What is a woman?

Yes and no. You're correct that at a cellular level, you would still be your birth gender. No amount of surgery can change that. But in everyday life interactions, we don't analyze people at the cellular level, we analyze external characteristics. What that person is at that level you will never know. You'll probably never even see your own self at the cellular level.

The choice to recognize a person's gender identity versus their birth gender is not one that is being made for you by biology or nature or religion. You're an autonomous human being capable of making your own decisions. If you have a problem with someone who is transsexual, just say that. It doesn't give you more legitimacy to start arguing about a person's biology, because that's a cop out. You're not the biology police. And we humans don't honor biology if it doesn't suit us. Genetic disease? Fix them with medical treatments. Physical birth defects? Correct them with surgery. Biology is not the law.

What would happen would depend on the open mindedness of those doing the deciding in Ukraine. Considering their situation, I'm sure they would accept all the fighting people they can get. But it also doesn't really matter. The decision made by whomever was making the decision about Lea Thompson in Ukraine in your example is just a decision made by a person, making it no different than a decision made by any other person. It would not carry more weight than any other decision.

 

Hormones do not affect gender. They may affect how the characteristics of a gender are expressed, but they don't change or alter your actual gender.

And you can decide to be whomever you want, but a mental decision does not change physical facts.

That's all I'm saying. A person whose gender identity differs from their gender is still deserving of the same respect and considerations and equality as any other person. But that can't come at the cost of making unalterable facts now based purely on how a person feels. And in almost all cases, it's not even necessary. Your gender is important, outwardly, in only a few situations. Medical care, sports, bathrooms I suppose, etc. There aren't many areas where it does matter. But those areas exist, and gender identity does not change the considerations that need to be made in those cases because they are made about your gender, not your gender identity.

 

Mutilating's ones body does not change them from one sex to the other on the cellular level, the tissue level, the organ level or the organism level. And yes we analyze people according to their born sex regularly although the absurdity on the left is trying to change that so that it is ignored and substituted with pretend.

There is not a choice as to your sex. You can choose to mimic the other sex. And mutations are not the standard.

Use the "openmindness" as we have here. If men dressed up as women and went to the border and demanded they be allowed to leave should they be able to.

How about is this man showed up should he be allowed to cross the border were he ten years younger?


Just named a nominee for Woman of the Year by USA Today

So what is a woman?

 

That depends who you ask.

 

Why? How about you, asking you.

 

I had a student once who wore dresses to class. He was an athlete. He was strong. He dated females and married one and had children. If you had questioned his choice he would laugh the first time and kick ass the second. He was accepted by almost all students and admired by many. They learned to look at the person, not the dress choice he made. It did not hinder his ability to play sports. It did not make him less of a student. It did not keep him from being a good husband and dad.

 

I'm not of the sect you asked, but a woman is a human being with a vagina and ovary genitals, and a uterus that holds fetuses, and a number of DNA defined traits that differ more or less from male traits, like longer hair (usually) smoother smooth muscles, a weaker skeleton and muscle tone, and, oddly, a propensity to care for her young. It ain't rocket science.

 

Yep pretty simple

Woman = a female of the human species. Anything else is pretend.

 

Well if they were looking at the person they would see a male, they only see a female BECAUSE of the dress choice he made. And he was a man using his abilities in sport and glad he did it to the best of his male abilities.

 

Assuming that man is the other of the two, then what are those who are the genetic disorders since they are neither man nor woman?

 

One worries that a bad pun was attempted here.....


That aside, then it is your assertion that a person who is born with a vagina but has XY chromosomes is a woman and that the chromosomes hold no bearing on their sex?

 

You are conflating things again. One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with their gender identity. A homosexual is not a MtF attracted to men, or a FtM attracted to women. It is a male attracted to males or a female attracted to females. There is no claim of "being in the wrong body" save maybe by idiom. More often than not, a person does not change what they are attracted to when they transition, even if they change the label. Whether I am a straight male or a gay female I am still attracted to women.

 

Key word. Seems. A lot of things seem to suddenly be a lot larger in number because we now are a lot more interconnected and are exposed to people we would not normally be exposed to before the Internet became what it is. We are also in a period where people are more free to express what they kept hidden before. So it's not necessarily that there are more of them suddenly, but only that we are suddenly more aware of them.

 

I know, right? And this isn't the first one. Same sex marriage, interracial marriage, women voting.....when will these terrible fads ever end?

 

So once sterile, one is no longer a man or woman?

 

You have yet to provide that link to prove this DNA has been discovered. There are some 13, I think it was, variations that MIGHT point to a common source, but nothing proven yet. So please show us what has been discovered that provides DNA evidence to transgender status in corpses.

 

Extremely rare. Most intersex conditions do not show as such. Not even the one medically labeled as "true hermaphroditism" in which the body has both ovarian and testicular tissue. Yes there have been times an oversized clitoris has been mistaken as a penis or a micro-penis as an oversized clitoris. But that is not the same as having both genitals. Unless you are speaking in a more idiomatic mode. Usually what the gonads morph into is not considered part of the genitals. Well maybe the testicles since they are on the outside, but not medically speaking.

 

If they have both, then what would be the norm for them?

 

If you have two Y's in your genes then you are def not female. Whether or not you're a woman is undergoing a lingual shift. Females are XX, not YY.

 

Hey if they want people to conform to the norm, then they need to be forcing left handed people to be right handed.....oh wait we already tried that.

 

So what is the defining criteria? Do the chromosomes make the determination or do the external genitals?

 

But the argument is to force the exception to no longer be an exception.

 

Not all mutations and variations ensure the survival of the species. Some occur and have no bearing on survival. Some occur that lower the species chance at survival. Evolution is not a one way street.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-evolution-promotes-the-survival-of-species/

FACTS matter!

 

In fairness, bringing up sex isn't helping your argument as for the most part there isn't a claim about the sex, but the gender. And while gender until recently has been synonymous with biological sex, it was not always so. So if it can be redefined once to include biological sex, there is no reason to say it can't be redefined again to exclude it.

 

I think that this is part of the problem, the language. As noted before sex and gender were not always synonymous. Related maybe, but not the same. Then later through the use of slang and idiom, the word gender did evolve to be synonymous with biological sex. Now most people tend to go for sex is set by genetics, and then base gender upon that criteria. You however seem to be using gender as the basis where most use sex. In the end, I think more fighting is done over the labels than over the concepts those labels are supposed to represent.

You also have in your argument that the gender changes. Most transgender are not claiming a change, but that the identity was always as is. At this point there is not even an agreed upon language among either proponents not opponents, it seems. Hell I can't even get opponents to agree on whether it's chromosomes or genitals that make the final determination on what biological sex is.