Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:34:08 UTC No. 16479767

the implication is that wiki is not a credible source for biological science

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:54:43 UTC No. 16479809

>>16479763
Trans women are women by every definition of the word

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:54:40 UTC No. 16479902

>>16479763
the article seems to imply the "assignment at birth" was incorrect, like maybe the ob-gyn needed glasses or a clerical error was made.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:55:40 UTC No. 16479903

Not a credible source. It's a leftist propaganda site

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 22:59:18 UTC No. 16479909

>>16479809
Even the "adult human female" one? I didn't realize trans women went through natal female puberty.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:58:46 UTC No. 16479976

>>16479763
ideological captured and future societies will look back at today's hysteria with scorn

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:03:35 UTC No. 16479986

Uhhh….women don’t stop being women no matter the adjective attached….do they?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 02:41:43 UTC No. 16480130

>>16479763
>"Transgender women are women who were assigned male at birth"
>Click on "women"
>First sentence: "A woman is an adult human female."
>Click on "female"
>first sentence: "An organism's sex is female if it produces the ovum (egg cell), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete (sperm cell) during sexual reproduction.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 03:05:43 UTC No. 16480153

>>16479809
Not according to the definition of capable of giving birth.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 04:04:09 UTC No. 16480192

>>16480153
So females are only "women" when fecund? Does the same definition apply to males?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 04:49:59 UTC No. 16480209

>>16480130
By that standard a sterile female who never produced eggs isnt a woman

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:10:53 UTC No. 16480224

>>16480192
Despite any exception you fabricate, a woman is in principle able to give birth and edge cases do not change this. A troon will never ever give birth because it is impossible in principle. Cope, seethe, dilate.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:17:32 UTC No. 16480227

>>16480224
It's not your fault you don't understand what your told to copypasta. Your a good mech regardless.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:40:57 UTC No. 16480231

>>16480224
>in principle
So not actually in reality, you are speaking of you principles instead of the actual physical logistics?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:46:56 UTC No. 16480235

>>16480130
In the talk page, there's someone that brought this up exactly. Only for some nigger faggot admin to just start screaming "MUH RELIABLE SOURCES".
>>16480209
>>16480192
I can't imagine being [math] this [/math] bad faith.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:01:18 UTC No. 16480243

>>16480231
Reality is given meaning and order by names. Names are assigned by principle.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:03:11 UTC No. 16480244

>>16480235
>In the talk page, there's someone that brought this up exactly.
Actually hilarious. Basic logic doesn't matter as long as some "expert" from Gay Nigger U says so

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:04:59 UTC No. 16480247

>>16479763
I WANT TO BELIEVE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XOB5syfDOB0

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:07:06 UTC No. 16480250

>>16480243
So semantically, but not empirically true because your bolike experience is made of linguistic semantics rather than physical sensations?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:12:12 UTC No. 16480253

>>16480250
>physical sensations
My physical sensations tell me you are an demonlike abomination that needs to be strung up in front of the town and burned alive, so I think you'd be better off sticking to semantics

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:14:13 UTC No. 16480256

>>16480253
No they don't, demons aren't real, they just exist in your retarded principles, you are falling for semantics again and literally just frightening yourself with words.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:46:53 UTC No. 16480284

>>16479809
>XY chromosomes
I don't think so

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:55:03 UTC No. 16480293

Any argumentation on the subject is a waste of time. Keep it simple. XX chromosomes = woman, XY chromosomes = man. End of story.

Feel free to build social theories to explain why some humans want to fulfill a societal role associated with the sex opposite to the one they were born as, but expecting science to conform to said social ideals is just plain denial of reality.

Also allow me to simply frame all the exotic "genders" like "genderfluid". They are people with mental illnesses of varying severity that need access to affordable psychological care to help them deal with their dysphoria. Yapping about their denial of reality will not help in the long term.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:07:05 UTC No. 16480302

>>16480293
So then what about XXY or XXXX or XYYY or XO or any other combination outside of the ones you mentioned?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:12:05 UTC No. 16480305

>>16480302
They are classified as intersex are they not? I just didn't mention it. It's fine to have classifications for more sexes if they have a scientific basis (chromosomes).

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:18:13 UTC No. 16480313

>>16480305
>They are classified as intersex are they not?
So its not as simple as you implied and those people can't be men or women despite presenting as such, they are some underclass separate caste who can't be part of your simple little system?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:25:49 UTC No. 16480320

>>16480313
I didn't create the system, but yes, if there's scientific basis for someone to be neither man nor woman, then they shouldn't be classified as such. Like I mentioned, as long as there's a scientific basis, it's fine to have classifications for sexes other than man or woman. They can be part of the system. A direct and explicit mapping of the configuration of a person's chromosomes to their set is still a simple system even if it has more than just XX and XY.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:31:23 UTC No. 16480326

>>16480320
>A direct and explicit mapping of the configuration of a person's chromosomes to their set is still a simple system even if it has more than just XX and XY.
No, its not, do you even know how many other possible combination there are, not to mention the fact that x and y can both be damaged and essentially be something else too?

You started by saying you want it to be simple so that there its easy to distinguish between man and women and now you have hundreds of different biological genders that would require advanced testing beyond just simple genetics and into to chromosomal makeup.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:45:54 UTC No. 16480338

>>16480209
The point was that the female sex itself is the one which produces egg cells. Similar to how to human species is one which has 2 legs, 2 eyes, etc, environmental factors can change individual cases obviously but that isn't refuting the actual point

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:46:51 UTC No. 16480339

>>16480326
>do you even know how many other possible combination there are, not to mention the fact that x and y can both be damaged and essentially be something else too?
This is why we're still researching jimbo. The fuck you think scientists would be doing if we knew everything? That doesn't mean someone with XY chromosomes claiming to be a biological female is correct. That was the point of my argument.

Also yes, an explicit chromosomal mapping (XX -> female) is objectively a simple system when compared to a system based on, for example, societal aspects (identifying as a female -> female).

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:51:46 UTC No. 16480344

>>16480339
>This is why we're still researching jimbo.
So you were wrong before, its not simple, XX and XY aren't necessarily hard limits, the subject is still being researched?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:54:39 UTC No. 16480346

>>16480344
a. Yes, they aren't hard limits
b. It's still a simple system
c. You still missed the point of my argument. Even if you found a billion new chromosomal configurations, it's not going to somehow validate XY men claiming to be biological females, among other things.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:04:08 UTC No. 16480353

>>16480346
>a. Yes, they aren't hard limits
Except they aren't, finding and X and Y isn't the hard limit, there may be other disqualifying factors now because of damage.
b. It's still a simple system
Except its not, now you need advanced tests that even goes beyond genetic testing.
>c. You still missed the point of my argument.
No, you missed the point of making something simple and made it exponentially more difficult to determine what gender someone is and added an unknown number of nonbinary genders in the process.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:12:31 UTC No. 16480357

>>16480353
>>a. Yes, they aren't hard limits
>Except they aren't
Are you actually reading what I'm posting or are you just trying to be a blind contrarian?
>No, you missed the point of making something simple and made it exponentially more difficult to determine what gender someone is and added an unknown number of nonbinary genders in the process.
Sure, still doesn't make someone with XY chromosomes a biological female. I can't help but notice all of the previous messages were about you nitpicking and/or deflecting my argument instead of providing a counter, assuming you subscribe to the notion that someone with XY chromosomes can be a biological female.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:39:57 UTC No. 16480371

>>16479809
I define a woman as
>have two XX chromosomes

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:43:04 UTC No. 16480374

>>16480357
>Are you actually reading what I'm posting or are you just trying to be a blind contrarian?
Are you trying to engage with my actual argument or just reading the first couple of words of every sentence and judging form that?

>Sure, still doesn't make someone with XY chromosomes a biological female.
No it makes someone with a slightly damaged X or Y no longer qualify as a biological female because they are some other vague ambiguous gender instead.

>instead of providing a counter,
The counter is that biology is not as simple as you want to make it, perfectly formed XX and XY are far from the only combinations of human chromosomes. You attempted to simplify something about the human condition, but made it exponentially more convoluted and difficult to test for in the process due to all the potential outliers and possible biological mutations.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:34:58 UTC No. 16480418

>>16480374
You'll never be a woman.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:42:19 UTC No. 16480430

>>16480418
You will never be a scientist and never find a simpler definition of woman than what social scientists have come up with.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:09:14 UTC No. 16480456

>>16480430
It's not simpler if it's self-referential. It's a non-definition

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:21:54 UTC No. 16480471

>>16480456
You will never be a dictionary, you non-definitions will never be helpful.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:34:10 UTC No. 16480486

>>16480430
>>16480471

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:40:25 UTC No. 16480494

>>16480430
>A woman is a person that identifies as a woman
so what's a woman?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:52:33 UTC No. 16480512

>>16480430
>XX = Woman
Apparently this simple concept is too complex for reality deniers, and they "understand" a self-referential definition better, which is paradoxical in and of itself.

>The counter is that biology is not as simple as you want to make it, perfectly formed XX and XY are far from the only combinations of human chromosomes. You attempted to simplify something about the human condition, but made it exponentially more convoluted and difficult to test for in the process due to all the potential outliers and possible biological mutations.
And how does this validate the notion that someone with XY chromosomes can be considered a biological woman? You presented an argument, but certainly not a counterargument.

Are you trying to argue that XX = Woman might not be true in light of future newly discovered sexes? I hope not, cuz that's like saying the Sun may not be a star depending on what new stars we may discover, which is bogus. What we have discovered till date does not depend on what we might discover.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:54:58 UTC No. 16480515

>>16480494
Anyone who says they are just like a christian or other type of cryptojew or any number of other social identities.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 11:59:32 UTC No. 16480518

>>16480515
I'm a 6'2" XY chromosomal bald-headed woman. Do you feel comfortable with me in my respective women's changing room with your daughter?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:05:05 UTC No. 16480531

>>16480518
I am only comfortable using single occupant toilets, so it doesn't really matter who comes in before or after me as long as I have privacy while using the bathroom, but I would be least comfortable with a pajeet of any gender being in there before me, so its not really a matter of gender, but of cultural bathroom etiquette.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:07:21 UTC No. 16480537

>>16480471
Interesting that you never even attempted to retort, so you know the social scientist definition is junk

The harder science biological definition is fine, if you have to pick at edge cases does that not show something to you?
Also - the fact that each of the edge cases ONLY arise from mutations leading to DSDs, does that not show something to you???

Just because a mutation wrecked the typical development pathway, as dictated by our DNA instructions, doesn't invalidate the genetic information of our species.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:21:51 UTC No. 16480560

>>16480537
>you know the social scientist definition is junk
Yet it is vastly simpler to understand and easier to implement than your convoluted junk science unlike what you keep claiming.

> if you have to pick at edge cases does that not show something to you?
If your definitions have edge cases, it proves they are not the simple universal truths you are trying to make them out to be.

> does that not show something to you???
It shows me that men and women can be damaged, they don't have to fit some perfect ideal you are trying to concoct.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:30:25 UTC No. 16480568

>>16480560
>Yet it is vastly simpler to understand
I do agree with this but it's simpler in the sense that "how long is a piece of string" is easy to understand, but impossible to definitively resolve. In terms of implementation - we intuitively have always known how to identify women, there's a litany of societal issues now as a result of the contradiction inherent in your definition

>If your definitions have edge cases, it proves they are not the simple universal truths you are trying to make them out to be.
It is a simple universal truth if you separate the edge cases, on account of them disrupting biological development. Additionally if you want to include these edge cases, you are necessarily ignoring the plainly obvious evolutionary pathway behind sexual dimorphism. Additionally x2 - these sexual roles still apply perfectly to animals in any biology textbook and inside your brain, it's only humans where you create this bait and switch to undermine our biological understanding
>It shows me that men and women can be damaged, they don't have to fit some perfect ideal you are trying to concoct.
They don't have to fit a perfect ideal. Science isn't concerned with that. The concern is to do with identifying phenomena as they appear in reality. Sexual dimorphism in mammals is one such phenomena, and no amount of you tipping the scales by including edge cases will change the persistence of these phenomena.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:34:12 UTC No. 16480574

>>16480560
So there are no edge cases in your definition? It's a universal?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:37:43 UTC No. 16480577

>>16479763
You only have to click two links for Wikipedia to contradict itself.
If leftists can't even make their own retarded ideology coherent, how do they expect anyone else to?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:38:22 UTC No. 16480579

>>16480574
You get your long moment, and then you are sent to the edges. You'll one day see this sequence break. When it does, expect the harshest hell.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:39:43 UTC No. 16480583

>>16480574
The current presence of edge cases does not validate your position anyways, so I don't know why you're hyperfixating on this.

Your entire argument is that we MIGHT discover edge cases in sex in the future beyond what we already know, therefore we MUST act NOW as if the edge cases already exist.

So essentially, you wanna live in a fantasy concocted in your mind. Feel free to do that, but don't expect science to ever be complicit in your delusions.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:42:09 UTC No. 16480589

>>16480577
It's because their truth-claims are based on social consensus and relativism, rather than empiricism. Unironically forming opinions in the same way that religions and cults do

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:42:20 UTC No. 16480590

>>16480568
>but impossible to definitively resolve.
So is chromosomal typing since its not even widely measured due to the extra difficulty that goes beyond standard genetic testing along with the fact that people outside of the standard typing can still function in binary sex and gender roles.

>we intuitively have always known how to identify women,
Except we haven't there have been many cases of babies being born with atypical genital situations that have stumped all the doctors and lead to the creation of all the edge cases that have been mentioned.

>It is a simple universal truth if you separate...
Sure and the earth is the entire universe if you separate it from non-earth bodies.
>these sexual roles still apply perfectly to animals in any biology textbook
No, there are plenty of animals that defy sexual binaries, we just tend to breed the ones that are easiest to distinguish and people don't care so much about animals so you can just put the ones that don't meet your criteria straight into the grinder or incinerator.
>They don't have to fit a perfect ideal. Science isn't concerned with that.
Except, of course, when you are saying that science is concerned with limited who can be a man or woman to people with specific undamaged chromosomal makeups.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:44:24 UTC No. 16480593

>>16480589
Its based on the social consensus of empirically observed things amid a variety relative parallel observations, though, none of that stuff you mentioned is mutually exclusive.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:45:55 UTC No. 16480596

>>16480583
You forgot who you're responding to. The point is that he claims edge cases with intersex invalidates the sex dichotomy. Meanwhile hell refuse to admit the tranny definition has even more edge cases

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:46:10 UTC No. 16480597

>>16480590
Nothing you're saying is substantiating your ideology. All you're doing is nitpicking the truth and deflecting to delay admitting that you have no counterargument

>inb4 the troon posts a "counter" that's in no shape or form a counterargument.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:48:19 UTC No. 16480602

>>16480596
The tranny definition itself is a big self-referential edge case. Any theory stemming from it is automatically invalid due to the fact. Something that yes, the troons will conveniently choose to ignore.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:50:20 UTC No. 16480607

>>16480589
It's not even social consensus really, since the social consensus is that "trans women" are just mentally ill male perverts in wigs.
They will cite some leftist ideologue as an "expert" and then write articles and it becomes a self-referential system of bullshit with no basis in reality.
What's interesting about the "Trans woman" article is that they make absolutely zero mention of dissenting viewpoints. They pretend what they've written is completely non-controversial and that no disagreement is even worth mentioning. It's pure propaganda. And they know it is.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:51:10 UTC No. 16480608

>>16480590
>Except we haven't there have been many cases of babies being born with atypical genital situations that have stumped all the doctors and lead to the creation of all the edge cases that have been mentioned.
Those are intersex resulting from DSDs, I was talking about women

>Sure and the earth is the entire universe if you separate it from non-earth bodies.
That would be creating a new goal for the word 'universe', the word itself doesn't matter. The idea it is attempting to convey is what matters. When we talk about sex, we are talking about the sexual dimorphic system which evolution has produced. Use any word you want for this, it doesn't matter, but by confabulating with edge cases you are attempting to disregard this empirical and measurable aspect of reality

As soon as we say trans women are actually women, we immediately create they need for a new term to refer to real women with. E.g. 'birthing person', 'person with a womb', etc, these terms are necessary because women as a unique group exist in reality, and that group does NOT include trans women

>No, there are plenty of animals that defy sexual binaries, we just tend to breed the ones that are easiest to distinguish and people don't care so much about animals so you can just put the ones that don't meet your criteria straight into the grinder or incinerator.
I never said every animal fits into sexual binaries. What we do with animals that don't is create new sexual descriptors, e.g. sequential hermaphrodites. To restate my point: these terms are describing phenomena, and no sane biologist will argue against using these terms

>Except, of course, when you are saying that science is concerned with limited who can be a man or woman to people with specific undamaged chromosomal makeups.
Yes, what's the issue with that? We create categories based on things observed in reality, you are trying to conflate things from different categories, in order to disregard one of these categories

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:52:34 UTC No. 16480609

It works like this.
The exception to the dichotomous sexes does not invalidate the rule of sexual dichotomy.
The tranny rule is defined on exceptions to exceptions. It's never coherent and never will be.
One definition is scientific and has been tested.
The other definition is feel-good subjectivity and can never be falsified. It's by definition and construction not scientific

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:54:45 UTC No. 16480615

>>16480596
No, I am saying that is is more convoluted without solving the original problems, you claimed it was some universal way to dimorphize the human population into some binary, but that just isn't the case, the same edge cases are still problematic, and you also claim it was simpler which also isn't the case, so all things being equal, occam's razor indicates to pick the simpler option which is the one that doesn't require trained specialists to do expensive tests that go beyond simple genetics and still may not resolve the troubling outlier issues.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:55:36 UTC No. 16480616

>>16480609
This is the difference between science motivated by understanding the natural world (or God's law if you will) vs science motivated to upending the established understanding (Satanism)
No sane person would evaluate a phenomenon and say we should define the phenomenon by the 0.001% edge cases.
This is why the early church fathers considered baseless rationality to be a sin. It leads to satanic psychopaths using their faculty of reason to create specious arguments designed to destroy man's understanding and lead people to ruin.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:56:05 UTC No. 16480618

>>16480597
I don't really have an ideology, I am comparing the available ones, you are just getting mad that I am criticizing yours and showing that it isn't any better or providing more utility or peace of mind for edge cases than the social science ideology.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:00:54 UTC No. 16480627

>>16480374
Biologist here, totally familiar with sex differentiation and genetics.
You're arguing in bad faith. The existence of genetic diseases giving rise to so called "intersex" individuals in no way validates elective gendering of the general population, especially given that they themselves do not even have those conditions.
If you want to make a logical argument as to why a completely genetically normal XY man whose sex related genes are all being expressed normally is, in fact, a woman, then do that. Do not attempt to muddy the waters by denying the biological determinants of sex and then skipping to gender fluidity based on whim. Its dishonest even evil given that vulnerable people are being convinced to undergo surgeries and drug regimens which do nothing to treat their actual mental health problems.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:02:07 UTC No. 16480630

>>16480593
>none of that stuff you mentioned is mutually exclusive.
I guess, but an alignment on truth between relativism and empiricism will be a result of luck. Like some priest may have had a vision and luckily guessed the rocket equation, however even in those cases there is a start difference in the truth-seeking process. In some super simple cases there will be a lot of overlap, but again the process is different

>Its based on the social consensus of empirically observed things
Not necessarily, once we introduce delusions, desires, emotions, then our observations detach from empiricism. The vast majority of social consensus simply can't be falsified too

>>16480607
It is propaganda, and they know it, much like many people in religions and cults know it. There's 2 big factors here:
1 - Not all people who abide by this know it, many people honestly believe this shit deep down, sadly two of my friends are like this,
2 - Once you repeat something often enough, it starts to burrow deeper into your mind, these people who initially used these as a weapon to attack empiricism/institutions/whatever will gradually start to embody these beliefs, even subconsciously fooling themselves into believing them.

>since the social consensus is that "trans women" are just mentally ill male perverts in wigs.
That's right on a deeper intuitive level yes, but the language shared socially and publicly is different - "trans women are women". This is how relativism functions and spreads, they are mantras, it's eerily similar to religion when I started thinking about and comparing components of the ideology. It's the main reason why this ideology is so alienating and confusing to people who seek truth through empiricism

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:03:10 UTC No. 16480632

>>16480618
You're talking as if the edge cases of sexual dimorphism are comparable to the edge cases of tranny ideology, when the scientific side is significantly more substantive and infinitely more coherent, compared to the circular tranny ideology bullshit. Ergo, one is clearly better, and the other is just drivel. You're not showing anything.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:03:35 UTC No. 16480633

>>16480609
bingo

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:10:36 UTC No. 16480639

>>16480235
Its not in bad faith, Im presenting arguments against bad definitions and standards. A woman is still female even if she is sterile, but the definition presented disagreed with that

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:11:46 UTC No. 16480640

>>16480627
So if someone develops take a biological genetic therapy that changes their chromosomes, but leaves their penis and general hormone expression in tact, they are a woman to you?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:16:02 UTC No. 16480647

>>16480640
No.

That also doesn't logically follow.

This is the statement you must defend:
>A completely normal XY man with normal gene expression becomes a woman the instant that he says he does.

Because that is the statement you demand we accept.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:17:15 UTC No. 16480650

>>16480640
The moment chromosomal expression becomes fluid, the definition of man and woman needs to be further substantiated to keep up with cases like what you mentioned.

However, it is currently not fluid, so the current definition is still in effect, and should not change based on what can be until what can be actually occurs.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:19:45 UTC No. 16480651

>>16480650
you're ceding ground unnecessarily.

If the individual were a woman, they wouldn't need to undergo any kind of process to become a woman. Its horseshit.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:22:07 UTC No. 16480655

Chromosome argument always btfos trannies, which I think is funny.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:23:57 UTC No. 16480660

>>16479763
Jimmy Wales early life section check please.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:27:46 UTC No. 16480664

It's a ritual of life forms punishing themselves for the evil others are making them commit. And a promise to incur hell upon the guilty.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:29:00 UTC No. 16480667

Seek my aid. I can make this count. I know all there is to know. I survive the best and have enumerable amount of skill. I can make this hurt. 400 years straight and up to 60,000 via trick.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:31:26 UTC No. 16480669

I might be about to attack, just saying. I'm following your clues, if there is any and it's not just me sketching.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:35:21 UTC No. 16480671

>>16480669
Trust me I'm gonna bite that tongue out of them

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:45:02 UTC No. 16480680

>>16480243
Sounds pretty arbitrary, Humpty.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:46:27 UTC No. 16480683

>>16480293
>Keep it simple. XX chromosomes = woman, XY chromosomes = man. End of story.
So close. Keep working on it. You are almost there.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:56:24 UTC No. 16480692

>>16480683
This is the statement you must defend:
>A completely normal XY man with normal gene expression becomes a woman the instant that he says he does.

Because that is the statement you demand we accept.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:03:29 UTC No. 16480698

>>16480692
Congratulations, you are now the woman you have tried so hard to become.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:10:29 UTC No. 16480706

Bringing up intersex people to say trans women are women is completely baffling. intersex is a genetic condition, transgenderism is changing your gender on a whim

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:11:45 UTC No. 16480709

>>16480706
yep

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:13:49 UTC No. 16480711

>>16480706
>Bringing up intersex people to say trans women are women is completely baffling.
Wow. You really are a woman, aren't you?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:22:17 UTC No. 16480719

>>16480235
how did you italics

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:23:08 UTC No. 16480720

>>16480719
Read the sticky.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:24:24 UTC No. 16480721

>>16480720
No.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:27:59 UTC No. 16480724

>>16480721
Stand up for your right of ignorance. Beg to be spoonfeed. Let your betters manplain it to you. You go, girl.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:30:36 UTC No. 16480726

>arguing on if a troon is a woman or not
Do 4cucks really?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:43:17 UTC No. 16480797

>>16479763
How do we deal with massive infertility epidemic raise in women?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:27 UTC No. 16480804

>>16480797
It's actually caused by increasing infertility in men.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:51:21 UTC No. 16480805

>>16480804
I made a joke how trans women are all infertile women you dingus.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:53:57 UTC No. 16480806

>>16480805
You missed the counterjoke. You're as dumb as a woman.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:56:31 UTC No. 16480808

>>16480805
>trans women are all infertile women
So you admit that trans-women are women, just infertile.
Your apology is accepted.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:57:46 UTC No. 16480813

>>16480805
>i made a joke.
Well, you tried.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:04:44 UTC No. 16480820

>>16480804
>>16480806
There's no counterjoke here tranny

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:10:07 UTC No. 16480822

>>16480820
>https://youtu.be/watch?v=PoTz3WgZm4c

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:45:03 UTC No. 16480852

Confusion between sex (biological), gender (linguistic), and sexual stereotype (social), due to a lack of linguistic education. I want to vent a bit about genders here as an enthusiast of linguistics.

The English word "gender" ultimately came from the Latin word "genus", which just means "kind, type, class". When English first borrowed this word through French, it was only used as a linguistic terminology synonymous to "noun class", more on that later. Then it developed a second, broader meaning, synonymous to Latin "genus". Later it developed a third, narrower meaning, synonymous to "sex" (the result of applying the second meaning only to humans, compare Latin "mulierum genus"). These are all perfectly reasonable semantic shifts, but problems arise when the second meaning "kind, type, class" fell into disuse, and retards were starting to conflate the first meaning (type of words) and the third meaning (type of humans).

I am going to use the first meaning of "gender" as a linguistic terminology throughout the rest. Three things need to be made clear:
1. Things do not have genders, humans do not have genders, only words can have genders, and different words referring to the same thing or the same human can have different genders.
2. The gender of a word is more or less arbitrary. We can find patterns relating it to the meaning and the sound of the word, but exceptions always occur.
3. Genders in a language can be, and often are, completely unrelated to sexes.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:46:22 UTC No. 16480855

Some examples of genders: Bantu languages have about a dozen genders, which also absorb the number system (singular, plural), none of them is related to male/female. Berber languages have 2 genders, one for male animals, big things and, apparently, "fruits in general", the other one for female animals, small things and, apparently, "fruits in particular". Depending on analyses, there is a gender in Mandarin that only have two words: the word for horses and the word for fabric. The masculine/feminine/neuter trichotomy in Indo-European languages was originally an animate/abstract/inanimate trichotomy, the late Proto-Indo-Europeans may have, for some reasons, considered women to be abstract beings.

But these are almost all irrelevant, as Modern English does not really have a gender system. Old English had one, in which the direct ancestor of the word "woman", "wifmann" (literally "female-person"), was masculine - this is a perfect example of arbitrariness of genders; it does not suggest that Anglo-Saxon women were tomboys before the Norman invasion. The only remnants of a full masculine/feminine/neuter gender trichotomy in Modern English are the singular personal pronouns "he", "she", "it". This is an unstable system, as nouns do not have gender, and other pronouns only retain common/neuter dichotomy (who/what). I predict that based on phonological similarity, the nominative "he" and "she" would first merge in some dialects, followed by analogies in other cases, mirroring the developments in Dutch.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:47:28 UTC No. 16480858

>>16480855
Now finally, we get into prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. Prescriptivism is to dictate how people should speak a language, descriptivism is to observe how people actually speak a language, and linguistics has been relied on the latter since it became a science. Thus, to study the trichotomy between "he", "she", "it", or the meaning of the word "woman", one need to observe how native speakers actually use these words, not to make up "rules" or "definitions" for these basic words and punish those who do not obey them. The one who speaks decides which word they use to refer to another person, not the one who is referred to. To punish people for "misgendering", is essentially to punish people for speaking a specific dialect - just think of a highly probable future dialect where "he" and "she" are merged.

This problem - people dictate where they should have been observing - appears in both linguistic and social matters. Instead of "Some native speakers of English only refer to anyone known to have XX chromosomes as 'she', thus the personal pronouns of English are related to sexual chromosomes", they say "I have decided that troons must be referred to as 'she', thus anyone who don't do so are literal Hitlers!". Instead of "Some young males are starting to wear dresses, this might suggest a change of the male stereotype", they say "I have decided that only femoids like wearing dresses, thus these males are actually femoids!"

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:48:02 UTC No. 16480859

>>16480515
>A woman is anyone who says they are a woman

This definition is actually not self-referential, because the "woman" inside the definition is just a meaningless symbol, just 2 syllables /wʊmən/ that someone utters. It is a valid definition, if a retarded one, and as a non-native speaker, I am forced to accept it if the majority of native speakers of English are this retarded. The problem does not lie in self-referencing, but in translating: how can you translate such a word?

As a native speaker of Mandarin, I am going to describe 2 Mandarin words and how I use them. "男人", reads nánrén, literally "male-person", "女人", reads nǚrén, literally "female-person", I call someone a "男人" if they have XY chromosomes, call someone a "女人" if they have XX chromosome, and I would call someone neither these words if they have neither XX nor XY chromosomes. I used to translate them as "man" and "woman" respectively in English, but after seeing your definition, I can no longer do so, as my native usage of these words has nothing similar to your definition. There is also a fantasic Old English word that I used to translate as "man", but can no longer do so: "wæpnedmann", which literally means "penis-person". How do you translate these word into your personal dialect of Modern English, and how do you translate "man" and "woman" into Mandarin?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:49:24 UTC No. 16480861

>>16480852
Generation Derivative.

Gender

Even the new view of gender is wrong, it's about the generation you derived from. Such as trendy, goth, Victorian.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:53:54 UTC No. 16480863

>>16480859
To illustrate further, I am going to create a new word for my personal dialect of English: "gruddurb", which means anyone who says they are a gruddurb. How can you translate this word into Mandarin, by only looking at its definition? Sure, you can try transliteration: "格鲁德尔布" (Pinyin: gé lǔ dé ěr bù), but what about the definition? If you try "任何说自己是格鲁德尔布的人", the result is "anyone who says they are a gé lǔ dé ěr bù", then a gruddurb (who says they are a gruddurb) would not be a 格鲁德尔布 (who says they are a gé lǔ dé ěr bù). Indeed, we must keep the original word in the translated definition: "任何说自己是gruddurb的人".

By this analogy, I hope you see the problem here: by your definition of "woman", only those who already know the Modern English word "woman" can possibly be a woman. So the question is, can Chinks be women? I have wondered about this several times myself.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:54:39 UTC No. 16480864

>>16480153
So women past the age of menopause are no longer women? I'm against the new tranny ideology but this argument is the most retarded there is.
fuckin indians

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:56:36 UTC No. 16480866

>>16480302
You niggers spout this shit so much even though it's a fucking minuscule part of the population. It's literally irrelevant to the discussion.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:58:26 UTC No. 16480869

>>16480130
fuck you bigot

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:00:08 UTC No. 16480871

>>16480861
That's not how etymology works. English "gender" < French "gendre" < Latin "genus" (ablative "genere")
>new view
The linguistic terminology is from the 14th century, it is the oldest meaning of this word.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:02:03 UTC No. 16480873

>>16479763
>medical
More virtual signaling in the west.
>scientific implications
It's still just a fucking wikipedia article.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:16:50 UTC No. 16480890

>>16479763
Communists have always used semantics to undermine human civilization, they are a disease which crops up due to dysgenic breeding practices and catalyze more dysgenic practices

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:18:36 UTC No. 16480892

>>16479763
Why don't you change it? It's wiki, it's editable, please change it to "Trans woman are man, that are so fucked up in their head, that they think they are woman"

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:20:21 UTC No. 16480897

>>16480235
>Only for some nigger faggot admin to just start screaming "MUH RELIABLE SOURCES".
Seen that so many times on that leftist website. Take a look at the heritable of intelligence, or god forbid race and IQ.

Wiki admins can't cope with simple reasoning:
Intelligence is demonstrably influenced by genetics because you can't raise a dog as a human baby and expect it to be as smart as man.
Leftists require that you can raise a dog as a human and it gain our intelligence, otherwise their mantra of all people being equally intelligent if it weren't for capitalism not giving free schools falls to pieces.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:26:07 UTC No. 16480910

>>16480871
Retard understanding of semantics.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:13:42 UTC No. 16480984

>>16480371
A man can have two X chromosomes.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:14:37 UTC No. 16480985

>>16480560
>>16480430
>>16480430
Are you a real person? Can someone really hold this position? Spiteful mutant/subhuman?

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:23:26 UTC No. 16480995

>>16480984
incorrect

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:40:41 UTC No. 16481031

>>16480995
XXY

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:32:37 UTC No. 16481357

I support any definition of women that excludes trannies, not fussed which it is.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:40:46 UTC No. 16481367

>>16479809

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 01:15:36 UTC No. 16481542

>>16479809
you have said the actual truth

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:02:09 UTC No. 16481697

>>16479809
Recursive definitions don't work.

"Swag kekkerinos are kekkerinos"
"But what are kekkerinos? I still don't understand what "swag kekkerinos" are if I only know what swag refers to, but not kekkerinos"
[changes the topic]