>>37736010
a woman is someone whos a woman
what are you struggling with you drooling fucking retard

>>37736010
Woman = Adult human female.


Trans woman = adult human male who seeks medical intervention to emulate being female.


No trans women are not real women. Yes you can be pro trans and not have bat shit beliefs

>>37736010
tj is a chaser or a tranny

>>37736029
I agree here.

Though I do wish I could become a woman rather than simply emulate being one.

Sad, but life isn't fair

>>37736326
That's your religion and your right. Just don't push it on everyone else like christcucks do

>>37736010
for all functional purposes a woman is someone who you look at or talk to and go 'yep that's a woman'
i know that sounds retarded i can't think of a better way to explain it
but when u see a cis woman and think 'woman' it's not because you can detect her chromosomes or ovaries or whatever
it's because you percieve the composite of all the things you associate with being a woman: hair, face/body shape, clothing, breasts, gait, voice, mannerisms and more
i guess in this sense everyone's definition of what a woman is differs
not sure why i'm giving a sincere answer to an insincere post but i hope that makes sense

>>37736413
unfortunately OP is stupid and won't be able to read this

>>37736413
This is so forced considering women don’t have to adhere to any gender norms. A woman can be butch, dress masculine, not shave etc and she’s still a woman. A trans woman will still be perceived as a man, a man pretending to be a woman

File: 1714489782709508.png (173 KB, 800x480)

173 KB PNG

>>37736029
>>37736326
>that spacing

>>37736413
ah the shrodinger's woman. in the street wearing a facemask and a trucker cap he's one of the ladies, but in the doctor's office he becomes a bloke while the doctor is inspecting his testies. an amusing little joke but a joke nonetheless. disregard.

>>37736450
This doesn’t make sense considering Reddit is known for its trans moderators and obvious left leaning bias

>>37736029
>Woman = Adult human female.
ok but this definition sucks, not because it's transphobic necessarily but because it provides no information
if you ask what an electron is and i tell you it's a lepton that doesn't really help you unless you already know what that is
we now have to define the parts of your definition
>adult
actually kind of tricky. considered to be different ages dependant on culture and there's no universal age of developmental maturity that i know of
>human
seems easy enough, we all know what a human is i guess, but i'm sure there are fun anthropological arguments you could have
>female
here's the real problem. all this definition actually does is translate the argument onto 'female' instead of 'woman'. this is the same point of contention and now we have to have the same argument about what female means.

>>37736458
yeah that argument is pure dogshit but fuck me if this isn't the most fedora cheetodust way of addressing it.

>>37736476
It’s almost like anywhere you go in the world all the women are female…..

>>37736476
except that isn't really contentious. a female is an organism whose body is oriented towards producing the larger gamete group. go visit a canabis farm and you'll notice that each plant is doing one and only one of two things; pollenating and being pollenated. the ones doing the latter are female.

>>37736010
My definition of a woman is an adult biological female who is not mentally ill and identifies as a woman. Women can be mentally ill, but sometimes that mental illness convinces them that they're not women or weren't born as women. So cis biological females. transwomen were born men but with enough hormones and surgery, they can look like women and validate their gender identity. I don't have any problem calling them women, but I think that they're not really fully women. I'm sorry

>>37736010
Someone who isn't weird around children

>>37736010
what’s amazing about that autist?

>>37736564
he pegged himself with a banana

>>37736569
He also poured hot coffee on his micro penis for some reason

>>37736413
>A woman can be butch, dress masculine, not shave etc and she’s still a woman
this is true but also kind of missing the point, the reason that cis women can do all of that easily and still be percieved as women is because the composite still leans in favour of it, mostly because of gendered physical characteristics.
a trans woman might have more difficulty presenting less feminine, for example having very short hair, because usually she will have to work harder to swing the balance of perception into womanhood. those presentational differences become more important, yes. but if she does achieve this, and she goes about life as a woman and is percieved that way and experiences the world as a woman, in what meaningful sense is she not?
please actually think about it rather than just immediately going 'but trannies are men', and if you can only come back to 'but she doesn't have a uterus' or something similar, ask yourself if when you look at someone, that is something you would actually consider about them.

>>37736458
i'm sure this looked really smart to you but it doesn't mean anything. it's not what i said. i guess i'm arguing that a woman is someone who is percieved and experiences the world as a woman, if that makes more sense to you.

>>37736458
yeah i've never seen them respond to this one. it's almost like they believe reality doesn't exist beyond their perception of it.

>>37736590
perceived by whom?

>>37736569
>>37736584
lmao

>>37736590 (me)
first part is for >>37736443
replied to myself because i'm retarded

>>37736569
>>37736584
That is pretty amazing

>>37736010
not lgbt, but
A woman is someone who has at least 3 of these

>Was assigned female at birth
>Has identified as a woman/female for longer than 3 years
>appears more feminine rather than masculine.
>interacts/has a personality in a way that is more feminine than masculine.
>has a womb and no y chromosomes and anything typical of an afab body.
>Has personally experienced birthing a child.
>bottoms in sex without feeling shame.
>takes female hrt or naturally maintains female hormones.
>Successfully bribes me.

File: IMG_7575.png (1011 KB, 1024x683)

1011 KB PNG

You’d have to be pretty autistic or stupid to not be able to tell the difference between a real woman and a trans woman

>>37736666
>images you can smell

>>37736666
Why do they look like normies minus? Like if normies plus were a little more fit, well dressed, and conventionally good looking, these seem like the slight opposite of that.
Why do they all look the same too?

>>37736686
They’re all women. I think they’re lesbian idk but they’re women and you can tell even the one with the mustache is a chick. If you put a trans woman in there he would stick out like a sore thumb

adult human female with a penis

>>37736698
Oh my god, why? Like the more someone tries to stand out and be "different", the more they just look the same. Jesus.

>>37736602
by themselves, others, and society more largely i guess?
look i know i'm not articulating that well and this isn't a line of thought that's easy to phrase cleanly
on the off chance that you're engaging in any kind of good faith
i suppose i'm saying that 'woman' is a socially defined term, if that makes any sense
if i say i'm a woman, and others around me agree, and treat me as such, then by what metric am i not?
i don't mean everyone has to get together and agree trannies are women and then that makes us women
but if i pass in my daily interactions, and am percieved by others as a woman and am treated as such, if i experience sexism as though i were a woman (for example), if the world treats me like a woman then am i not one? in what real way am i not?

>>37736413
>i know that sounds retarded i can't think of a better way to explain it
There's nothing wrong with that kind of definition. That's how we define "tree", for example. Cladistically, there is no such thing as a tree, and things which are closely related may not both be considered trees, whereas very unrelated things can both be considered trees.

>>37736757
yes yes this is exactly what i was trying to describe im glad someone smarter than me can give a better example lol
is there a word for this kind of definition?

>>37736737
okay but then your "womanness" isn't really a verifiable trait so much as it is a state that is largely in the eye of the beholder, something like the words "pretty" or "cool". by that logic if you're on a deserted island with another person and they don't see you as a woman then that makes you a man? an even less farfetched hypothetical is if you have a group of giganitrohons, all clockable from neptune's surface, that all refer to each other and themselves as women sitting in a restaurant in which everyone else in that same space notices that they are not really women. nobody really thinks of them as women but it isn't really indicative in their actions because there's no specific way to treat a woman you don't know in a restaurant, you just eat your food and try not to bother the other patrons, be they men or women.

>>37736666
checked

>>37736890
Pretty much. You can’t force people to view trans women as real women but that’s what the movement is all about. Screeching trans women are women and disregarding real women

>>37736890
I hereby coin and claim patent of the term Neptunehon.

>>37736537
yeah but you're still not answering anything here "an organism whose body is oriented towards producing larger gametes" doesn't describe all women since there are various intersex conditions as well as infertility. The definition really tries to include these things, but you can't just look at something that doesn't do the thing your description claims it should do and go: "well it's supposed to do it, so it counts". The whole "a female is someone who's body is designed towards producing large gametes" thing is very clearly just trying to sound smart and complex to obfuscate that it crumbles under basic scientific rigor.
Also a lot of plants have both a pistil and a stamen at the same time so while your example with cannabis might work, I ask you to look at the broader field of botany and tell me what you see.

>>37736890
>but then your "womanness" isn't really a verifiable trait so much as it is a state that is largely in the eye of the beholder, something like the words "pretty" or "cool"
ehhhh sort of i suppose? except it's the sum of the experience of the (in this case trans) individual rather.
if a trans woman experiences her life as a woman, in the way i've described, does one person clocking her invalidate all of that? does it change how others will percieve her? i don't think so personally
i think the problem is that you're treating this like a tight definition with boundaries that can be tested, looking for edge cases which disprove the equation. what i'm saying is that it's specifically not that; it's impossible to neatly define, it's messy.
but to engage with your restaurant hypothetical
maybe this is weird after all i've said, but i guess whether your neptunians are women depends on how they are seen and treated in their broader lives. honestly, if you look and sound like a man, if you behave like a man and people see and treat you as a man, then by my working i guess you kind of are one. i do think there is an experience of womanhood and you kind of have to have it to meaningfully call yourself one.

>>37736890
That's how language works tho, all things are what they are because we all pretend they are. Look into the relation between Signifier and Signified if you want to see for yourself.
Everything in the world is filtered through our perception which is why, if objective reality exists or not is irrelevant, since none of us will ever be able to perceive it. You bring up the way we treat adjectives like "cool" and ask if that's how the term "woman" works then, and yes it is. The only difference is that the signifier "woman" is more closely tied to the signified, unlike "cool" which is a lot more vague in that regard. It's like how at the end of 1985 O'Brien holds Winston hostage until he agrees that 2+2=5, this part of the book is telling us that while The Party might not control "objective reality", they control publics perception of it which is just as good since, like I said "objective reality" basically doesn't exist to us anyway. If everyone agrees something is true it simply is unless you can show something convincing enough. Ergo if it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it is a duck because reality as you see it only exists in your head.

>>37737262
*1894 I pressed the wrong fucking number

>>37737004
it's not a matter of "intent" so much as it a matter of function. objects in nature do things and we classify them based on the things they do. things can be oriented towards a certain function regardless of whether or not they ever actually perform it and we can gauge that rather easily based on the subsystems that are left superfluous in the case where they don't. this is only confusing to people who think that female bodies are identical to male bodies save for hormones and genitalia. the words "male" and "female" are little more than a byproduct of human dimorphism, either word corresponding to each of the 'morphisms.

File: file.png (402 KB, 1025x573)

402 KB PNG

>>37736029
>>37736413
>>37736590
These are all correct at the same time and the only wrong one is the one arguing that self perception is the ultimate definition thats just stupid, if you say up is down, you're wrong, period.

'What is a woman?' is actually more than one question and the different answers here show you the spectrum, woman is a female human adult, but also a social role and a result of other humans perceiving your presence, but you would waste your time trying to make them all fit together nicely, you'd have to pick one definition and defend it against the others because depending on your politics or opinions they aren't reconcilable.

>Woman is XX
Largely, this one is correct, but like anon said ITT, you can't go up to someone and ask them what their chromosomes are or test them on the spot, you have to rely on your natural instruments to deduce their gender, which goes to the next point anon made:
>Woman is perception
If it looks like a woman, its a woman, this is true but only insofar as the social view is concerned, being perceived as a woman will not make your penis disappear or viceversa, you still are a biological male, because of the taxonomical view:
>Woman is uterus/childbirth
This one is the "most correct" according to the human record, this is what we really care about in general terms, whether you produce large gametes in the form of ovaries or small gametes in the form of sperm, this basically covers everything, the only edge cases here are intersex people and the infertile, the former is such a minute amount of people it's not even worth bringing up honestly, it's an exception and a statistical improbability; In the case of the latter, infertile adults are still male or female because they are meant to produce gametes, there's some genetic defect that prevents them or maybe an accident, or surgery.

The only other "category" you could have is "it's nice to pretend they ARE women tho" which... well, that's what you're doing. Pretending.

religious people really do live in an alternative reality

>>37736010
person who should have a vagina

>>37737275
But it's exactly this part that makes the argument not work: If women are only defined by the intended function of their reproductive organs i.e. "producing larger gametes", then you can't suddenly claim that there is more to it.
Either you expand the definition and admit you can't create one that keeps all trannies out, since running on estrogen (especially if you start pre-puberty) makes a lot of the bodies anatomy more aligned with the opposite sexs.
Or you contest stick with the current definition and retract your claims here.
Also there are like women without any of those leftover superfluous subsystems in place at all. Like I said you don't classify a plant that doesn't produce spores as a fern because you think it's supposed to produce spores.

>>37737262
it's not really a matter of subjective vs objective reality given that we largely can't even agree on what looking, sounding, behaving, quacking and swimming like a woman means. if you see what looks to be an oak and upon closer inspection determine that it's actually an elm it doesn't mean that the formerly oak magically transformed into an elm upon the moment of your realization. that's not how we use most terms and that's certainly not how we use the terms man and woman.

>>37737304
>arguing that self perception is the ultimate definition thats just stupid
i don't think i argued that, i certainly didn't mean to, i think self perception is a part of it but not the ultimate definition
>if you say up is down, you're wrong, period
lol this is actually a really bad example to use because 'up' and 'down' don't have any real definition. depending on position and reference frame, your 'up' could literally be my 'down'. what is 'up' on the iss, or the moon, or in open space? doesn't matter but i think it's funny that's what you chose
>If it looks like a woman, its a woman, this is true but only insofar as the social view is concerned
but woman *is* the social view. the other two things you are describing are attempts to define 'female' which, as another anon pointed out, isn't quite as clean as we'd like it to be. but that isn't even the point.
the social view is the one that's relevant when we're discussing how we ought to refer to people and treat them in day to day life.

>>37737396
but there isn't more to it? females have systems and subsystems that allow them to produce ova. if they don't they're not female. that's literally the only way we differentiate males from females

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

File: fdcf03818f64e2f36e79eb954(...).png (3.77 MB, 1964x2779)

3.77 MB PNG

>>37736010
I got my Hindubros' backs. I'll drop a copy of the Mahabharata from an airplane just to prove the atheists wrong.

Anyway, estrogenized rod smells and tastes different (better).

>>37737456
Yeah but we made up the terms "oak" and "elm", the only reason we differentiate between the two is because we all agree there is a difference. If you travel back to like ancient babylon or whatever and ask someone there if that tree over here is an oak or an elm they'd look at you weird and say it's a tree, because those concepts wouldn't exist yet. This doesn't mean oaks or elms don't exist or are the same or whatever, but like nobody knows what either are, so they don't exist in any way that actually matters. "Objective reality" exists but nobody perceives it, so effectively the two are just the same thing: trees. If starting tomorrow, for the rest of your life everyone just called you a different name and you couldn't do anything against it, that would just be your name now.
Now in regards to how a woman quacks, swims, behaves and looks, there is no clear definition, yeah, but if you see a woman on the street, you know she is one, right? The same way you know something is cool when you see it.

File: 1642976332224.jpg (40 KB, 554x439)

40 KB JPG

>>37737537
there are always edge cases and disregarding them is the sign of a weak minded person who lacks the scientific curiosity to try and understand the world.

>>37737597
We understand how our bodies are supposed to function and why are sex organs are the way they are. This notion that genetic defects are something more than being a defect is weird

File: 1000021318.png (13 KB, 512x512)

13 KB PNG

>>37736010
based picrel

>>37737606
Whether they are defects or not doesn't matter, the fact is that even without trannies women with dicks would exist which means if you want to define a woman through sexual dimorphism you couldn't. It's an objective fact that there are women "whose bodies are predisposed to producing large gametes" who have "male genitalia" due to intersex conditions.

>>37737606
Humans are more than their sex organs

>>37736029
honestly based i think people wouldnt have pushed against trans stuff so hard over the last years if people that talked about it werent willing to sound completely unhinged and disconnected from reality

>>37737581
>there is no clear definition, yeah, but if you see a woman on the street, you know she is one, right?
why would you ever assume that? we don't use these vibe-based categorizations for anything else anywhere, so why are you using them here? how would you explain what a woman is to a toddler?

>>37737729
Duh. Like a man who loses his ballsack or penis is still a man. But a woman who takes cross sex hormones is still a woman. See we agree

>>37736666
ah, the us congress

>>37737788
Yes, and a man who takes male hormones is still a man! Now you're getting it.

>>37737778
but we do, how do you differentiate a pond from a lake? how many grains of sand need to be on top of each other for it to be a pile? Is a glass half full or half empty? It's all vibes based, for every signified someone thought, yeah this arbitrary combination of sounds fits to describe it and that's how we made it's signifier.
It's vibes all the way down.

>>37737304
>the only edge cases here are intersex people and the infertile, the former is such a minute amount of people it's not even worth bringing up honestly, it's an exception and a statistical improbability

they really are not as rare as you're making them out to be. it's not that uncommon. there's no exact numbers and a lot of intersex people go their whole lives not knowing they are intersex, which further reduces the numbers. some forms of intersex are rarer than others sure but it's still not that rare.

even if it were, why does that mean it should be excluded from the conversation entirely? you don't even give it more than a sentence before saying it's not worth bringing up. the entire conversation seems kind of pointless when you purposefully leave out the group of people that shows how human biology can vary beyond what most people believe.
especially so considering they're /not/ minute fringe cases, they're a considerable amount of the population... and should be included in the conversation.

>>37737832
none of those are exclusive binaries. we don't classify static bodies of water into ponds or lakes, nor do we say "pile or not pile" when we look at sand. why can't a glass of water be both half full and half empty at the same time? we do however, by and large refer to people as either men or women.

>>37737304
Why should we have grammatical rules in regards to whether or not a person has a uterus? Why aren't there pronouns for people with only one kidney?

>>37737004
>intersex conditions as well as infertility
neither of these things are transgender
you may as well say diabetes is somehow related to transgender

>>37738023
Please try to actually engage with what I'm saying, instead of just arguing based on principle. Language itself is fundamentally arbitrary, words are not in any actual way tied to the things they represent in a language.
Reality as you experience it in your day to day life is basically just a collective delusion. Things like money, or titles only have value because we all pretend they do, the word "tree" only refers to real trees because we all pretend it does and in the "binary" of men and women only exists because for that same reason. Groups are infinitely divisible so in an alternate reality there could be like 4 genders where you have idk. blonde men, blonde women, brunette men and brunette women exist as separate social categories. There are and have been societies with three genders, you can verify this. What makes you think our interpretation is more correct than theirs?
If you want to be a free thinker, you need to first embrace the fact that everything in our modern world is arbitrary and could be different.

You can ONLY be a woman or female if you lack a y chromosome.

>>37738095
this is a retarded argument and we both know it. I'm not even going to humor this with an actual reply

File: file.jpg (91 KB, 1245x700)

91 KB JPG

>>37737503
>'up' and 'down' don't have any real definition
Elevator companies in shambles.
I can smell you through the screen, anon. You're arguing that up and down have no real definition? this is a very very poor, pathetic attempt at getting at my argument, you might as well not have tried. The way you phrased your post lets me know you are not interested in discussion, but dogma, you want your definition to be right and you are willing to entirely ignore everything that doesn't fit in nicely, which is what I opened with in the post you replied to.

>>37737982
>It's not that rare
>A non-insignificant amount of intersex people can't even tell they are intersex
Then why bring it up? T's bring them up constantly because they love to argue Motte-and-Bailey. That's why I posted with the image attached, it is much easier to defend intersex people in the place of trans, because intersex people are the only ones who COULD argue they are not entirely male or female, which is not the same thing as having gender dysphoria, period. And if even they can't tell, then bringing them into the conversation only servers to use their existence as a proxy for transness, that is cheap and also manipulative, you are seeking to USE intersex people's existence as a form of validation for the general idea of a gender spectrum/gnc class of people. If they were as numerous as you say they are and if we ignore entirely that you yourself admitted they can't even tell, then they would speak up for themselves.

Furthermore, the biology of intersex people isn't "beyond what most people believe", everyone who is not a drooling retard can perfectly well imagine the idea of a woman with testicles developing where her matrix should be or whatever the case, especially considering we had an olympic marathoner forced to take test blockers when everyone, including her, found out she was intersex 30 years after she was born.

>>37738335
Trans women are dyadic males who look male and act male.
The problem with trannies is they use social gendering as proof of percepton, while encouraging you to ignore and hide and lie about your perceptions IF they don't align with a tranny's gender identity

i.e. you are expected to call them she NO MATTER WHAT, and this is then used as proof that they are perceived as female by others

>>37738335
It's crazy how much text you write without actually saying anything.

>>37736010
adult female?
i mean i'm not about to start calling myself they them it but i concede that it'd be more accurate to say i'm intersex than female

>>37738127
what do we call the women with one or more y chromosomes?
and don't just say medically fucked you lazy shits :P

>>37738335
so can you define "up"?

>>37738436
because society is uncomfortable openly acknowledging the existence of feminine men

>>37738441
towards the sky

>>37738335
k but trans (disregarding sociology nonsense) is just the gonads and brain taking structures that don't match the other
in what way is that not an intersex disorder? it is a biological condition of mismatched dimorphic structures, it is the definition of intersex

File: 1729725288413.png (101 KB, 486x320)

101 KB PNG

>>37736010
Unironically this

>>37738477
so it's geocentric? where would up be in space, where there is no sky?

>>37738503
Gravity is down
Hence you fall into a black hole

>>37738441
the direction opposite the nearest strongest gravity well is 'up'

File: 1729723099504494.gif (157 KB, 640x640)

157 KB GIF

My definition of woman is they have pussy and they hate most men and are annoying as fuck

>>37738518
>>37738531
so what if you're an equal distance away from two black holes in opposite directions from each other?

>>37738548
then there are two ups DOYH

>>37736010
My definition of a woman is me.
Anyone who is not me is not a woman.
Only I am a real woman.

Get cucked losers!

>>37738558
but aren't they both also down then?

>>37738548
Fiddle with the time dimension until one or the other is closer

>>37738584
i'm asking about this situation tho not one you made up.

>>37736450
It's just the way I type lol. I haven't been to reddit in a year.

File: Ifyoucanreadthisyouaregay.jpg (915 KB, 1079x2112)

915 KB JPG

>>37736010

Be me specific

File: 1685212152033266.jpg (61 KB, 600x600)

61 KB JPG

>>37738597
>Admits to having been on reddit

>>37738365
Very well put anon, the proof is in the pudding, too, if you know any passing trans irl you know from experience people call them "she" without asking, because they look feminine, it's only when they don't pass that they are treated like the men they truly are. Conflating all passing and non passing T's as though they are interchangeable or exactly the same in any given position is effectively arguing through proxy.

>>37738441

now its your turn, define woman in a way that isn't limited to the social view, and can work for society, medical, philsophical, taxonomical and chromosomial views, or at least 3/5 take your pick

>>37738484
that's not intersex because it doesn't depend on your sexual organs. its a mental illness relating to gender, and we know that you can induce mental illness through social conditioning and deliberate controlled exposure, or uncontrolled exposure in the case of "mass hysteria". It is surprisingly easy to convince people that they have conditions they don't actually have and even experienced psychiatric doctors will come to completely different diagnoses depending on their personal view of the world and studies.

I'm not shooting down your argument altogether, because I am expecting you to argue in good faith what you actually believe, but you should not conflate biological, materially observable conditions like developing testicles in your matrix and therefore producing an exceptionally large amount of testosterone in an otherwise female body, and someone who strongly believes they are meant to be women, the latter is more akin to someone believing in heaven and hell without proof so deeply you could not convince them otherwise, and that's not an attempt to entirely dismiss your concern either, but an important factor you MUST consider if you seriously expect to defend this position.

Finally, you must consider the half-life of knowledge (time until half of what we 'know' turns out to be wrong) for psych is about 5 years.

>>37738590
rich.

>>37738590
Look up the definition of relativity

>>37738610
>define this thing but only in these specific ways I agree with
are you actually this intellectually lazy?

>>37738576
Oups sorrt I meant down. They are both down.

>>37738548
then up would be opposite to the nearest strongest gravity well

inb4 you ask me to solve the nth body problem

>>37738633
ig I can still try tho.
so a woman is someone who's body displays the traits commonly associated with the effects of female puberty. i.e. increased risk of breast cancer due to the presence of breasts (medical), an appearance that's commonly understood to be womanly (social), desires to generally exist in relation to social stigmas associated with feminity, be it following them or breaking them (phillosophical) and is a human (taxonomical).

>>37738718
speak English

>>37738718
although this has honestly been kinda pointless from me since I know you'll disregard anything I could have said here on principle and this whole thing was mainly just trying to set me up for a gotcha.

>>37738723
nein danke ich finde eure sprache ehrlich gesagt ziehmlich langweilig

>>37738718
ok but who asked

>>37738708
yeah but like what if they both have equally strong gravity? where is up then, by your description both locations where up could be would be down.

>>37738629
>>37738708
>answer my unrelated hypothetical
>no wait dont make up another hypothetical, answer mine!

It's low effort and also wrong, lets just think about what anon is saying here- anon asked us to define "up", and we had a multitude of answers, towards the sky, away from the nearest gravity well, above my head, etc. and anon picked the one where they thought they could actually deconstruct and use against us, however anon did the following:

>define up as away from gravity pull
>"Let's make up a situation in which THIS definition of up doesn't apply, therefore, "up" doesn't mean anything! I am very smart!"

I feel like I've heard this before

>define woman as XX/large gametes
>"um.. well what if ' a person ' had both XX and XY??? ha, I win! Therefore EVERYONE who says they are women, are women. I am very smart!"

The idea behind the argument is finding an extreme outliar that does exist, or at least hypothetically can exist, and use this exception to say the ruler that measures every other use case doesn't have ANY purpose. In the case of male/female, you only need a ruler that measures if there's male or female, maybe there is someone somewhere in the middle but there has never been a true hermaphrodite that can both have and sire children.

>>37738763
Practically speaking, just because there's an exceptionally rare chance someone is born with a penis and ovaries (that can't even reproduce) it doesn't mean we have no use for differentiating between male and female or we have no use for definitions of what woman and man are. You will not find a person probably ever, in any such place where they would, and even if you found one, they would probably use up and down relative to the confines of their ship or relative to their designated floor.

In such a case, they can arbitrarily pick which way is up and down, because it doesn't relate to anything else, you cannot do this with gender, however.

>we're defining a woman because of a small amount of edge cases that have been amplified due to everyone's internet addiction
>oh, well, we dont want to consider edge cases like intersex people because.. b-because we just don't okay?!
i dont really get it, there was never as much yellin about trannies 10 or so years ago, cant you guys see this isn't even a real issue?

>>37738718
>and is a human (taxonomical).
and you called me intellectually lazy

>>37738610
>that's not intersex because it doesn't depend on your sexual organs
being trans is utterly dependent on sex organs and brain, since a mismatch between the two is the entire thing

you should not ignore the biological materially observable differences between normal xy/xyy pregnancies and a transexual xy/xyy pregnancy

even before treatment a man and a transwoman are different in testable ways
fuck your sociology
fuck your philosophy
biology is what matters when we talk medicine

>>37738795
It sucks to be gay and experience homophobia your whole life and then be told that other gay men, who are self hating, are women, and you are now disrespectful for not pretending they are straight because they crossdress. The whole system is offensive.

>>37738763
It's not possible in reality. Relativity. Perfect rest frames don't exist in spacetime, which is a 3+1 manifold, we can define scalars, vectors, 1-forms and in general tensor fields and are able to take derivatives at any point, and if one object is in a rest frame, another could be moving at a relativistic 0.1c.

>>37738817
Insurance doesn't cover being gay though
Checkmate faggot

>>37738805
it's technically true :P that is a taxonomical description. don't be mad I outsmarted you because the language on your hyper-specific bad-faith argument let me.

>>37738817
whys being gay the default now? i dont recall them ever finding the gay gene or whatever, theyre as much mentally ill gay men as you're a mentally ill straight man

>>37738795
>we dont want to consider edge cases like intersex people
we do. are you the same tranny that's butthrut because I pointed out that his own argument said intersex people can't even tell they're intersex? it's more likely than an intersex person will pick the closest fitting gender because they're never right down the middle, they're always closer to fully male or fully female.

>>37738808
please post a thorough research paper so we can read it without you telling us, otherwise don't try to bring up science as a way to win the argument, appealing to a higher power is something we got over in 2008, it's not gonna work here.

you not liking your body isn't happening because you were born with a penis, it's because you were born with or acquired in your life, a mental illness.

>>37738852
>I don't care about good faith or discussion I just want to win internet points
ftfy

>>37738763
nerp they cancel out
and in a magical universe where nothing moved and only the observer and two black holes existed there would be no up
meanwhile in our reality the rule holds
nearest strongest gravity well is down

>>37738868
this but to trannies
>what if i had xxxyyyzzz chromosomes and no gametes :^)
do you?
>em.. no
then youre just another dude in a dress lmfao

>>37738852
>I outsmarted you teehee therefore I am female

A woman is an (adult) person who has high levels estrogen & progesterone, but low levels of androgens (testosterone). More literally, it's someone with the characteristics that came about from such endocrine system.

Name one thing wrong or incorrect with this definition.

>>37738789
Ok gender is also arbitrary, if we differentiate gender based on digit ratio instead of reproductive organs it would be equally based in biology. The existance of edge-cases merely highlights this arbitrarity since they, by definition don't slot neatly into one of the two. I mentioned cultures with third genders before, why is our binary model more correct than theirs? It's all arbitrary, people, wake up to that fact, please.

>>37738866
why do they have to pick the closest fitting gender anyway, being closer to fully male or female seems like a pretty flimsy way to define what someone's gender is compared to like gametes or chromosomes or something

>>37738892
no i'm a guy, but i did outsmart them you got that right.

>>37738892
You wont ever make use of your gametes either so i guess that makes you a dude in a dress too lmao

File: inspireddebate.jpg (661 KB, 1424x1480)

661 KB JPG

>>37736010

In my opinion those with severe dysphoria are intersexed by their very natures. Whether the origin is psychological or biological is irrelevant. By taking hormones you are medically inducing an intersex condition. There are XX and XY people with penises and vaginas and XX and XY people with both male and female secondary sex characteristics. Society generally doesn't have the same issues with calling these people men or women, even in very backwards 3rd world places where trans people are murdered or shunned. Therefore trans people (on HRT specifically) are medically induced intersex women. Let's add the layer of "passing" on to that. People who pass as their transitioned gender will function to society on most levels as their desired gender.

So from a clinical perspective? Intersex women and men.
From a social perspective? Just men and women with an asterisk
From a philosophical perspective it's more complicated.

You have to ask what the question of a definition even is. Famously, in Plato's Theory of Forms many commonplace objects in our world are impossible to specifically define. Women is one such term, and all while transphobes rage about biological definitions, biologically speaking there is absolute objective proof that strict definitions of male and female are a myth. Transphobes cannot supply a concrete definition of what a man or woman even is that doesn't have exceptions, but they happily refuse to allow transgender or transexual people to occupy those "exception" statuses. Why? Because their beliefs are illogical, with a dogmatic adherence to cruelty. You can make claims that being transgender is morally wrong, that it's unhealthy to be transgender, that it's bad for society but to debate definitions as justification for cruelty speaks a person's lower intellect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

>>37738866
i actually never transitioned, i don't really care about my looks or gender shit
i just take hrt and go about my business
nigger it is 1am, i don't pay for journals and the uni is shut, you want to learn a thing go do it yourself
>>37738897
male sex offenders given hrt to kill their sex drive, human brains come in two flavors that are not interchangeable

>>37738925
>male sex offenders given hrt to kill their sex drive, human brains come in two flavors that are not interchangeable
How does this contradict my definition?

>>37736010
give the subject big doses of estrogens over the course of a week
if they get fat and miserable it's a man
if they get horny and restless it's a woman

>>37736010
Excuse hi I’m a deeply religious pooner could you please take that wedge off my front two teeth thanks

>>37736010
>I still don't understand your definition of a woman
And at this point it's because of willful ignorance.

>>37738897
I guess intersex people that produce high amounts of both? or someone with faulty genes producing too little? like maybe a girl with a lot of body hair and a beard

>>37738905
>why is our binary model more correct than theirs?
because there's still only males and females, behavior is genetic and largely based on gender but largely affected by environment, current consensus is 50/50 on any given person but can't say exactly how much influence the environment has.
>gender is also arbitrary
LOL yeah we just saw penis and vagina and made up random names to fit them across cultures, time, geography and environmental conditions and all of our cultures came up with men and women thats so crazy its just a coincidence

>>37738925
>you want to learn a thing go do it yourself
lazy and insencere. you were quick to bring it up and when asked to back it up you suddenly don't want to, and it's up to me to "educate myself" LOL. If I made this exact argument to you, you would dismiss it just as quickly, hypocrite.

You guys can say that gender doesn't matter, but every culture that developed past raping and pillaging or matriarchal hut-living, doesn't have "third genders" (which are always just feminized men 100% of the time).

You guys can say gender is arbitrarily defined, but you're gonna have to willfully ignore thousands of years of evolution, and at least 200 years of social adaptations, there's a reason every bathroom in the american continent has a pictogram of a guy and a girl.


Also we can just tell if you're a man or a woman when you're naked and dead, if we could only tell by asking you, then you'd be right, only IF.

>>37738977
>Behavior is genetic
I'd say you were born retarded then, if people were actually genetically predisposed into certain character traits, make sure you don't accidentally backslide into Fascism there. Like I said, we could differentiate gender based on basically any biological characteristic. We could've just as well gone by eye color, hair color, digit ratio (like I mentioned before). All of these categorizations would've been based just as much on genetics as going by genitals

>you think everyone just came up with the same idea by coincidence?
No, they didn't. Many cultures made up their own thing and then Europeans conquered most of the world and forced everyone to do things their way.

>>37739061
>fascism
not putting trannies in an oven is like having a large dumpster overflowing with hot stinky trash and just letting it fester

>>37738977
boy i love being told what my beliefs are
second time you've associated my with prideshit despite me openly opposing it in the same posts lol

what do you want from me dude? i didn't write it i don't have it on me and i can't walk to the uni to look it up.

>>37738977
>There's a reason for X
>There's a reason for Y
No there isn't, your human mind just can't handle the fact that there is no order to anything and everything is random

>>37739120
When you say "studies show" and you dont post any studies, you are relying on any person's prejudice or preconcieved notions towards the academics/scientists that run studies. If you can't prove it, then you might as well not even bring it up, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Telling me to look it up myself is like pretending you're in the right without proving it, if I told you a 1946 VW was faster than a 1974 Challenger, and then refused to post evidence and tell you to look it up yourself, how would you feel? What would you think of me?

>>37739061
people are genetically predisposed, that's how humans work, everything from your violent potential, music taste, political beliefs, etc. are influenced by genetics, note that I didn't say controlled, but influenced.
>fascism
boogeyman
>evil european
do you have another example of a deeply ingrained social custom that disappeared entirely, and did not later rise up when the evil white devils left? please post some references so we can examine them as well
>women get pregnant
>some people have blue eyes
>both of these are caused by genes therefore gender is arbitrary

I feel somewhat content now, I pushed slowly and very gently, and post by post each reply became more insane, unhinged and disconnected from reality than the one before it. Like I said you just know when you argue with a leftie tranny always online porn addict its always the same thing, first they say youre wrong, then they say it doesnt matter because everything is arbitrary and nothing is real therefore men=women and then at the end they just say fascist.

>>37739183
i'd look it up
because i don't trust people to do it for me
you expect me to keep my mouth shut about any issue i'm not carrying a copy of a peer reviewed of tests that describe it? come on now
i'm trusting your intelligence to use google because all i can do right now without access is use google...well wolfram but y'know what i mean

my efforts would be equal to your efforts, and i already read it so you do the google

>>37736010
a woman in the singular sense is a person that belongs to the relevant group: women, which is a socio-historical grouping of people that is constantly reproducing itself as a concept, society in general polices its borders
it probably originated in prehistory with a kind of class dynamic emerging that would divide people based on fertility, not necessarily into two groups or men and women (we know groupings of old people and children weren't necessarily subdivided as classes into old women and old men, and girls and boys, respectively) but we do see historically that woman/man gender idea constantly evolve over time
basically this is a group that exists on the back of its own inertial long untethered from the original pressures that created it as a class of people, and membership of it is socially defined, if society largely accepts that a person is a woman then they are a woman, which makes it arbitrary but not trivial to be one

>>37739183
I'm content too, because it's pretty clear that you're just here to reaffirm your biases, especially cause I'm a fag and not a tranny.
I guess the joke is on me for thinking you could actually have a discussion on the tranny board.

>>37736010
>but I still don't understand your definition of a woman, clearly chromosomes aren't relevant
Gender =/= Sex
so now you know
fucking dumbass

>>37739246
i mean you saw that op didn't you?
i think this one is on you for expecting better :P
kinda got me too though, i was expecting a terf poster only to find the foreign flavors of pol on my tongue......kinda bland in camparison, prefer an lgbt terf, they say more with fewer words

>>37736010
a woman is anyone who identifies as one simple

>>37738977
>there's a reason every bathroom in the american continent has a pictogram of a guy and a girl.
Not a great argument when "guy" and "girl" are differentiated in said pictograms exclusively by the fact that one wears a dress. Like how is that not a social category? Sure that social category was originally based on some stuff from biology but that doesn't make it any less of a social category

>>37738921
Most based post here.
Definitions are just models, and all models are wrong. The chromosome model works for some situations but not other, the social category model likewise.
All these arguments are sort of meaningless without any context of how we are using these definitions. "What is a woman?" is a useless question. However, something like "Who should be allowed to use the women's restroom?", for example, is a question that actually has some basing in the real world and so can be talked about with some real reasoning.

(The pure chromosomal model clearly fails for that question btw)

>>37739421
>"What is a woman?" is a useless question.
it really isn't, it's actually a very effective question at forcing people to think about how we create, maintain, and police categories, or for those with small minds revealing how little one understands about basic epistemology

>>37739298
trans women are men regardless of self id

>>37739465
Sure maybe it has value as something that people could stroke their chins about in a philosophy class, or as something to analyze the discourse around. But for determining policy or how we should treat people it really doesn't matter how we define the word "woman" in an abstract sense

>>37736010
adult human female
xx chromosomes
produces ova eggs
gives live birth
born with a vulva

>>37739636
it does though because we use language, policy is written in language, we talk about policy with language

>>37739698
>born barren
>guess I'm not a woman
deboonked

>>37739698
then i will need an alternative word for all the barren, the deformed and the genetically aberrant women i can no longer call woman

Look, it's simple. Whoever fixes my broken water heater is a man, and whoever gives me pointers on my wardrobe is a woman. Their birth sex is irrelevant as long as they can do their jobs.

>>37736010
Trannies aren't female by definition. There's no "female penis". Doesn't matter how many pills or surgeries trannies get trannies will never be female. And even when science has reached a point where trannies can be made into females they will still distinctly be trans females.
However I'm an essentialist and "woman" isn't a scientific definition. If a tranny has the essence of a woman then she is a woman, if a tranny has the essence of a man then he is a man. It's pretty simple and it is a distinction our brains already make. On both sides people have to go out of their way to correct their own instinct, either to call a tranny a man or to pretend a tranny is a woman.
If you took a bedside table and cut down the legs and started using it as a coffee table and it worked it is a coffee table. Only the most autistic of cretins is going to argue otherwise. However if you had a bicycle and took took the front wheel off of it and tried pass it off as a unicycle it is just a shitty broken bicycle.

>>37740119
>some absolute woo
shit post

>>37739701
but policy regarding transwomen necessarily says transwomen when talking about them, so it doesnt matter anyway. If a bill says "transwomen can be in the womens bathrooms" then the definition of women is COMPLETELY irrelevent. the bill specifically says transwomen and everyone knows what the fuck it means.

what is a woman is just whataboutism meant to waste time because dumb people think if a conversation lasts 2 hours then "both sides have merit". conservative talking points are predominately marathon talking points, meant to exhaust the opposition into leaving them alone in their walled garden of dogmatism.

I respect autistic screeching and just telling the opposition to kys more than time wasting arguments that get proven to be bad over and over again.

>>37740141
Literally everything I posted is absolute fact. Come up with an argument or shut up retard.

>>37740119
honestly based. passing is all that matters. if you pass to everyone you are a woman. if you stealth for 99% of social interactions your trans status doesnt matter a bit.

>>37740165
>essentialist
>fact
literally just unfalsifiable woo, might as well say god told you personally

>>37740170
passing is a myth, we can always tell in person

>>37740172
he said essentialist and not scientific definition. so being falsifiable doesnt matter. hes literally saying his definition is vibes based.

>>37740174
lol. lmao even. do you faggots really cope this way?

>>37740170
It's not so much about passing physically but passing essentially.
>>37740172
The term you are looking for is "woo-woo" brainlet. Again, point out where I am wrong.

>>37740163
>what is a woman is just whataboutism
do you know what whataboutism is lol
the question isn't whataboutism
>conservative talking points are predominately marathon talking points
no they aren't they're short and sweet and wrong, there's a reason walsh cuts down that one guy's long answer in his documentary, they don't like to talk at length with nuance about what a woman is, they want a short universal definition to bludgeon people with
the argument isn't itself "bad" the approach by bad faith participants is
>policy regarding transwomen necessarily says transwomen
it's not guaranteed that everywhere that deals with women in policy also deals specifically with trans women (two words) so it still makes sense to have an idea of what women are so they we know trans women are included, this is just language stuff

>>37740174
I do urinalysis in a police drug testing facility in texas, one of the worst places for trans people in the country. I know I pass because I get asked by cis women to do their testing all the time because most women want a female proctor and I always disclose I'm trans first before doing it and I get tons of shocked responses. Getting dumbfounded or shocked responses 4 or 5 times a day is a pretty big confidence booster. and yes, my drivers license says male and I still go by a male name. I do occasionally have women say they arent comfortable with that, usually politely like 'thank you for honesty' or something like that. Only once has someone had a full on melty because they found out I was trans and it was a huge biker looking dude with a ton of tatoos in jeans and a flannel button down in like 105 degree weather.

>>37740181
embarrassing that you think woo isn't a term

>>37736010
I notice the Amazing Atheist was not quick to comment on the third Abrahamic religion

File: file.png (85 KB, 389x299)

85 KB PNG

>>37739234
>studies show
Which studies?
>look it up yourself lol

This is not anywhere close to "keep your mouth shut about any issue i'm not carrying a copy of a peer reviewed of tests that describe it".

You are literally LYING TO MAKE YOUR POINT LOOK BETTER.

>>37739246
you also lying probably butthurt over one of the replies, feel free to reply to any one post, then pick out exactly which sentences you are referring to, otherwise what you'd do is like anon above and just lie about what I said to make yourself feel better. I posted arguments, with a little subtitle and everything, and like always, special ed posters will pick out single words and small phrases and reply to them as though the rest of the post doesn't matter, no general reply, no "I disagree with xyz".

Do you feel like going over the replies I got to my character limit post?
>>37737304 < original post, it's pretty concise and not argumentative at all, I invited discussion, not argumentation, and instead of building up on it, or challenging one of the claims, all the replies are about semantics and avoiding making any concession or agreement.

>actually you didnt say anything
>everything is random
>words are abitrary so nothing matters and we can just make words mean whatever we want
>saying behavior is influenced by genes is fascist
>"scientific studies say" which studies? em, look it up yourself!!!
>there is no reason why every culture on earth has roles that fit our two sexes, any of the millions of reasons doesn't matter because europe is bad (actual reply)
>women is a human being therefore men are women (also actual reply)
>intersex and body dysphoria is the same thing, regardless of definitions
>asking for a definition that fits the real world is intellectually dishonest (almost typed out verbatim)
>" 'up' and 'down' don't have any real definition." (copy and pasted this one)
>intersex people are very common and relevant to the discussion of whether biological men are women (they are not)

>>37740181
nta but you didn't use any evidence you just said some stuff was a fact so there's nothing to say if you disagree just that no it isn't

>>37739235
>the one actual attempt to answer the question gets ignored
this answer is actually pretty good imho tbqh

>>37740224
Let's see the definition then niggeroni.
>>37740250
My evidence is reality.

>>37740278
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
https://www.skepdic.com/woowoo.html
you can find myriad examples of people using woo online you strange racist freak

>My evidence is reality.
>essentialist
>literally a supernatural belief
doubt

>>37740238
It'd be funny if it were simply absent, but to jump from Quran to Bhagavad Gita is hilarious.

gender is chromosomal
y means you are not a woman or female, and can't be
even intersex who have a y chromosome still look at least a little male compared to dyadic afabs

>>37740242
yet more projection
you can test for differences and people have
where's the lie? i never promised you a subscription to the lancet
but enough of that
tell me more about the bullshit blue hair beliefs you think i hold, i'm starting to lose interest

File: 1701192879191257.png (482 KB, 753x562)

482 KB PNG

>>37740306
>rationalwiki
>skepdic
Essentialism is reality. There is nothing supernatural about essentialism.

>>37740334
>clear evidence of the extant use of woo to mean what it means
essentialism is literally supernatural it's above or beyond the natural world, its forms and essences exist outside the the observable natural world you are so fucking dumb

>>37740360
Anything that exists exists within the natural world.

>>37740373
lmao philosophical peasant trying to be both a materialist and an essentialist that's fucking hilarious
pick one

>>37740373
think you're thinking of something else m8
essentialism is 'realm of perfect forms" shit

>>37740395
good call actually it is likely they're just very thick

Normies don't engage in philosophical arguments. They simply look at someone and make a judgment call.

>>37740384
philosophy written on paper is slightly more valuable than just the paper, equal in value to paper covered in doodles

if i can't build or predict with it then what is it for?

>>37740384
>>37740395
Essentialism is a description of the way in which perception informs reality, you don't need to believe in metaphysical concepts in order to understand that. Like translating the concept of the human soul into the idea of a concience.
Don't try to call anyone out when you start your posts in lower case like a tranny bottom faggot.

trans women are men
trans men are women
trans women have a male essence
trans men have a female essence

>>37740445
lul newfag can't tell us apart

>>37740445
are you seriously trying to cover your mistake by slowly changing the words to match materialism? xD you used the wrong word, own it

>>37740456
Not sure where you're pulling this out of or what you're even trying to imply. I responded to both of your posts equally.

File: file.png (725 KB, 963x427)

725 KB PNG

>>37740259
>>37739235
Missed this reply in between all the shit but its pretty good, the main point that you would have to look back at history or at other women to know what a woman is, is pretty good evidence to back the claim that this group is defined by societal consensus, that is, you cannot define yourself, or anyone for that matter, as a woman, you would need the group of people you live with, at large, at least insofar as you matter to people around you, to agree that you are a woman for you to be one.

I still would not say it's arbitrary, because it's not, it's based on recognizable characteristics, it's only as arbitrary as any word is arbitrary, like in the sounds made or grammatical rules, but it describes a group that is important to the human mind.

The concept of woman does not prescribe a person, a woman is a group of elements that is constantly present in human life. It's how we make more humans, human male gets with human female, they copulate and make another human, man woman and child, thats a family, the child will grow to be a man or woman and it is designed from birth which one it will be and we can tell from the moment they have physical features we can map out with ultrasound, we can see if they have a willy or not, man and woman is so certain you can tell by ultrasound through layers of skin and muscle.

This reply reads like it's trying to explain why we call some people women and the others men, but it's not even looking towards the most basic elements omnipresent in every single human ancestor, sex and birth, every living human has experienced the latter and was created by the former. The knowledge of who carries the baby is essential for reproductive success, which means not just making - but also carrying and protecting, then nurturing the offspring.

There is no amount of talking you can do to change this fact, what women and men are, is biologically ingrained in your innate human knowledge before you're conscious.

Okay you tards, let's get back to the real issue: if people generally perceive and treat others based on what they *seem* to be, then what they seem to be takes precedence over what they are.

>>37740445
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'll start my posts how I want you peasant

>>37740480
>what they seem to be takes precedence over what they are.
until it doesn't, like in sex and pregnancy

>>37740480
The real issue is its possible for people to call you she and know you are male, and trannies won't acknowledge this happens.

>>37740495
Sure that happens. But it also happens that I see you and say sir when I mean to say faggot.

>>37740463
Materialism and essentialism are not mutually exclusive, nor do thousand year old ideas hold as strict law. If you're not using philosophy as a way to decript human thought and instead as a way to substitute your own thoughts then you're a brainlet.
Materialism is true in so much as there are physical, scientific facts and essentialism is true in so much as our perception and language alter those facts.
>>37740481
>"I'm not going to do what you tell me!"
>does it subconciously anyway like a submissive bottom

>>37740475
>is pretty good evidence to back the claim that this group is defined by societal consensus, that is, you cannot define yourself, or anyone for that matter, as a woman, you would need the group of people you live with, at large, at least insofar as you matter to people around you, to agree that you are a woman for you to be one.
I almost agree with this, the thing I'd quibble with is whether you are ever truly a woman, or truly anything socially defined, or whether you are just seen and called a woman and socially grouped as a woman, I think the latter is true because there is no special or deep truth to categorisation as far as I can see, something that is categorised as within group A is a member of group A and nothing extra, it's not written in that thing's soul, and I apply that to all people not just trans people, nobody fundamentally is a woman, people are women within the confines of human being ascribing it, and nothing extra is even achieved by consensus, a consensus is just a consensus not evidence of an essence or soul truth
>it's based on recognizable characteristics
>it describes a group that is important to the human mind
I agree with this insomuch as that's how it has ended up, we can say nothing is arbitrary with determinism, it was almost "fated" to be this way, but it is arbitrary in that as much as we can choose things we could choose it to be another way, we could group things different, we just don't because we evolved the kind of minds we did and happened to form the kind of social groupings we did
will write a part 2

>>37740523
wHy do YoU thINK boTToM is AN INsulT?

>Materialism and essentialism are not mutually exclusive
braindead :)

>>37740556
Because I'm not a bottom.
In this case how however it is less about insulting and more about a reminder that bottoms were banned from public forums in ancient times and this is why. You can lead a bottom to philosphy but you can't teach them how to think.

>>37740475
>The concept of woman does not prescribe a person...
this paragraph seems like it's just describing a model of sexual reproduction, a model is fine, it's not the territory though, and this one in particular is useful for big populations even if it is simplistic
>This reply reads like it's trying to explain why we call some people women and the others men, but it's not even looking towards the most basic elements omnipresent in every single human ancestor, sex and birth
>divide people based on fertility
I did mention birth though
sex is also a construct, there are many sex traits we can observe but we don't directly observe sex as a trait in itself, we test for other things as a proxy for this category
>There is no amount of talking you can do to change this fact, what women and men are, is biologically ingrained in your innate human knowledge before you're conscious.
I don't think there's evidence for this, that we can instinctually tell, there's evidence for the opposite though the amount of times people cannot tell

>>37740570
why are you getting schooled on phil by a bottom then? pretty embarrassing mr top who thinks forms exist in nature

>>37740523
decrypt? describe?
or are you going to redefine decript as correct all along :P

the idea that there is nothing beyond what can be measured and the idea that perception has any effect on reality are actually mutually exclusive

either reality is fixed and can be measured independent of any one person's perception or it exists in the minds of those who perceive it
you can't have both a fixed and a non fixed world xD

>>37740523
>Materialism and essentialism are not mutually exclusive
I'm just joining in to dunk on this guy, please show me an essence my dude.

>>37736838
wittgenstein wrote about this, look up his theory of family resemblances

I heard there was somebody that thinks materialism and essentialism are not mutually exclusive here.
Do we need to call an ambulance?

>>37740622
>reality is fixed and can be measured independent of any one person's perception or it exists in the minds of those who perceive it
Not that I'm a materialist, but for someone who is it's effectively both anyway in that people operate based on their perceptions, and will argue with you about observable reality. Especially Americans.

>>37740613
im gonna grab you by the hair and hold your face in my croch while you cry and blubber and I school you on thoughtforms

Trans women are autistic men who think being a bottom makes you a woman.

>>37740650
you will literally never get to have sex with me, you will have to make do with imagining it :)

>>37740654
Gay men are women. Sorry, I don't make the rules.

>>37740663
Maybe I already have?

>>37740665
Then why can't they marry men in most countries like women can?

>>37740669
impossible

>>37740682
They can, they just have to yeet their balls and put on the hijab. You can do that, right?

>>37740613
I'm not being schooled. The problem is your lack of neuroplasticity. Thought is such a foreign concept to you that the idea of applying philosophy is completely foreign.
>>37740622
>>37740623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
Reality can only be measure in perception by definition. And we know so little about reality that any number of things could or could not be true, including contradictory things.
The problem is you're both bottoms and therefore are talking about philosophy from a lower perspective, i.e. philosophy as a literal mode of thought and set of rules. I am talking about the idea of materialism and essentialism as the context in which they exist and what they are attempting to describe.
As for showing an essence I've already done it when I correctly identified the essence of a bottom in that one person's posts.

>>37740696
Can I have a beard poking out through the hijab or is that now allowed? My facial hair grows in SO FAST.

>>37740714
>showing
>identified
literally completely braindead
continue to scramble please it entertains me you shambling corpse

>>37740714
The double slit experiment has nothing to do with platonic forms my dude. You are, as has been pointed out, dumb.

>>37740733
Sorry but you'll have to get state subsidized laser hair removal.

>>37740546
>>37740599
based stuff understander

>>37740768
that sounds painful, im very sensitive, why cant i just be a flamer with working balls again and marry other men?

>>37740714
caught with you're projector out again
i view philosophy as worth about as much as art
ie zero
a proof to me is a machine i can build

and for reference 'observer' in the context of particle physics doesn't refer to a mind, it refers to any structure the particle can interact with

in the double slit experiment that would be an electromagnet.

>>37740777
They use numbing gel, you'll be alright. Anyway those balls have got to go. You won't miss them. After a few weeks, you'll forget you ever had them.

>>37740786
BODIED THAT FREAK

>>37740795
I don't mind my sex drive. I had a nice sex dream last night where I was getting sucked off by two guys at once.

>>37740802
That's haram, anon. You should be focused on how best to please your husband.

>>37740813
I deserve pleasure too. Its ok for flamers to be sexually pleasured by other men!

>>37740802
anecdote isn't evidence but......
if transwomen are biologically men why did i become hornier and more active instead of sad and fat when my t levels dropped. y'know the expected reaction of a man on female HRT

>>37740829
>I deserve pleasure too.
Just think of all the pleasure you'll feel making dinner.

>>37740847
I don't see why we can't both cook and help each other. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

>>37740832
because you felt less ashamed for liking men after castrating yourself, thus repressed your horny less

>>37740860
>I don't see why we can't both cook and help each other.
You're gonna make god upset with all this gobbledygook.

>>37740887
I don't believe in magic.

>>37740734
Not an argument.
>>37740751
>prove perception literally alters reality scientifically
>this kills the bottom
>>37740786
>you ARE projector
>philosophy is worthless according to me, a bottom
>proof to me is a machine that can massage my prostate
How do you observe something without a mind?

>>37740893
I can change scientific reality with my hands you ape that has nothing to do with platonic forms, my dude, and don't call me a bottom I would annihilate your asshole, my dude.

>>37740892
There's a certain Canadian reggae band who I think would be very confused if you told them you don't in them.

>>37740893
it's not an argument that you can't tell the difference between directly observing reality and inferring the existence of an essence, it's just a fact you have made apparent

>>37740860
i was never ashamed of liking men and women
>>37740893
that's just what it's called because the first dipshit to notice the effect thought it was a psychic phenomenon
the observer doesn't literally know when the electron passes by seeing and understanding it
the electron exhibits force on the field, the counterforce causes the electron to stop acting like a wave and start acting like a particle
no actual observation is required. it's just what you call the thing.
like 'ego' thanks to advances in neurology we know the entire jungian bag is bunkum but we still use the term ego to describe the attention paying part of the brain because it had to be called something and the word is close enough

>>37740546
>'d quibble with is whether you are ever truly a woman, or truly anything socially defined,
Well, no, that's my larger point, what you ARE is what you are, that is the definition, no matter how you word it, that's why I disagreed, what you say about the soul I can understand and agree, however as you admit if let's say your soul is confined to your body and its physical constraints, this would mean in whichever way, whether or not the soul is involved, the meat suit you pilot is subject to the brain, and the brain is intrinsically taught in the primordial container, how to breathe, blink, swallow, etc. and this knowledge extends to facial recognition and sexual behavior, these are ingrained in the brain of every person because that's how the brain works, short of a physical defect in it that inhibits naturally "intended" behavior.

>sex is also a construct
I simply disagree with the premise, as stated before, male-female reproduction leading to offspring, it is a necessity that the brain understand this simple fact of life, through hormones or pheromones or observable traits, for reproduction to occur you must copulate and this is not possible without identifying a mate, someone incapable of such a thing has already been expelled and excluded from the gene pool, genes leaning into asexuality naturally filter themselves out as well.

>there's evidence for the opposite though
I could not believe this, rather than disagree with the statement, I believe it is false or at least does not present itself within the appropriate context.
I could leave my house at noon and walk around for hours asking random normies to point to man and woman and I promise you I could predict with a high amount of accuracy what kind of person would willingly say they cannot tell.
I can believe you if you refer to specific cases in which men dress like women or the opposite, or a very successful transitioned person who presents entirely as their preferred gender.

>>37740946
>and women
you are ashamed to be seen as someone who only likes men as a man

>>37740976
It is shameful. Be ashamed of yourself. Do better.

>>37740976
i mean i wouldn't be if i was
don't really feel much shame, seems like commie bullshit to me, fuck the group, individual supremacy over any group

i mean what benefit does shame have for the individual?

Person i want to have sex with

>>37740917
>>37740945
>>37740946
Who was talking about platonic forms?
How is it you can understand ego as a changing concept but not essence?
Do bottoms enjoy philsophy because they like being told what to think instead of how to think?

>>37740986
its 100% ok to only like men as a man
society not approving of that is not a good enough reason to not be yourself

>>37740966
>what you ARE is what you are, that is the definition
are as in what though? the physical material outside of human mind constructions? I don't know what you mean with this point, definitions are socially constructed

>physical defect in it that inhibits naturally "intended" behavior
you put intended in quotes but you seem to still be just doing the thing, there are no defects or intended behaviours fundamentally, we create these distinctions and ideas socially, nature, the universe, it doesn't care or see this
soul I was using metaphorically, just to dispute the idea of categories having a basis in reality outside of human construction

>I simply disagree with the premise, as stated before, male-female reproduction leading to offspring
even if I forgive begging the question like that, that doesn't really work as an argument because sexual reproduction isn't guaranteed with two people of the opposite sex having sexual intercourse
>it is a necessity that the brain understand this simple fact of life
nothing is a necessity, rubbing genitals feels good though and there's probably some instinct to put the thingy in the thingy, this says nothing about sex as a trait though, you don't need to understand the concept of sex to fuck
as for the begging the question bit: it is not assumed that because we may have some instinctual behaviours and may look for physical traits that sex is not a construct, sex traits exist that we can observe, there's no reason to think we then don't construct sex as its own trait though, we do, we use other traits as a proxy for this amalgam, chromosomes are chromosomes, not sex, genitals are genitals, not sex, we use generally one or the other or even sometimes other traits to sort people into sex categories

>genes leaning into asexuality naturally filter themselves out as well
asexual people exist though, gay people exist, this argument just doesn't hold

>>37740966
>I could leave my house at noon and walk around for hours asking random normies to point to man and woman and I promise you I could predict with a high amount of accuracy what kind of person would willingly say they cannot tell.
the point is not that people generally cannot tell the sex of a person it's that they cannot always tell, there are ambiguous people, it doesn't seem like we have this biologically ingrained innate ability to tell
we generally go off of social signifiers

>>37741056
but it wasn't an evolution of the concept of ego
that shit was thrown out
the word is used because it's convenient

not a bottom, miss me with that kink shit
despise non stem academics

>>37741116
>there are ambiguous people
prove it
prove there are men who in person are perceived as female when seen in natural outdoor daytime lighting

>>37741056
see
>>37740463

>>37741123
before I do that do you really think if I gave you 1000 pictures of ambiguous looking people you'd guess them all right?

>>37741151
>pictures
sigh you are missing my point entirely
IN PERSON
where you can see what these people look like, hear them talk, watch them move around, even in the most ambiguous cases it just takes a little longer to guess the birth sex
if trannies really passed they would try to prove it by testing recognition of trans vs cis women in meatspace (they don't do that and we both know why)

>>37741174
I'm not missing your point entirely I know what you mean and I can just rephrase my question
>do that do you really think if you met 1000 ambiguous looking people in adequate lighting etc. etc. you'd guess them all right?

>>37741174
also
>they don't do that and we both know why
is hilariously wrong, trans women are always talking about how girlmoding went and whether they got maam'ed or sir'ed

>>37741192
yes, in person? I can hear them talk see them move, their faces are not blocked by makeup or hair etc
yes
100%

>>37741210
people calling you she doesn't mean they *internally perceive you* as a woman, it means they realize the autistic game you are playing, and are playing along with you

>>37736010
someone with a female soul? duh

>>37741231
>100%
I don't think we're going to meet in the middle then because this is like telling me you can eat 1000 ostrich eggs in an hour, it's beyond a reasonable belief

>it means they realize the autistic game
you're now saying all people can always tell all trans women are trans, so we're even further beyond a reasonable belief
idk how polite you think terfs are but they generally don't like to gender trans women as women and yet it's happened to me twice

the earlier conversation was kinda interesting but this is just really really silly, have a nice day anon

>>37741268
you will always be male

>>37741268
cuz terfs think transwomen=crossdresser
they are looking for a man in a dress

>>37741291
Trans women are male crossdressers who castrate themselves for attention and validation from others.

>>37741294
and since terfs actually believe this they are amongst the shittiest clockers
you want someone good at telling a man from a woman from a transwoman? gay man

>>37741328
I get that trannies irl who put in effort don't INSTANTLY read male, but they do in 20-30 seconds at most. Once you know what to look for, it's easy.

>>37741345
exactly the point, terfs don't
for ideological reasons they have a blindspot in their model that reduces granularity

>>37736010
A woman is someone that looks like a woman, ugly hons aren't real women but pretty passoids like hunter schafer are

>>37741294
That sounds like projection hon. Even girls have to dress up, put on make up and maintain a certain image. There's an entire industry surrounding fakeness - cosmetics, plastic surgery, high fashion, and so on. It doesn't make women less women just because. There are plenty of "unattractive" women who don't put effort into those things and they're still women even if they have pcos and grow facial hair. There are women who also get sired by people of the public who didn't look closely enough. All of these are things women have to deal with too. As I'm a biological female, I accept our transfeminine testosterone-lacking sisters as women.

There are even women who can rock the completely shaved head look who are sexy.

File: kill yourself loosers.png (16 KB, 657x164)

16 KB PNG

>>37736476
>now we have to have the same argument about what female means
no the fuck we dont. by definition if someone is feminine enough to be perceived as a female, they are a female. whether or not you believe they are a "real" woman or not is a matter of opinion based on values.
by the dictionary definition, trans women are women. however this does not mean they are the same, but they are still women. just like how an Audi and BMW are both cars, but are quite different in many ways.

>>37741565
it's why i hate being stuck between the prideshits and the terfs
cuz like transwomen aren't men and transwomen aren't women
there is a word for the specific matter of an intersex with female neurology and hormone response.......what was that word

transwoman :| transwomen are transwomen
if i was just a man or just a woman there wouldn't have been a problem

>>37741130
See deez nuts
>>37741119
It literally is an evolution of the concept of the ego

Tgirls are femoids
Women are femoids
Not that hard desu