4 ms·

What percentage of people experience these cases you describe? These seem like nits, not definition destroying counter-evidence.

Spivak 4y ago
Infertile women? 1 in 10. Women who’ve had their ovaries removed? 200k per year. Women who’ve had their uteruses removed? 400k per year. Women born without a uterus? 1 in 4500 or about 900k women in the world. Women who are born without a uterus and ovaries? About 7% of those born without a uterus so 63k women worldwide. But you know what the definition destroying counter evidence is? That if current estimates are accurate that about 1 in 100 people are trans. If trans people were rarer it would be easier to argue that they should just be an asterisk. Edit: For my own curiosity I wanted to see if being trans would qualify as a rare disease and apparently the FDA’s threshold is 1 in 200k.
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  You missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear. These are all things that happen to women (and can only happen to women). You have to be born with a uterus in order to have it removed. Somehow, individuals born without a uterus and/or ovaries are recognized as women/female in whatever source it is you're not citing. Let be very clear, I'm not advocating against trans people. On the contrary, I think all people who aren't hurting others are deserving of respect and dignity within the limits of reason and the law of "your reach ends where my nose begins." But that doesn't entitle them or anyone else to unilaterally (and with a strong authoritarian bent, I might add) change our language or to proclaim "Trans women are women." I would counter, "No. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK." 1% certainly doesn't strike me as definition destroying counter evidence. Again, not sure what your source is.
yosame 4y ago
If you say "All apples are red" and I show you a green apple, would that just be nitpicking?
- next_xibalba 4y ago
  Straw man. If I say "all apples are apples" and you show me a pear, I'm not wrong.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    > If your sex is female you have ovaries. Period. Here’s a woman who had her ovaries removed due to a medical complication and a woman who was born without them. How are these not counterexamples? Yes it’s true that all women have ovaries except the ones that don’t.
    - snoozing 4y ago
    - next_xibalba 4y ago
      > If your sex is female you have ovaries. Period. Who wrote that? Not me. That is a cynical attempt at zooming into a very specific feature as though it is defining. (Which the green apple vs. red apple fallacy actually helps demonstrate!) Basic common sense tells us that a woman is defined by many anatomical (and, consequently, behavioral) traits. Let's look at the Wikipedia definition, which matches the definition that the vast majority of humanity understands and agrees with: "...inherit a pair of X chromosomes.." "...are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause..." "...lack of a present, or functioning, SRY-gene on either one of the respective sex chromosomes..." "...Female anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva..." "...a wider pelvis, broader hips, and larger breasts than an adult man..." "...Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men..." Conversely, we can say, quite clearly, that a person born with a penis, who then has the penis surgically refashioned into a "vagina", who has top surgery, and who undergoes significant hormone treatments clearly does not meet that definition. This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman. Again, let me be CRYSTAL clear. Saying "trans woman != woman" is true and OK to say. It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated. To say, believe, or act on that is NOT OK. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK.

Spivak 4y ago

Infertile women? 1 in 10. Women who’ve had their ovaries removed? 200k per year. Women who’ve had their uteruses removed? 400k per year. Women born without a uterus? 1 in 4500 or about 900k women in the world. Women who are born without a uterus and ovaries? About 7% of those born without a uterus so 63k women worldwide. But you know what the definition destroying counter evidence is? That if current estimates are accurate that about 1 in 100 people are trans. If trans people were rarer it would be easier to argue that they should just be an asterisk. Edit: For my own curiosity I wanted to see if being trans would qualify as a rare disease and apparently the FDA’s threshold is 1 in 200k.

next_xibalba 4y ago
You missed my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear. These are all things that happen to women (and can only happen to women). You have to be born with a uterus in order to have it removed. Somehow, individuals born without a uterus and/or ovaries are recognized as women/female in whatever source it is you're not citing. Let be very clear, I'm not advocating against trans people. On the contrary, I think all people who aren't hurting others are deserving of respect and dignity within the limits of reason and the law of "your reach ends where my nose begins." But that doesn't entitle them or anyone else to unilaterally (and with a strong authoritarian bent, I might add) change our language or to proclaim "Trans women are women." I would counter, "No. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK." 1% certainly doesn't strike me as definition destroying counter evidence. Again, not sure what your source is.

yosame 4y ago

If you say "All apples are red" and I show you a green apple, would that just be nitpicking?

next_xibalba 4y ago
Straw man. If I say "all apples are apples" and you show me a pear, I'm not wrong.
- Spivak 4y ago
  > If your sex is female you have ovaries. Period. Here’s a woman who had her ovaries removed due to a medical complication and a woman who was born without them. How are these not counterexamples? Yes it’s true that all women have ovaries except the ones that don’t.
  - snoozing 4y ago
  - next_xibalba 4y ago
    > If your sex is female you have ovaries. Period. Who wrote that? Not me. That is a cynical attempt at zooming into a very specific feature as though it is defining. (Which the green apple vs. red apple fallacy actually helps demonstrate!) Basic common sense tells us that a woman is defined by many anatomical (and, consequently, behavioral) traits. Let's look at the Wikipedia definition, which matches the definition that the vast majority of humanity understands and agrees with: "...inherit a pair of X chromosomes.." "...are capable of pregnancy and giving birth from puberty until menopause..." "...lack of a present, or functioning, SRY-gene on either one of the respective sex chromosomes..." "...Female anatomy is distinguished from male anatomy by the female reproductive system, which includes the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, and vulva..." "...a wider pelvis, broader hips, and larger breasts than an adult man..." "...Women have significantly less facial and other body hair, have a higher body fat composition, and are on average shorter and less muscular than men..." Conversely, we can say, quite clearly, that a person born with a penis, who then has the penis surgically refashioned into a "vagina", who has top surgery, and who undergoes significant hormone treatments clearly does not meet that definition. This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman. Again, let me be CRYSTAL clear. Saying "trans woman != woman" is true and OK to say. It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated. To say, believe, or act on that is NOT OK. Trans women are trans women, and that's OK.