3 ms·
Your argument is somewhat tangential - are you arguing women are defined by their ability to give birth? Seems fairly obvious that doesn't hold up even when we
by maybeOneDay 5y ago
Your argument is somewhat tangential - are you arguing women are defined by their ability to give birth? Seems fairly obvious that doesn't hold up even when we aren't talking about trans people
- IgorPartola 5y agoIt doesn’t hold up if you talk about cis women either. I know plenty who cannot have children. Menopause also then would make women not-women, right?
- atq2119 5y agoThere is a bimodal distribution of biological traits related to reproduction. Traditionally, women are defined as members of one of those clusters, the one whose members are generally able to give birth during some period of their lives. This doesn't mean that all members of the cluster can or have or will give birth, but nonetheless the clusters are fairly well-defined for nearly 100% of the population, with trans people being an exception. Some of the more extreme trans activists seem to want to pretend that these clusters don't exist, which puts them at odds with reality. Other seem to demand that the clusters shouldn't matter, which I find rather optimistic since they're relevant for reproduction. Trans rights are a noble goal, but some of the statements made by trans activists are a bit out there.
- maybeOneDay 5y agoIf by "shouldn't matter" you mean something like "it's ridiculous to define what a woman is as having a capability that literally all women lose around middle age" then I'd have to count myself amongst those people. Your argument is an extremely weak one for defining what it means to be a woman.