7 ms·

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

by yosame 4y ago

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
      Look, clearly you’ve made up your mind, there literally nothing I could say to you that would convince you that you’re wrong and that trans women are women and trans men are men. So I don’t know why I’m bothering but here. > clearly does not meet that definition. Which is why the definition is being updated to include them. We discovered and are now socially recognizing a different kind of man and woman. > Saying "trans woman != woman" is true Your arguing something on a completely different plane than the actual discussion. It’s should we update the definition of men and women to include trans folks — why or why not? If I define good person as someone who doesn’t misgender trans people then you are NOT a good person and that’s okay to say. Do you see how meaningless that statement is? > This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman. This is literally insane levels of conspiracy theory nonsense. There is no group of mustache twirling trans people who are out to erase the definition of man and woman. What end game are you possibly imagining for this made up group? Murhahaha we’ve updated the definition of men and women to include trans men and women and now… world domination? > It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated. Yes and that mistreatment is called “treating them in a manner different from a cisgender woman including but not limited to calling them something other than women.” > Trans women are trans women, and that's OK. If you care this belief has a name and is called third gendering if you want something to Google.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        > there literally nothing I could say to you that would convince you that you’re wrong and that trans women are women and trans men are men. All I saw you use is an argument that the impossibility of perfectly distinguishing between a male and a female meant that the question is unanswerable. I'm not only concerned about actual trans women, but primarily men just saying they're trans women when caught in inappropriate places, so that argument isn't totally addressing my concerns but if you were to try to convince me that trans women were entirely women I'd expect it to include an attempted proof that they exhibit female pattern sex criminality. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're somewhere where nobody has heard of gender, with a mixed-sex group of people. At a small distance you see a male walking by in a garment that is usually worn by a female. One of the females with you says "I'm glad that the changing norms now let a man wear what was once seen as female clothing!". 1) Do you say "You don't know that they aren't a woman!"? 2) Who's more progressive, you or her? 3) Who, if either of you, is creating a third gender category?

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

by 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
    Look, clearly you’ve made up your mind, there literally nothing I could say to you that would convince you that you’re wrong and that trans women are women and trans men are men. So I don’t know why I’m bothering but here. > clearly does not meet that definition. Which is why the definition is being updated to include them. We discovered and are now socially recognizing a different kind of man and woman. > Saying "trans woman != woman" is true Your arguing something on a completely different plane than the actual discussion. It’s should we update the definition of men and women to include trans folks — why or why not? If I define good person as someone who doesn’t misgender trans people then you are NOT a good person and that’s okay to say. Do you see how meaningless that statement is? > This is a transparent, motivated attempt to erase the definition of woman. This is literally insane levels of conspiracy theory nonsense. There is no group of mustache twirling trans people who are out to erase the definition of man and woman. What end game are you possibly imagining for this made up group? Murhahaha we’ve updated the definition of men and women to include trans men and women and now… world domination? > It does NOT equate to saying trans women are bad and should be mistreated. Yes and that mistreatment is called “treating them in a manner different from a cisgender woman including but not limited to calling them something other than women.” > Trans women are trans women, and that's OK. If you care this belief has a name and is called third gendering if you want something to Google.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      > there literally nothing I could say to you that would convince you that you’re wrong and that trans women are women and trans men are men. All I saw you use is an argument that the impossibility of perfectly distinguishing between a male and a female meant that the question is unanswerable. I'm not only concerned about actual trans women, but primarily men just saying they're trans women when caught in inappropriate places, so that argument isn't totally addressing my concerns but if you were to try to convince me that trans women were entirely women I'd expect it to include an attempted proof that they exhibit female pattern sex criminality. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're somewhere where nobody has heard of gender, with a mixed-sex group of people. At a small distance you see a male walking by in a garment that is usually worn by a female. One of the females with you says "I'm glad that the changing norms now let a man wear what was once seen as female clothing!". 1) Do you say "You don't know that they aren't a woman!"? 2) Who's more progressive, you or her? 3) Who, if either of you, is creating a third gender category?