3 ms·

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals. The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men

Right, because we don’t perform c-sections on pregnant raccoons in hospitals. The term is perfectly inclusive. It includes everyone it should, women, trans men, etc, and nobody it shouldn’t, like raccoons. Your term isn’t like that, which is why nobody uses it. Well, I bet vets might use it, it might make sense there.

ciiiicii 2y ago
[flagged]
- consteval 2y ago
  According to you. Not according to the trans-men who have undergone c-sections. Whether that is happening or not is not debatable - there are people who identify as trans-men who have gotten c-sections. Just as the sky is blue. The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them. One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes. We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one. Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed. Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.
  - ciiiicii 2y ago
    Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words. Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact. Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman. I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.
      - ciiiicii 2y ago
        Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman. Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man. You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.
        consteval 2y ago
        > This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really. But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is complicated. For example, you might call the bank teller "ma'am". Did you examine her reproductive organs? No, right? So this should be impossible - how did you know she was a woman? Because, regardless of what bumbling idiots on the internet will claim, gender is inherently a social construct. You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things. Your brain then computes these all together and you determine "woman". But, she could have a penis. In fact, just statistically speaking, you've encountered many women with penises and you will never know who they are, because they are women by your own perception. The same goes with men. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or remain a bumbling idiot, I do not care. This conversation is stupid, and frankly beneath me.

ciiiicii 2y ago

[flagged]

consteval 2y ago
According to you. Not according to the trans-men who have undergone c-sections. Whether that is happening or not is not debatable - there are people who identify as trans-men who have gotten c-sections. Just as the sky is blue. The question then shifts to why you believe your interpretation of their identity is more valuable than their interpretation of their identity. This is where people really struggle to make their logic consistent. In my opinion, your interpretation is inherently less valuable because, well, you aren't them. One may wish to look to some one true objective truth. It does not exist. Women and men is not clear-cut and has never been clear-cut. There are those who may have a uterus, ovaries, and XY chromosomes. Or testes and a vagina, with XX ovaries. Or maybe ovaries with XXY chromosomes. We can hand-wave these people away, sure, but remember - you're competing with a perfectly inclusive term. If you hand-wave those people away then you admit your term isn't perfectly inclusive and is therefore worse, so we're back at square one. Can you find one true external factor that determines a binary gender for every human who has existed, may exist, or is currently existing, with no exceptions? You may be tempted to answer - but I should warn you, it can, and will, be trivially disputed. Or, you can skip all of this "pursuit of truth" nonsense and just say "pregnant people", which DOES encompass anyone who is pregnant and who has existed, or may exist, or is currently existing.
- ciiiicii 2y ago
  Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words. Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact. Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman. I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.
    - ciiiicii 2y ago
      Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman. Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man. You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really. But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is complicated. For example, you might call the bank teller "ma'am". Did you examine her reproductive organs? No, right? So this should be impossible - how did you know she was a woman? Because, regardless of what bumbling idiots on the internet will claim, gender is inherently a social construct. You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things. Your brain then computes these all together and you determine "woman". But, she could have a penis. In fact, just statistically speaking, you've encountered many women with penises and you will never know who they are, because they are women by your own perception. The same goes with men. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or remain a bumbling idiot, I do not care. This conversation is stupid, and frankly beneath me.