You're viewing a single thread.
The following isn't an argument against trans people in any way, only against this thought process. I've been having thoughts on this that I want to get out there and hear people's opinion on. Don't attack me, I have nothing against trans and fully support them. But I hate that this has become an argument. I'm not really sure what the point is. What is the end goal?
Scenario 1: Someone actually makes some 20 page long legal type document, going into every possible facet and exception, that actually fits what the person is asking for. Will they then agree with the haters that trans women are not women? I doubt it. But then why ask?
Scenario 2: They ask because they believe it isn't possible. But then what does that mean? Because it's not possible to define it, anyone can say what it means? First, you can say this for a lot of things. I'm betting you can't make a definition for a car, that doesn't exclude any actual car, but doesn't include any vehicles that aren't a car. Does that mean we all just get to say whether our particular vehicle is a car or not? I don't think it's a good argument.
Again, I support trans, and believe if someone says they want to be treated as and referred to as a woman (or whatever), they should be. I don't agree that someone's ability to define a word or not should dictate this though. So I don't agree with this particular argument, especially when I truly believe it's disingenuous in the first place, and that if someone did succeed, it wouldn't mean anything to the people making the argument anyway.
You might be interested in this VSauce video on the philosophy of definitions, which isn't specifically about the trans argument.
But, I also side strongly with wpb's comment. The political advantage is to make them look silly, and not because we really care about the definition of "woman" any more than our simple "whoever wants to be one."
There's some context that's important to this whole argument that may clear things up for you a bit:
This whole thing started when TERFs claimed that trans women aren't women by the definition of what a woman is, and people asked them to define a woman. The original answer by the person who started this merry-go-round was "an adult human capable of giving birth."
It was immediately pointed out that this definition excluded a massive percentage of cis women, and TERFs have been in denial ever since and trying to come up with a new simple definition that excludes trans women from being women.
There is no intent to this other than saying that trans women aren't women.
The question simply illustrates that there can't be a definition that includes all edge cases.
Therefore, passing legislation that criminalizes people using a woman's bathroom if they don't fit the definition doesn't make sense.
Unless your goal is to throw all women into a legal grey area, so you can better control them.I think you don't fully understand the intention behind the argument. Rather than being part of some mathematical deeply logical proof, it is much more an appeal to someone's common sense or feelings.
Generally, the conservatives like to portray themselves on trans issues as the common sense side. Think of when they extend LGBTQ with all sorts of weird letters, rolling their eyes. Or think of Dave Chappelle's punching down specials. Or think of The One Joke. And this is a very successful starting point, because most people are not knowingly interacting with trans people, so to them trans issues are already a bit unfamiliar, or weird.
The idea behind the argument is to have the answerer realize that in fact their position is not the obvious one, and that their position is actually weird. And this is highly subjective. The point is not the answer, the point is the hoops they'll have to jump through to get to a satisfactory trans-exlusionary answer.
It's subjective of course, but it's very hard for someone to write a 20 page definition of gender and then follow that up with "duh". Or to write something like "producer of the large gametes" or whatever and feel like a normal person.
No hate, but I love a good debate if you're up for it.
Scenario 1:
Great points, honestly. However, even in this scenario where someone manages to cover all of the bases and managed to create an exact list of what it means to be a woman, it would be impossible to disqualify trans women.
Scenario 2:
I'll get deeper into this one since it's more realistic.
I bet you can't define a car
Vehicles are defined by their frames, and the regulations that revolve around those. I can tell you with absolute certainty whether a vehicle is a car or a truck based off the frame. But this isn't the point.
Does that mean we all just get to [define words ourselves]
Actually yes. Words gain their definition by how they are most commonly used. You learn a word based off its definition, but the word gains its definition from use. This is how Shakespeare managed to invent so many words in English. He just started using them, and when people asked what they meant he told them and they started using them. This is also why "literally" is defined as "not literally" by Webster dictionary, or at least it was around 2016 (may have changed).
As a matter of fact, entire languages have been built around this concept of redefining words. Most of German is just portmanteaus that were understandable enough to be considered a word.
In this particular case, the words "man" and "woman" is slowly being redefined by society to be more inclusive of trans people. Fighting against the progress of language, in this scenario, is nearly identical to fighting against the progress of trans people.
OK first I have no problem with language evolving. I have no problem with trans people using the word man, woman or whatever else for themselves as they feel comfortable. I have no problem with new words being defined or old words being redefined. That's not really my issue.
My issue is making the argument that trans people should or shouldn't be able to use the word on the basis that someone else can or can't define it in such a way that would exclude them but not others. Can you really say with absolute certainty, with infinite time and space, such a definition could not theoretically exist? That it isn't in the realm of possibility? And whether it can or can't exist, should it really define whether they can or can't use a word?
Also out of curiosity, because as you said it's not really the point, but regarding the cars, is that really a certainty, including all cars throughout history, all custom home made and kit cars, all foreign cars, specialised race cars, electric cars, they will ALL definitely fit into a single neat set of regulations/definition?
Out of curiosity
As long as it is legal, it can be defined as a car/truck/bike. Illegal vehicles get more complex, because as you mentioned the frame can be modified.
Such a definition could not theoretically exist
With infinite time, perhaps it could. I'll give you that one for free, I did exaggerate by saying it was entirely impossible. But for the vast majority of people it is impossible within their lifetime to create such a definition.
Should it really define whether they can or can't use a word?
Anyone can use any word, just not necessarily correctly. For example, "fish" are not real. There is no defining feature-set for a fish. However, when I say "fish" you think of a little, wet, scaley fella with silly eyes. And that's fine because communication happens and meaning is understood, but there is no way to define a fish in a way that includes all of the little scaley fellas, jellyfish, sunfish, etc.. The same logic is true for the argument about "women", there is no defining feature-set which includes all AFAB people and zero AMAB people because the lines are too blurry in genetics. An androgen-insensitive XY person with a vagina would still be AFAB, for example.
Also out of curiosity, how do you define an El Camino? I've always wondered lol car or truck?
Car is one of those repurposed words. It used to mean any wheeled vehicle until around 170 years or so ago. Automobile was used at first for cars. When I was young automobile or auto was the preferred term. Car or auto can be used for motorcycles or trains, there are just better words for those.
Human sexuality is a spectrum and not an either/or situation, and should be treated as such. That being said, a chromosome test would answer the question in over 95% of cases, I believe. I could be wrong about this, so anyone with a better understanding, please correct me.
definition doesn't stop until the historical etymology bottoms out.
You are wrong about the percentige. https://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2010-intersexuality.html
chromosomes are like 1 of 5 gears in human biology that can end up with independantly different sayings.
Of course the real problem, as many fellows have indicated, is that the 'common sense' take is incomplete, and the entire platform is harmfully dehumanizing.
For the groundshow and layfolx:
**Not all intersex conditions are x/y chromosomal differences. Hormones do what they WANT. hair whereever. gonads? can be vague about themselves. boobie having? almost more of a cultural thing chromosomes? might as well be invisible.
we could just not treat people like shit bc karen and chet think they're normal and wanna codify their cis breeder spanking/
Tap for spoiler
tranny snuff
kink in public spaces.
cw calling the transphobia by name. citations above. college degree in it so i can defend my existing. time for nap and a coffee, right?