You must log in or register to comment.
From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it’s really not that hard.
Many people apparently just don’t like the answer.
This is such an insane statement. In biology almost any kind of sexual behavior has been observed including male species who carry the young in their body (sea horses), species that are both male and female, species that change gender during a lifetime, species without gender etc etc. Literally anything goes in the biological world.
Literally anything goes in the biological world.
While true, there are some established standards. And amongst mammals, the standard is always that males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the “safer” jobs, like childcare of gathering.
Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut. The only reason why we argue about this is because we have evolved to a point where we’re no longer that reliant on biology - that does not change the fundamentals tho.
Ther is literally no definition you give that will not exclude any cis women at all.
Why do I get the feeling the “answer” you’re talking about is just chromosomes
That’s female, not woman, but it was a nice try
I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but from a biological standpoint, it’s the same thing. Different female animals have their “own” names aswell, like Ewe (female sheep), Sow (female Pigs), Hen (female Chicken), Doe (female goat), Mare (female horse) etc. Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones “Woman”.
That’s not a “biological standpoint” it’s a social one. We invented the names for animals. And there’s more than one word for female horse because it was useful for us to differentiate foal/yearling/filly/mare, and males get an extra one if they’re castrated.
Speaking of inventing names for things: biological sex is not the same concept as gender even though they are very often aligned and used interchangeably. It’s just people who don’t know enough about anthropology and biology lack the full context to understand that.
foal/yearling/filly/mare
Those are different things tho, mostly seperated by age.
Foals are baby horses (roughly equal to “baby”), yearling are young horses (roughly equal to “kid”), fillys are young female horses (roughly equal to “girl”) and mares are adult female horses (roughly equal to “woman”).
biological sex is not the same concept as gender
That’s why I specifically said “from a biological standpoint”. I’m well aware that some people may choose the opposite gender so it differs from the biological sex.
“From a biological standpoint” you’re still wrong because the real world isn’t simple. There’s more chromosome options than XX/XY. There’s various disorders that can cause people to develop in ways contrary to their sex chromosomes. There’s chimeras, intersex, people born missing parts of their body.
“Biological sex” is a convenient simplification like “there are three phases of matter” or the concept of tidy electron orbitals.
Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn’t work… but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?
A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn’t have to be any more complex than that.
Like Jiminy Cricket said, “Let your conscience be your guide”
That’s what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It’s rare, but it does happen, and I’m not going to argue with them about it.
If you say you’re a woman, then you’re a woman, and it shouldn’t be any more complex than that.
id say you are a woman if you have a vagina, either born with it at birth, or if you transition later in life. that seems to be the most popular think are the sex organs. if you are born with both then you already have a name for that and the child hopefully can make up their mind about instead of their parents.
that seems to be the most popular think are the sex organs.
That doesn’t really work, though, since chicks with dicks are a thing.
Yeah. That would be a dude calling themselves a woman… But they were born a male.
Well not by their definition
They said “without excluding” not “without including”
Oh, believe me, they don’t want this egg selling man to be called a woman.
I know, but that’s on them. They should’ve been more specific.
☝️🤓
I’m having trouble finding anyone born with intention. Neither biology nor evolution have plans or intentions. We are fundamentally lipid based sacks of water.
They’re arguing from a religious perspective that understands God as providing intentionality
Do republicans think we’re gineapigs? Born completely formed with no developmental years?
Ah, I can see Diogenes has made an impact on people.
A woman is when a guy crosses the line. You say “Wo! Man!”
That man is moments away from financial disaster
That man is 100% in Germany. He’s fine.
I once dropped 6 eggs while working and cried
There’s hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you’ll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.
Hormonal woman with XY (“male”) chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity
Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)
Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html
I find the phrase “Born with the intention” in itself worthy of head-scratching.
I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn’t have the ability to “hold eggs” (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that’s to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).
Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway
Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.
Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.
I suppose it’s wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that’s the misogynists’ fault.
For the religious: “Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn’t match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn’t make mistakes, it’s us He’s testing.”
Technically, it doesn’t even need to include the ovaries if the bigots are defining the womb as the ‘holding eggs’ bit.
Jesus, we need better mandatory biology classes. (That’s aimed at the people defining women as egg holders, not you.)
I don’t agree with it, but the reason this religious argument (and most challenges of religion) falls flat, is because, to the true believer, their God is infallible, and so the idea of God making a mistake like that is on direct conflict with their core beliefs.
As I said, it’s not a mistake, it to test us, to be sure we’re following His edicts to love one another and judge not.
Of course to the false “believer,” hating and judging has become second nature and their “Christian” lives are the deepest blasphemy.
But to a decent person who’s already beginning to question the false doctrine in which they’ve been raised, it opens a chink in the wall.
You’re right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.
Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n’ Roll.
AND I’M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM
Diogenes would be proud here
My first thought too.
To anyone unaware, plato defined man as “a featherless biped” so Diogenes brought a plucked chicken
I wonder how Plato would have defined man if he knew kangaroos existed.
featherless tail-less biped? then we could have a story about Diogenes fighting a kangaroo to cut off its tail
Why does it always come back to chickens?
Because they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.
“It’s just business”
He was so much more polite after Amos.
One internet search later:
https://patient.info/forums/discuss/born-without-ovaries-634173
There are cis women born without ovaries.
Thus Lea the bigot is disproven.
I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).
It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it’s meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can’t.
Challenge for anyone, define “to eat”. Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn’t everything.
It shouldn’t be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
There’s a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about “why we must defend icky speech”.
Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
These issues aren’t just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can’t accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn’t want targeted.
Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool’s errand
What shouldn’t be confusing?
In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.
The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren’t women, and that’s why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it’s confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you’re not.
Honestly, I don’t know what you are trying to tell me. I am not trying to be rude, I just don’t understand. But I have a point that I understood and disagree with.
Defining words isn’t the “challenge” of lawmakers. Most words used in most legal systems are undefined within it and the rest are defined by words which aren’t defined. E.g. the American legal system is built on that acknowledgement. That is why they work with case law. (Also I wasn’t talking about defining words in a legal setting. So not sure why we talk about it like this)
