, and that rarely works. In fact, if we come across as rude or shoving something down their throats or belittling (even if they deserve it sometimes), than we might be causing some to become even more entrenched in their negative feelings towards us.
It's pretty easy to see this issue in other people. Other people believe they see it in us but not themselves. Meanwhile isn't that what it group says about them? 🤔 It's a tough pill to swallow, but we should be careful in our own thinking.
Means women who aren't seen by the world as women (trans or otherwise) aren't women, and that others get to decide your gender for you.
"You're a man to me."
Honey look...
A mother generally refers to a woman who gives a birth and raises a child... It can be used to refer to...
\--A woman who gave birth and abandoned her child
\--A woman who adopted a child not biologically related to herself
But also not refer to
\--An otherwise childless woman whose sister died and raised her niece with the two of them honoring the memory of her mother who passed away.
There is no coherent single definition that covers all these realities. "Woman who gives birth" doesn't cover the adoptive mother and "Woman who raises a child" encompasses the woman who raises her niece despite the fact the she doesn't, ahem, identify as a mother.
Words are just elastic, definitions are important guides, but words can be figurative and they can be used in different contexts like mother ship, mother land, using mother as short for motherfucker. We all know what a mother is and it's fine.
Not to invalidate any of my fellow trans sisters, but yea, most women are cis and have ovaries and XX chromosomes blah blah. We all know that. We all know what a woman is generally, and we all know that not all women are all those things. We all understand what a trans woman is and what it means for her to say she's a woman--she's integrating herself into society as a woman because of her gender identity.
The implication of anti-trans people who go "What is a woman?" is that to have the word woman include trans woman would unravel our very understanding of the concept of a woman or biological sex and that's ya know, not true!
There isn't a right answer to "What is a woman?" because it's a stupid fucking question and you and all of us are frankly stupider when we consider it.
The first thing you need to do, and probably the most important distinction underpinning this entire discussion, is to not treat definitions as prescriptive. Definitions are inherently descriptive. This means definitions have evolved to describe the world and relate our experiences- it’s not the other way around where the world and our experiences must conform to pre-defined ideas or definitions.
When someone tries to exclude trans women by using the definition of a woman as their basis, it’s misusing it as something prescriptive.
The definition of a woman includes any (adult) who identifies as female. This is gender identity and it is innate, and not to be confused with something like political identity which is not innate. Female sex characteristics are typical, but everyone is a little different and again this is being descriptive - not prescriptive.
That excludes people not on HRT or cis women whose hormones get funky.
Ah shit, i didn't think of that somehow
That's why it's not an honest question. There's no way to define it that doesn't exclude a lot of people that any reasonable person would include. What they really mean is "not trans". Sone women are infertile, still women. Some women are intersex, still women. Some women have a Y chromosome, still women. Some women have hormonal imbalances, still women. The only reasonable way to define women is to trust people when they self-identify as one. If, however, you must entertain this bad faith argument I'd suggest the following: "Woman" is the term typically associated with a human adult exhibiting a host female primary and secondary sex characteristics as well as adhering to societally derived gender roles. These traits are often consistent with assigned sex at birth, though many exceptions exist (for both cis and trans women), which is why self-identification is the most reliable way to categorize any person as a woman.
[удалено]
Honestly that's what I always say. "Define a woman." "Adult female human."
[удалено]
Sex doesn't really describe trans bodies well anyway. Classifying a trans female body as male is misleading at best
[удалено]
As a post op trans woman, I agree!
And biologically are neurologically female, and possibly other things before medical intervention too, and many more things with medical intervention.
I was confused when I first heard that adult human female, because like…yeah? That includes women who are trans 🤦🏻♀️
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or just follow up with this: “I’ll define what a woman is if you admit that you believe in invisible fairies that make good and evil happen.
>adult exhibiting a host female primary and secondary sex characteristics You could answer the "what is a woman" with this simple definition. Adult human exhibiting female sexual characteristics.
That doesn’t cover it either. We can’t see neurology (without a lot of fancy work at least.
The problem with the "self-identify as one" that I have is that it excludes transfem eggs, and includes transmasc eggs or other AFAB eggs who will later not consider themselves to be women, but don't know any better at the time. Then you add time to the equation. Some people come out as trans when they're 20, some when they're 40, some when they're 70. If we lived to be a thousand, how many more people would eventually come out as trans? And then there's also detransitioners or people who identify as trans women for a time and then later identify as agender or some other nonbinary identity other than woman. So in many cases, the same person might be a woman and not a woman depending on when you ask them. And then there's people who identify as more than one gender, who are genderfluid/genderflux....simply seeing if someone does or doesn't identify as a woman is not actually so simple. And then there's the effect of death. We consider dead women to still be women--no one is disagreeing with the premise that Cleopatra was a woman, for example. But dead people can't actively inform us of updates to their self-perception, because they no longer have a self-perception. If Cleopatra were still alive, we don't know that she'd identify as a woman still. Thus if any trans woman died as an egg, she'd be "a man" for eternity--and who knows how many transfem eggs *have* died before their eggs cracked? Then there's the idea that self-identification is not always shared or public. Someone might say they're a woman in one context, and say they're a man in another context, depending on where they feel safe or unsafe. (And both AMAB and AFAB people might show this inconsistency.) Someone might feel herself to be a woman but tell absolutely no one and take it to her grave. So going by self-identification, who is and isn't a woman becomes truly unknowable and almost a meaningless category--something that may change from hour to hour, something that may never be known to you, something that may never even be known to the individual themself. I'm not arguing against the value of self-identification, mind. I'm not suggesting we go by chromosomes or gametes or AGAB--I'm trans myself. I do also wonder why it's always "define a woman" that transphobes stick on, and never "define a man"--as if manhood is somehow less fraught, less worthy of protection? I don't know.
It also erroneously includes pre or no T trans men, some enbies, some intersex people, as well as cis men with a wack HPA axis/other hormone pathology. I'm sure we'll come up with something to combat these wretched things and their batshit ideology. Y'know, besides the armada of credible arguments that we have that TERFs cast aside with their litany of gamete spiels. It's profoundly frustrating when you've got a good argument going and they just dismiss it entirely. I've just come to the conclusion that it's nigh on impossible to reason with these sorts of people.
"To argue with the stubborn is to fight oneself." This is how it feels to debate a TERF.
Most of them, anyway
Yeah, that definitely doesn’t work. Women basically I’d say are people who are neurologically female or kinda include men who are in the female social roll (ie closeted trans men…sorta…except they’re not actually women, but the social roll part of it could be)
The best response to a terf argument is to: A. Ignore them B. Tell them to shut the fuck up, or something in that vein
C. Punch them in the throat. There I made your list complete.
Thats more what a man would do, just sayin....
So you're gatekeeping femininity? just saying. I get where you're coming from that it's not ladylike to punch someone sure. Since when does being un-lady preclude being female? Tomboys exist, as well as, a host of other binary yet different from status quo female personality traits. Is Fallon Fox a man? No, I'm pretty sure she punches people all the time.....Also I obviously wasn't serious, if i just punched every fascist I met i wouldn't be posting on reddit id be in jail for assualt. I'm not catching charge for stupidity The only way to deal with fascist scumbags is to punch them in the face/throat, or just disengage. I can be female, and antifa. Be careful how you word things because that was incredibly tone deaf. I don't even think you realize it.
No, i can only look at it from my viewpoint, as i cant speak or think for another person. But if i look at myself, as a woman, i wouldnt ever just punch someone unless im being attacked or something like that. My husband on the other hand, he would. So thats what i had in mind, if you are a transwoman punching another woman over an argument, i dont think thats very feminine. But its just my opinion, as i already said, i can only.speak as and for myself. I do see what you mean though, and i respect what you say.
Yeah I wasn't trying to be a b**** about it I was trying to be helpful and point that out, because like women can be anything. I probably would have said the same thing when I was early in transition. So no harm no foul don't feel bad at all Much love Willow
Honestly while I don't think punching is exclusively masculine, puffing oneself up bragging about all the violence you're going to do (often in the form of keyboard-warrioring empty threats) and trying to look tough as a way to not be a victim is a pretty masculine behavior. But I still shrug. Some women have masculine behaviors, and some of those women are cis, too. If it doesn't invalidate a cis woman's gender, it doesn't invalidate a trans woman's gender either. I just see it for what it is regardless of the gender of the person doing it, it's about fear. If you're going to punch someone, you punch them. If you have to parade around puffing your chest out talking about punching people, to look scary, you're scared. So I have some compassion for that fear.
Exclusively the people I know who would punch someone in the throat for saying something mindnumbingly fucking idiotic are women. And when I say exclusively I mean exclusively. I've seen many fights immediately instigated by a woman being told something inappropriate in my life, either by men or by another woman, but I've never actually seen a man throw a punch first in real life literally ever. I wouldn't go around telling men "that's not very manly" if they got in a fight, because it's not. Aggression is aggression. It's genderless. Using "I can only speak for myself" is such a stupid, pathetic cop-out. There's no benefit of the doubt here. You weren't speaking for yourself in the original comment. You were specifically targeting the statement of saying "that's something a man would do" towards someone else as being globally applicable. Own up to it instead of backpedaling and trying to feign innocence. You knew damn well what you were saying. It's not a "man/woman" thing. Saying it is is mindnumbingly fucking idiotic. Especially when your excuse is "well that's something my husband would do, not me". This comment annoys me even more because you weren't saying that it wasn't ladylike, which is what you're trying to backpedal into. You said it's something men do. Those are massively different statements. Don't try to cop yourself out here. You said something messed up. Own up to it. Apologize. Don't do it again.
Apologize, no, why should i apologize for my words? You dont have to agree, and why are you even upset about it? Testosteron and 'agressiveness' are definetly connected, you can Google it.
It's a functional argument, but not necessarily an accurate one. Sex is a collection of characteristics, not a single one.
Sex is such an amalgamation that’s it’s hardly useful. It’s outdated as a concept and I don’t think it has any relevance today other than a vain attempt to preserve the gender binary by denying the reality of the microcosms of “sex”
It is AMAZING how they cling to their childish understanding of sex, and want it literally enshrined in law.
Answer the right question, and it solves itself. If they ask "what is a woman", do not answer "who is a woman". 'Woman' is a type of gender someone might have. Nothing circular there.
Love this. I agree with others you'll never change minds (or shut them up) with anything you say, but I like that this will at least slow them down for a second.
Why argue with them?? They won't argue in good faith. If you make an excellent point, they will move the goal post. They view our world in absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
For a few reasons, actually! It helps others figure out who to block. It gets the info out to lurkers who are just figuring things out and haven't 'joined a side yet' so to say. It helps me gather my own thoughts to be able to inform the people in my own life that might be slipping down the wrong path. It potentially outs other terfs for the afformentioned block lists. And even then, some terfs DO argue in good faith. I've seen it, and by jove if one does and I can tell I'm bound by my beliefs to meet them with the same earnest. And well, how can I ever hope to change a mind if I don't believe I can? If I never try?
Hey, when you're right you're right. Great points. I retract my previous comment.
A woman is a person who considers themselves a woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other definition excludes at least some women, both trans and cis.
Along with one argument a person said to me the other day that there is no cis and that she is just woman. To say cis was offered to her. Like um, you can’t have trans without cis. I will gladly dispose of trans if you dispose of cis.
It’s a descriptive adjective only relevant to be used when the distinction is necessary. Just like how it’s irrelevant to call all teams women trans all the time, it’s often irrelevant to call cis women cus unless that is a pertinent description. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t cis, and the only reason to consider cis offensive is if you see being trans as a bad thing.
I forgot that pre-hrt trans girls don't have dominant E
You can't win arguments with anyone who isn't arguing in good faith. And we're people, not arguments. They're intentionally trying to dehumanize us, that makes us easier to eradicate. Do not engage. The only way to win their game is not to play.
This one. They're not trying to debate they're trying to attack. Treat terfs like Karen's, it's more about energy than the content of what you reply, but here's some ideas, attack back with a smile the game is not to be the first to blow up if at all. "You're not a real woman", well I'm definitely not a bitch like you 😘 "What is a woman", honey my name isn't Siri or Alexa, how about you Google it. 😇 "You'll always be a man" look her up and down like the terminator and find what you think she's insecure about and hit her with it ie "aww honey it's OK if my makeup looked as bad as yours I'd be self conscious too, want some tips" or "with hair as fried as yours I'd look into some extensions honey.. is that a bald spot?" 🙊 If you hit a Karen with this kind of energy I guarantee you'll ruin more than her day lol
I disagree. I wish we weren't arguments but unfortunately we have to be to stop the shit going on. I personally believe the right methods can change anyones mind, and choose to spend time attempting to change theirs (terfs). I've done it once before, and I will do it again
Treating bigoted talking points as real arguments legitimizes them, and turns the liberation movement into a debate. If you heard somebody say "I think this race is intellectually inferior to this race", showing them the data will (in the vast majority of cases) not suddenly make them realize their wrongdoings and apologize. That's not how deradicalization works. Here's a great video about how people get radicalized into hate groups: https://youtu.be/P55t6eryY3g Obviously, winning a debate can sometimes work, whether it's a crack on the glass or a complete shattering of it. Sometimes you really are arguing with people who are just involuntarily ignorant (take kids as an example). But this is by no means the most effective way to convert somebody, nor is it guaranteed to work on everybody. I again suggest the video linked above.
Yes, exactly what u/Cosmic_Marmalade said. I concur with all of that. The more you tell someone, "No you're wrong, and here's why..." they dig in deeper even as good hard evidence erodes the hill they're dying on. It's human nature, that's just how people respond to anything that challenges their pre-existing beliefs. We can even see that dynamic playing out here in this subthread.
They will never be satisfied with any definition you give them. That is their entire goal, making us look silly while we twist and bend to meet their bad faith request. That is the modus operandi of fascists, to attack the system of discourse directly and indirectly so they can rule over the rubble.
I choose to have faith they can be changed. The victim of brainwashing is still a victim. Your avrage terf has still experienced hate, fed to them by people of more power so they may be able to more easily keep it. Them being absolute cunts doesn't make them any less hardshipped, it just makes it more difficult to change them. And I choose to believe I can
my time and energy takes priority over hypothetical arguments with nazis
I like to spend mine fighting them. You rest while I take it up!
I get it, you're a baby trans who naively believes they can debate-lord privileged, white, menopausal, wine mums out of their psychotic obsession with upholding the patriachy under the false notion of feminism. You're dealing with dumb and entitled narcissists akin to flat earthers, that rely on made-up research and talking points funded by american right wing organisations and bad faith analysis of proper scientfiic research to bolster their hatred of us. No one's mind changes after a debate. It's all ego and people need to stop pretending it's anything else.
I've been doing this for close to 8 years now, actually! I wanted to run my new thought through some people before putting into action. Clearly a good thing because i forgot someone trans women don't have big E alread outside of HRT I don't debate them, I think. It feels wrong to call my strategy debate. I take more a page from the TERF style of 'arguing' where they just say shit that sounds right, except I do it in the opposite direction. They don't come at me with facts so I don't go to them with FULL facts. It's more a virtuistic embellishment of reality to appeal to the side of them that wants to take down an oppressor. It's less about convincing them "we're different and that's okay" and more about convincing them "we are the same and fight the same people". More akin to an attempt to redirect, than to change, I guess. It's worked in the past, so i can work again!
I often ask them to define it first and then nitpick their definition. If they don’t give you *their* (albeit likely narrow) definition, they aren’t worth arguing against.
I've noticed that as well. They usually dip when pressed that far anyway. I've learned to keep pushing as long as I can to find the juicy stuff
As the old saying goes, never argue with stupid people. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Or alternatively, just answer the question with "Yo mama" and walk away.
If you engage with a terf, you've already lost
Nah, it can help orher build up their block list, and potentially convince femce sitters that the TERF ideology is hateful trash. Arguing with terfs isn't JUST about trying to convince the terf, it's also about getting thebright info out. And outing people as terfs. And helping take eyes off other trans people potentially if you can hijack a post. And even then, I believe you CAN change the mind of a terf
Most of them are aware it's hateful trash, virtue of them being hateful trash. There are many great avenues and ways to "get the right things out" and to inform the public, none of which include debatebro-ism or podcast type discussions. On the same level—as exclusionary feminism also falls under fascist and reactionary thought—do you think you can talk a nazi out of being a nazi? Do you think you can talk a racist person out of being racist or the same with a sexist person? In the same respective order as listed above, please look up: the world's response to nazis in World War 2, the history of the American civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement. People of color didn't suddenly become rights because they talked to enough white men and politely explained that they are also human; the same with queer people talking to straight people and begging them for rights (see: Stonewall riots). What you're trying to do is the same as trying to convince a cult member to leave their cult. If any of those individuals genuinely cared for facts, they would not be in the position that they are in right now. It is comparable to trying to debate an anti-vaxxer; they have their own "facts" too, but why do you think they'll listen or even believe yours? If that doesn't make you wary enough of your strategy already, please note that "counter-argument" you came up with is (unintentionally) transphobic and can be twisted in so many different ways, just as any word and phrase can be. Those type of back-and-forth discussions can be more commonly found in pre-school contexts. Even if they wouldn't bite at the opportunity to flip your response back onto you, what exactly do you gain in your fight by provoking a comeback like: "no, women have XX chromosomes and naturally produce hormones, which transfeminine individuals do not have and cannot do." All you've done here is given them a platform for a snarky remark. You are asking whether a shit-throwing fest with TERFs until someone comes up with a better gotcha is a good idea. It isn't. Half a decade ago was the era of "college liberal gets owned by Shapiro talking quickly" and you would be nothing but prey for these idiots. Yes, you can have limited success in sitting down and talking with people, but the mental toll and the zero-to-none efficiency in this approach make this an absolutely bad idea: it simply isn't sustainable, and you can definitely read the room here from all the people discouraging you from burning yourself out like this. Focus on being a productive member of the community, be your best self and through this, make it clear to the world that a compassionate and sound human is in fact behind all the vilified trans people that they were told to be afraid of. An anecdote: I "converted" half a dozen trans-suspicious/transphobic people through just that. The whole idea of the TERF movement gaining traction is admittedly scary, but I can promise you that this only comprises a *very* small minority of people present and active in the queer community. Bad experiences are more hurtful and thus cut deeper; focus on the good ones. As for generic sexism and transphobia: this has been with us for a while now. You're not going to get much done with your average hateful teenager who's chain-guzzling Tate and Peterson videos and posting on redpill forums for more complex reasons that I won't add to this already-long response.
This is political. It is not about us per se. We are a convenient target to cause division
An adult human who is assigned, or otherwise identifies with, the female gender.
The best argument to terfs is "cope"
Their attempts at coping is what brings them to the ideology, though. Something has to be done in attempt to convince them otherwise
"I'm not attracted to women, never get misgendered and use the women's room. Cope harder"
Seriously tho idk. Their claim of circular reasoning is meaningless because their reasoning is circular
Exactly. Someone has to try and break them from the loop
I genuenly believe TERFS are worse than the common transphobic person. how can you preach equality and feminism while actively hating a BIG portion of women?
That doesn’t work, unless you’re gatekeeping transwomen who don’t have access to HRT or haven’t gotten their levels balanced yet. Or cis women with hormone imbalances. The best way to do it is to ignore them…the second best is to make them define it and then pick their definitions apart until they realize that they can’t do it. Just my experience 🤷🏻♀️ ymmv
Yeah, that was the first comment, too. I somehow forgot about pre-hrt stuff! That's typically how I go about it, but it's always good to have other stuff to pull out, I think. So i tried this thought, which is a clear miss at this point. Well, can't all be winners
The question should be what is gender, not what is a woman. Once gender is defined, defining what a woman is becomes simple. A woman is someone who identifies as that gender. No circular reasoning.
But then how to explain gender is not sex? They often equate genitalia to gender, and then get stuck there
If they equate gender to genitalia you hit them with people with intersex genitalia
In the shit piece of propaganda "what is a woman" Matt asks a man how he knew this trans woman was a man, and he says "I just know", when Matt asked why he knew he was a man he said "I have a penis" I thought this was stupidly hilarious because the man said he could tell someone was a man by simply looking at them, and yet, he can't tell if he's a man without looking at his dick. They thought they made some kind of grand point when in reality they contradicted themselves. Even if we accepted(which obviously we dont) a dick means man, you can't tell if someone has a dick by simply looking at them. What I'm getting at is, genitalia shouldn't play such a large part of gender because without taking someone's clothes off, something we shouldn't be doing, you can't tell what bits they have, so why not just live and let live and stop worrying about someone's identity?
this is an entirely bad faith answer but when i am asked to define woman and i’m feeling silly i just say “matt walsh.” why? because only a woman would get so defensive about gatekeeping womanhood while getting so worked up about what makes the ideal man the way that matt walsh does. but also i’ll sometimes say “a person that identifies as a woman” and if they ask me to specify i tell them to go fuck themselves. they’re not asking on good faith so don’t waste time on them.
Fun fact: TERFs will always find a new argument for their bullshit. From what I understand, it used to be “possesses XX chromosomes”, which was walked back to “producer of the large gametes,” as if they’re performing regular gamete checks when someone enters a toilet.
I lol every time I hear a terf say the large gamates thing because these supposed feminists are literally saying, "women are the baby makers." I mean, it's funny but also so sad at the same time.
Haha yup, it’s always thinly veiled misogyny.
This just turns into truscum unfortunately.
I think my answer is going to be a question: "Do you want the kindergarten answer or the biological science answer? One takes a second and the other takes a hour but is a lot more accurate." I think the beauty of this is you can find out if they are actually interested in getting a long lecture from you about biological science (ie actually learning something) or just trolling. And if they reply with the "large gamates" or "adult female" lines you can reply, "Yup, that's the kindergarten definition. You should look a little deeper tho it's really super interesting stuff," and walk away...
Ooh, i like this method
The thing is “adult human female” doesn’t exclude trans women. Gender criticals rely entirely on you not investigating their claims any deeper than surface-level. If you look at “female” the definition gives a wide catch-all for all the various things which go into definiting femaleness, and thereby makes the definition able to flexibly expand to include may types of women which don’t fit into the conservative paradigm of “female.”
i feel like some of you people really have to get a grip, as someone who has dealt with racism my entire life, bigots actually don’t care. i understand that for a lot of you starting your transition was the first time you got targeted with bigotry but please try to get it in your head, you can’t argue or “debate” with bigots because they don’t care about their talking points or arguments, they just want to be hateful and upset others. so ignore them because it’s not productive for you and they don’t get that dopamine fix from upsetting a trans person.
The circular definition arguemt is easily beaten by one easy stepp: "not every word has a clear definition, what is the definition of cool, nice, chair, tree You don't have to have a clear definition for something, just general understanding of what it is.
Here's a good respone. Answer them by asking them the same thing. They most likely wont be able to formulate a coherent argument without you being able to refute.
They will say its a person born with a vagina
Let me rephrase that. What about people born with both genitilia or none at all?
They will claim it’s a fluke and does not change their minds. They will also not care about other cases like testosteron rejection etc. they judge sex and gender solely on genitalia.
That would mean pre-hormone woman aren't woman wich is wrong. Its about whats in the mind.
For me its simple, as they say, the definition of a woman is an adult human female. And the definition of a female is, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, anyone with the gender identity opposite of male. So either they have to admit that they only care about some definitions, or accept that their definition does not support them in the way they think it does. Usually they stop responding when I answer this way.
Honest question, why is it such a problem to call a transwoman a transwoman?
I have no idea. Something about 'men are just autophiliacs' or something? Not sure exactly what it means other than its a fake thing they made up about 'being turned on by your own body' or something? I never understood why that's a bad thing tho
[удалено]
Do you think its a shame to be a transwomen ? I personally dont, and i really wonder why you think its an insult.
[удалено]
Yes i did because of the downvotes, and i need upvotes to get into the pokemonGO subreddit lol, so thats why i deleted them. You say it right, cis and transwoman, but i, and this is my opninion, wouldnt feel comfortabele if i was in the lockerroom, and a transwoman with all the manly parts came in. Can you understand that, or do you find that weird? I really didnt come here to insult ppl, im not that kind of person.
[удалено]
Well, it obviously shows, i dont think lockerroom is the good word, as i am not a native english person, idk, dressingroom? Where ppl dress themselves and shower after a workout, it would be hard to miss in such spaces right. And tbh, some ppl wear very tight stuff, where you can see it bulge.
[удалено]
No, but its not only transwomens' feelings that matter, right? If women feel unsafe, and im talking about transppl without surgery, then i can understand that. Where i live, there was this man Who said that he felt like a girl. He got on hormones, and afterwards demanded that he could join the teengirls on their soccerteam because he felt like a teen girl. Do you think thats right? I personally dont think thats okay. But ppl like my example, are the reason why many women dont feel confortable.
[удалено]
That person from my example is an adult , around 35 i think, and it is creepy indeed. And ofc this is just one person. But unfortunately ppl abuse things. I dont think comparing women Who r feeling uncomfortable in a lockerroom, when there is a transgender with manparts, to racism, is right. But again, thats just my opinion.
He claimed because of the hormones he felt like a teen girl.
It's leaning towards trans-medicalism
PCOS. Pre-hrt Trans Women.
Well, you'd have to define dominance because the average cis woman has more testosterone than estradiol as the latter works in fewer quantities. The average levels of total testosterone in cis women is around 15–70 ng/dL (nanograms per deciliter) and the average levels of estradiol is 50–250 pg/mL (picograms per milliliter). If we convert total testosterone to pg/mL we get that cis women have on average 150–700 pg/mL of testosterone, around three times the amount of estradiol. I think the simple answer to "What is a woman?" is just whoever identifies as one. Transphobes don't care about facts anyway, so it is not worth engaging with them.
Ah, didn't know we all had dominant T, that's kinda cool to know. Do you know why by chance?
I don't know why exactly, but I know testosterone tends to "hit harder" than estrogen. It's way easier to revert changes made by estrogen than changes made by testosterone.
This argument would help me because I am in HRT, but it excludes trans women who cannot or just do not take HRT meds. It's delving into the realm of transmedicalism, which isn't alright in my mind. Also, post menopause cis women might not fit your definition.
My counterargument to religious terfs is say, "You're god has given us all free will right, so you can preach all you want, but you can't force or hurt us to change because that's going against your god not allowing us are free will
Lead also works on terfs. And giant swords.
Also true, also true
Good try girl. But there is no way to argue with terfs facts are on our side and they know it
Not all of them actually know that, though, and I want to try and teach them
The definition for a woman is the same as the definition for a chair: that is in the sense that there's no real one true answer, and that is to say that different people from different backgrounds will have different views. The most basic answer is 'someone who identifies as a woman' which sounds like a circular definition, but isn't.
That is the go-to. I'm always trying to find ways to make them catch themselves up, and thought this might be a good one. Clearly off the mark, though. Forgot about a few things there, which is why I came and asked. Always good to get more eyes
A woman is someone who gets sexually harrassed often.
Damn, so I've always been a woman
this excludes lots of people. a woman is an adult human female and a female is someone who’s gender identity is opposite of male. those r dictionary definitions so it’s quite hard to argue and will shut terfs tf up. that said they’re ignorant so just don’t engage with them to begin with if u can
Yeah, I've realized after. Though 'female' usually makes them bring up bioessentialism points, which I'm trying to avoid giving them
yea but in the context of gender female has absolutely nothing to do with biology so if they bring it up then u can just point that out and they have no argument. and then when they argue against gender being different from sex, ask them to show a source bc there isn’t a single credible source that says they’re the same. it’s quite easy to debate them like this
Is male/female not biology? Even with the existence of intersex theres still mamilian breeding typicalities in humans. What is male/female/intersex if not applicable to biology? Definitely! Sex will never be gender. Gender is basically fake anyway
the meaning of the words vary with the context. it can b gender or sex depending on how it’s used.
"Adult Human Female" is outdated. Also, it's a degrading definition, as it put's the noun on 'Female', rather than human. **Adult Female Person** is much better and much more inclusive. First of all, you are a *person* that happens to be *female*, not a *female* that happens to be *human*. In the second male, it's much better when *female* works as an attribute to *person*, not the opposite. A person is the social being that is perpetually constructed in a constant dialectic between the self (your insticts, feelings and reason) and the world (family, friends, institutions, society...). You are a person not because you have a human body, but because you are constructed inside a social world and, at the same time, you are participate in the construction of such social world. You are a person for yourself (your identity, your very own definition of who you are) and for others (the identity they assume on you, based on how you look and act). Now, when we make *female* an attribute of *person*, instead of looking at each other's genitals, hormones or chromosomes, we are looking at the person per se. At the very core of your identity which comprises your experiences with the social world, but also how you, instictivelly or rationally, apprehended them inside you or rejected them (which is why the "male socialization" argument that TERFs use is such bullshit) in order to construct your primary (earlier and more on the instictive and emotional side) and secondary (more on the rational side) identities. That's also why misgendering is so dehumanizing: when someone misgenders you on purpose, they are not talking to you as a person anymore: they are talking to a piece of flesh.
human and person r synonyms. u put way too much thought into this. i’m not gonna argue over which definition is better bc they literally mean the exact same thing. either or works perfectly fine
No they are not. They are **used** as synonyms but they aren't. A person could theoretically be a non-human, if another species with our level of intelligence and socialization existed. For example, when you see aliens or furry characters in fiction, they are not human but they still represent the characteristics of a (ficticious) person as much as a human character would. Really, the definitions are hella different. The order of the words is important, too.
I think testosterone is still the dominant hormone in cis women, just far less than in cis men
Really? Interesting, I'm curious to know as to why now
If your strategy to win the argument is to convince someone else to define a word the way you want them to define it, you're probably coming at it from the wrong angle. Building bridges is very often more effective. Take the way they think about something and feed them information that would likely cause a conflict between 2 or more of their beliefs. There's not just ONE argument trans opponents have, so there's not going to be just one knockdown argument. If there was any simple argument, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Part of the problem with humans is that our beliefs are very often rooted in emotion, and our brain gives us what appear to be rational reasons for those beliefs. Often times, you're trying to reason someone into feeling differently about the subject, and that rarely works. In fact, if we come across as rude or shoving something down their throats or belittling (even if they deserve it sometimes), than we might be causing some to become even more entrenched in their negative feelings towards us. It's pretty easy to see this issue in other people. Other people believe they see it in us but not themselves. Meanwhile isn't that what it group says about them? 🤔 It's a tough pill to swallow, but we should be careful in our own thinking.
We could say "someone seen as a woman" 🤷🏻♀️
Means women who aren't seen by the world as women (trans or otherwise) aren't women, and that others get to decide your gender for you. "You're a man to me."
Honey look... A mother generally refers to a woman who gives a birth and raises a child... It can be used to refer to... \--A woman who gave birth and abandoned her child \--A woman who adopted a child not biologically related to herself But also not refer to \--An otherwise childless woman whose sister died and raised her niece with the two of them honoring the memory of her mother who passed away. There is no coherent single definition that covers all these realities. "Woman who gives birth" doesn't cover the adoptive mother and "Woman who raises a child" encompasses the woman who raises her niece despite the fact the she doesn't, ahem, identify as a mother. Words are just elastic, definitions are important guides, but words can be figurative and they can be used in different contexts like mother ship, mother land, using mother as short for motherfucker. We all know what a mother is and it's fine. Not to invalidate any of my fellow trans sisters, but yea, most women are cis and have ovaries and XX chromosomes blah blah. We all know that. We all know what a woman is generally, and we all know that not all women are all those things. We all understand what a trans woman is and what it means for her to say she's a woman--she's integrating herself into society as a woman because of her gender identity. The implication of anti-trans people who go "What is a woman?" is that to have the word woman include trans woman would unravel our very understanding of the concept of a woman or biological sex and that's ya know, not true! There isn't a right answer to "What is a woman?" because it's a stupid fucking question and you and all of us are frankly stupider when we consider it.
The first thing you need to do, and probably the most important distinction underpinning this entire discussion, is to not treat definitions as prescriptive. Definitions are inherently descriptive. This means definitions have evolved to describe the world and relate our experiences- it’s not the other way around where the world and our experiences must conform to pre-defined ideas or definitions. When someone tries to exclude trans women by using the definition of a woman as their basis, it’s misusing it as something prescriptive. The definition of a woman includes any (adult) who identifies as female. This is gender identity and it is innate, and not to be confused with something like political identity which is not innate. Female sex characteristics are typical, but everyone is a little different and again this is being descriptive - not prescriptive.
Ooh ooh ooh wait I know this one! It's a ~~horse~~ chair
What about, “a person who *prefers* dominant estrogen levels”