Cloud_Strife
Deity
So are they women or notFalse
So are they women or notFalse
Stop running away from the fact that what @Cloud_Strife said was true.False
Speaking neutrally: A belief system can be based on prejudice and/or ignorance.This kind of attide where some people think your prejudice and/or ignorant because you have your own beliefs on things really stinks and does not male for a good environment for conversation.
The either-or dichotomy is there for a very good reason in any system which can provide a proven conclusion. The reason is that if things can be both a and not a, at the same time and in the same way, then nothing follows from this.
This is known by many names, eg "law of excluded middle", and is often attributed to Aristotle (because he entirely explicitly stated it, as well as examined it as a necessary reduction).
More directly, in this topic (since obviously it doesn't just apply here), it means that while you can think gender is both innate and not innate, you should at least understand such a position will disable any way of backing a claim about gender.
Perhaps backing claims on this was already impossible, but even if it wasn't, such a stance makes it certainly impossible.
Should it matter? Not to the individual. But it takes away aspirations of formalized, agreed upon views, as in law or other communal systems.
Everyone, past some level, operates in a personal pool of ambiguity. No one can turn that into an argument within a shared system. It's how people continue living despite having incompatible views. It's why you wouldn't self-combust if you honestly thought the Taylor series is a show about balloons.
Apologies…coming to this late…so not read through 10 pages and may have been covered.
Is it a social construct, or a linguistic debate? To me it comes back to @Cloud_Strife’s point of ‘is a trans woman a woman’?
Well clearly not in the scientific sense of the word woman. But then the debate is really, what does the word women mean?
This debate wouldn’t matter much, except we already use this word (and associated words) a lot. Eg. Women’s sports, girls schools, mothers
So we have to decide if we are changing the definition of woman, whether these other uses are for the old definition or the new definition. And there in lies the battleground.
In my view, might be easier to stick with the old definition.
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).What is a woman in the “scientific sense?” How is this “scientific” sense applicable to everyday usage?
I like how you present relationships inside a nuanced spectrum.
Clearly a better description of (sexual?) reality than other stereotypes.
Yet I fail to understand how "gender" applies (in society) outside of intimate relations.
Does "gender" matter in other kind of rapports?
How so? What are the perceptible characteristics showing a masculine or feminine orientation?
Or to pose it differently, an illustration of why i think it’s a linguistic debate.
If ‘Women’s sports’ were renamed ‘Female at birth sports’ (a bit clunky I agree) would you be fine with trans women being excluded?
The point is all about ‘what is a woman?’ (Or a man for that matter)
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).
‘Born with a vagina’ and ‘woman’ are synonymous for most people, so altering the definition of woman to include others is a change.
How do you see it differently?
What is the ratio, would you say, of people you see or interact with every day whom you explicitly or implicitly apply a gender to, to the amount of those people whose genitals or chromosomes you’ve empirically confirmed?
Put another way, if it’s a matter of genitals or chromosomes, why am I exclusively referred to as miss or ma’am in my day-to-day life?
This won't cut it, since using a mixture as your basis makes you have to define the mixture. And with current tech, this is literally impossible to back as valid, regardless of the level of detail the theory goes into.I haven’t violated the principle of the excluded middle. The answer to the statement “it is either entirely a social construct or it is entirely the result of a female brain in a male body” is false. It is no different than someone holding out a mushroom and saying “this is either a plant or an animal”
I’m no expert but ‘xy chromosomes’ or ‘born with a penis’ would be most people’s go to for a man (and the reverse for women).
‘Born with a vagina’ and ‘woman’ are synonymous for most people, so altering the definition of woman to include others is a change.
How do you see it differently?
My point is that to know whether I agree or disagree with that statement entirely depends on your definition of woman and man.You realize this is still effectively telling trans women that they aren't women and that trans men aren't men, right
I assume whether someone is a man or a women by looking at them. That doesn’t mean I get it correct, and I have no way of knowing if I’m right. Almost all the time, it doesn’t matter if I’m right or wrong, and if I get it wrong the person will correct me.What is the ratio, would you say, of people you see or interact with on any give day whom you explicitly or implicitly apply a gender to, to the amount of those people whose genitals or chromosomes you’ve empirically confirmed?
Put another way, if it’s a matter of genitals or chromosomes, why am I exclusively referred to as miss or ma’am in my day-to-day life?
Hell, I don’t even know whether my own chromosomes are XY, XX, or something else
‘Mistaken’ seems to be the key word here?And how does @Nick723 account for the fact that cis women are routinely mistaken for cis men and vice versa?
I’m sorry but I don’t think this is correct.Science is not limited to studying chromasomes or genitals. It also covers, for example, the study of the mind. So someone who's mind is that of a womans is every bit as "scientifically" a woman as one who's chromasomes or genitals are those of a woman.
If you wanted to say that trans women are not chromasomally women, then, I guess that would be accurate, though I can't see what relevance that would have to they way people should be treated. But to say they aren't women in a scientific sense is just plain wrong.
It's yours:Are you saying that if you look like a woman, that is the definition of a woman?
I assume whether someone is a man or a women by looking at them.
I mean isn’t that self-evident? We live in a society where people are treated differently according to their gender.Does "gender" matter in other kind of rapports?
How so? What are the perceptible characteristics showing a masculine or feminine orientation?
More a question of whether it matters. If "woman" is a concept that is invented for the purposes of enforcing gender norms. Like once you get away from the physical biology of reproduction, "woman" should have no different meaning than "man". As I said countless times during this thread if gender is only a social construct, than "transgender" doesn't make sense as a concept.Is it a social construct, or a linguistic debate? To me it comes back to @Cloud_Strife’s point of ‘is a trans woman a woman’?
It doesn't need a definition in the first place as the concept isn't particularly useful outside of telling people how they should live, unless we are talking about reproduction.So we have to decide if we are changing the definition of woman, whether these other uses are for the old definition or the new definition. And there in lies the battleground.
It's only one of the factors on account of which you are treated differently - and very arguably not near the top factor.I mean isn’t that self-evident? We live in a society where people are treated differently according to their gender.