What is a woman?

So then a person who is born with a penis but has the XX chromosomes is a woman? But unless something comes up to cause a genetic test how would they know?

Given that most people who identify as trans are never tested for such abnormalities, how would we know that it isn't the issue? And what about chimeraism as a cause? Even when tested, usually only one point on the body is tested for DNA.

The vast majority of transgender people are not claiming that their sex is ever changed. And in the end, the claim is that those personality traits being so far to the other side is what is causing the gender dysphoria. And right now, if we try to have the mind altered to match the body, we will cause more damage than we correct. So what else do you suggest we do?

 

But why don't we just redefine everything until it matches our emotional agenda?

In clown world, things can be whatever we deem them to be

 

This begs the question: What did he identify as, man or woman? Dressing as the stereotype of a woman doesn't automatically mean that one identifies as a woman.

 

If we're not supposed to redefine things, especially based upon emotional agenda, then you would agree that we should no longer call homosexuals gay, **** or queers, because these words had other meanings before they were redefined by those who despised homosexuals, would you not?

 

The bold are stereotypes and are not anything genetically determined by a chromosome pairing. For that matter there are cultures across history where women were expected to have the shorter hair than men. With that said, at what point does not having all of those physical characteristics at birth disqualify a person from being a woman?

 

People obsessed with labels like to come up with new labels.

All nouns ever to exist or that ever will exist are labels.

I'm of the thought woman means adult human female. Not this meaningless drivel that cannot be defined.

 

My assertion is as stated. If you don’t like it that’s completely on you but that’s how I judge and will always judge what a woman is

 

Has derogatory as they may be those words still refer to a homosexual we don't suddenly refer to homosexuals as heterosexuals.

Nor should you say a woman is now a man

 

To be frank, my position isn't anything to do with definitions or morality or what motives people have for defining their tastes in sexual partners.
I fundamentally believe that ones relationships are no one else's business, that any level of government should never legislate on such matters and that people have a primary right to live their lives as they please.
IOW their right to the pursuit of happiness.
What annoys me to some extent is the huge fuss made about it all. The desperate attempts to define by labels their proclivity and in some cases, the need to proclaim repeatedly to anyone who will listen.

 

When discussing this topic, I tend to use the terms gender and gender identity to differentiate between your physical gender and your psychological gender identity. I've always thought of gender and sex to be two words that describe essentially the same thing. Gender identity seems to be the accepted term for discussing the psychological aspects. It's the language that's being used in the mainstream as well. In my opinion, it helps enunciate the line that separates the two things.

The final deciding factor would always be chromosomes, but most people aren't going to dig to that level to take a peek at them. I doubt even transsexuals are having their chromosomes examined. For other people looking at a person, genitals and external characteristics are going to be the determining factor for many I think. It's the information you have at hand.

 

Your claim is that word cannot be redefined, yet you are saying that it's alright for certain words to be redefined. Keep in mind that the words did not always refer to a homosexual. So if you can't redefine words, then why can those words be redefined?

 

Okay then I can suddenly look at an oak tree and declare that that is now known as a kitten?

I mean I could but it doesn't mean it makes any sense or anyone has to pay any attention to it

 

So then you agree that a homosexual should not be labeled with the word that means a bundle of sticks (f*g or fa**ot) or festive (gay).

 

The mainstream language is all over the place right now. I do get that you might see sex and gender as synonymous since it has been that way for all of our lives. I believe that the shift to make them so was back in the late 1800's somewhere. I much prefer to ascribe the two concepts as sex and gender because it brings a greater contrast between them. But overall I think we might be on the same page for the concepts, if not the labels.

For the record, transsexual is no longer used as the label for what is now being called transgender. IIRC that stemmed from the derogatory implications of the older mental health system. However there is a movement within the transgender community to reclaim the word as an indication of whether a transgender person has undergone SRS or not.

That said, I want to check before I go on, because it is hard to check back through posts on my phone. Are for or against the idea of transgender people going through transition to alleviate GD?

 

A woman is anyone who says they are a woman!
Please understand lefty science!

 

I have no problem with it whatsoever. My only concern with these issues are that gender identity is being pushed to replace gendex/sex, and that there a few areas where the latter is more important than the former. Medically, you're going to want your doctor to know your birth gender, because that's what's going to be "under the hood" so to speak, no matter what gender you identify as. But that's also going to be limited to the transgender people and their doctors and not something that affects people outside of them.

In sports that are separated by gender/sex, I think it is birth gender that should be considered, not gender identity.

To a lesser extent, bathrooms and gender separated living quarters should probably remain separated by gender, but I think this particular issue gets blown up by haters a lot as well. I guess I'm unsure when it comes to this, as there are legitimate points on both sides. In my opinion, if one has undergone SRS, they can use the bathroom and living quarters of their new gendex/sex.

Another area would be programs/grants/etc etc that are meant for a specific gender. Here too, someone who has undergone SRS in my opinion can be considered for things meant for the gender they have transitioned to. But if no SRS, they should only be considered for their birth gender/sex.

 

Pretty much what I said.

 

It read to me as if you were claiming long hair and caring for offspring were genetic traits. Did I simply read that wrong? Or maybe you miswrote, probably by a autocorrect you missed?

 

A biological definition and an individual's gender identity are disparate matters.

Intrusive politicians unleash rampant statism to impose gender identity upon Americans, but it's futile.

For bible fans, the right hand is the hand of strength (Exodus 15:6; Psalm 118:16) and is consistently valued over the left hand in Scripture (Genesis 48:13-18; Galatians 2:9). Of course, most folks are right-handed. Does this mean that the State should proscribe left-handedness, and discriminate against individuals who defy them and follow their personal predilection if it differs from the norm?

Like the man said,

​

In advanced nations, people are free to be who they are, and the integrity of the individual is respected. Elsewhere, their self-understanding is abused and savaged by presumptuous politicians with an agenda they want to force upon everyone..​

Arrogant statists eagerly surrender science and learning - whether climatology, epidemiology, or gender identity - to their politicians and bureaucrats with no expertise in those disciplines whatever, as they impose their ideological dogma with little reference to reason or reality.

You have a right to be just like me!​

 

I qualified both the long hair and mothering examples as actual genetic traits.

 

There is no nation in the world where a male can become a female and the biological definition and the individuals gender are intrinsically the same as oppose to pretending.

Which ones are the women and which is the man

 

I agree with the majority of your post, but as a side note, most DNA tests, which are rather popular with some groups, actually can test for those chromosomes.

 

In some cultures there are no left handed people because everyone learns to predominately use their right hands from childhood. Did you know Phil Mickleson plays golf left handed by is actually right handed for everything else because his dad taught him how to play standing across from him. Did you know Paul McCartney plays bass and guitar left handed but everything else right handed because when he first started playing as a very young child he thought the rights hand was supposed to fret the notes being the more complicate of the two.

Handedness is not the best example of what I believe you are trying to say.

 

Long hair is not a genetic trait. At best hair growth rate is, but short of a balding disorder, which women can have as well, anyone can grow long hair. Same for "mothering". That is a learned trait, not a genetic one.

 

Why does it matter how people opt to define themselves? If someone wish to be perceived as and treated as a particular gender, then whatever. More power to them, it does not affect me in the least, and I will be respectful of their choice.