Legal definition of a woman

Status
Not open for further replies.
VaughanJB said:
January, I wonder how closely you have followed discussions and debates outside of this forum on the topic? Only, the idea that "well all", in the context of internet debate around this topic, is wildly out. You do know that there are transitioned people who insist, and demand, they are now an actual "woman", correct? I don't want to enter into a debate with you that causes you angst, I'm just curious. This topic has been going on for year
Click to expand...


when I am in a discussion and I say "we all" or something similar, I mean we all i n the discussion I am in - ie in this instance i n this thread.

therefore in this discussion i n this thread there is no point over and over arguing (or discussing or giving your opinion or whatever term you prefer) the point about trans women i n women's sports since nobody i n this discussion argued otherwise.

I already answered that question before, asked by you - so this reiterates my previous point that you are not actually following what I am saying.

the debate doesn't cause me angst and no idea why you would think that :whistle:
 

oslooskar said:
You claim I’m building a strawman, but I’m responding directly to the language and assumptions embedded in phrases like “becoming the other gender” or “transitioning.” If no one is claiming that biological sex can be changed, then we’re actually agreeing on something fundamental: that sex is immutable and rooted in biology.

However, you then say “those feelings can override biological facts.” And that’s exactly the issue. Feelings can override social norms or expectations, but not biological facts. A person can modify their appearance, undergo surgery, and adopt a new name and pronouns, but those are symbolic or social changes, not biological ones. Calling it anything more is a rhetorical overreach.
Click to expand...


yes, becoming the other gender or transitioning to the other gender.
Yo u can argue the semantics of language - but language has nuance and if we know what a term means, arguing the semantics is rather pointless.

nobody claimed that was over riding biology or DNA - so you didnt need t o argue that since nobody was saying otherwise, and the n you make exagerated 'to make the point' claims about trees

exactly what a strawman argument is - arguing against an exagerated stance that nobody else took.
 
Elsie said:
I wouldn't say freak, but a hormonal - (whatever) DEFECT. Not to be flaunted as though it were special or great. Homosexuality is not an abnormality deserving the okay to flaunt or use to commit abnormal sexual acts. I have a defect of essential tremors but the difficulty of shaking does not give me the right to use it to get me what I'd like through manipulation.
Click to expand...

abnormal sexual acts??

of course nobody, straight or gay, can use that to commit abnormal acts, like abusing children or rape.

But what does homosexuality have to do with this topic?????
 

Born_To_Lose said:
Do I really want to post this? Oh, what the hell.

No one can change their sex from what they born at birth. People have made some illogical attempts, but only to be disappointed in the finality of things.

If you were born with a ******, you’re a female.
If you were born with a *****, you’re a male.

There is no in-between and again, no one can change their sex, even if you have your ****** removed and you get phalloplasty to have a ***** installed and breasts are installed by using plastic surgery still doesn’t change your sex. Same with having the ***** removed and getting vaginoplasty surgery to give yourself a ******. Your sex does not change. The final result is that you have become a freak of nature.

Get used to it.
Click to expand...


People become the closest it is physically possible to become, if they want to, to live as the opposite gender. The surgery/hormone treatment isnt perfect but calling people freaks??

Did you really want to post that?? - in a thread where people are claiming they can all be respectful, probably not.
 
January said:
yes, becoming the other gender or transitioning to the other gender.
Yo u can argue the semantics of language - but language has nuance and if we know what a term means, arguing the semantics is rather pointless. nobody claimed that was over riding biology or DNA - so you didnt need t o argue that since nobody was saying otherwise, and the n you make exagerated 'to make the point' claims about trees exactly what a strawman argument is - arguing against an exagerated stance that nobody else took.
Click to expand...

You're sidestepping the core issue. You say “nobody claimed biology or DNA can be changed,” but then defend language like “becoming the other gender” as if it's just harmless nuance. That’s not nuance, it’s a contradiction. If sex is immutable, then the phrase “becoming the other gender” misleads by implying a total transformation, not just a social adaptation.

You accuse me of exaggerating, yet it’s precisely because of vague language and blurred definitions that we're having this discussion in the first place. If no one is saying biology can be changed, then we should speak accurately. Calling someone the “other gender” suggests something more than a personal expression or identity, it suggests a factual change that didn’t occur. That’s not semantics; that’s clarity.

And invoking “strawman” doesn’t work here. I’m addressing the implications of commonly used phrases, not putting words in your mouth. If those implications make you uncomfortable, maybe the language itself needs rethinking.
 
January said:
when I am in a discussion and I say "we all" or something similar, I mean we all i n the discussion I am in - ie in this instance i n this thread.

therefore in this discussion i n this thread there is no point over and over arguing (or discussing or giving your opinion or whatever term you prefer) the point about trans women i n women's sports since nobody i n this discussion argued otherwise.

I already answered that question before, asked by you - so this reiterates my previous point that you are not actually following what I am saying.

the debate doesn't cause me angst and no idea why you would think that :whistle:
Click to expand...

You're correct, I don't understand what you're attempting to do. So you think we should constrain a topic and only talk about things other people have brought up on the subject? Why would one fail to mention the hot topics on a given subject, and constrain ourselves to only those things mentioned previous to a post? This isn't how conversations/discussions work, and I think you'll find I'm not the only one mentioning Sports and biology, etc. Not that you

Still, my question was earnest, I wanted to get your take. I am trying to understand, honestly. ;)

January said:
But what does homosexuality have to do with this topic?????
Click to expand...

Really? Let me ask you a question - is a man, who transitions to be a Trans woman, who dates men, a homosexual, or not?

Not that I personally care about that particular tangent. Nor do I understand the "abnormal sex" comment.

You seem to have very strict rules on what should, and what should not enter this discussion. The trouble is, it really difficult to manage such a constraint, because not only are all our opinions somewhat unique, but what brought us to the topic is too.
 
oslooskar said:
You're sidestepping the core issue. You say “nobody claimed biology or DNA can be changed,” but then defend language like “becoming the other gender” as if it's just harmless nuance. That’s not nuance, it’s a contradiction. If sex is immutable, then the phrase “becoming the other gender” misleads by implying a total transformation, not just a social adaptation.
Click to expand...

The use of the word "gender" was a trap set by those who want to make demands on others. The question, "how many genders are there?" was asked over and over, and was argued a few thousand times. You're correct, they used "gender" because it's at least debatable at that level. However, it was misconstrued by many, and that laid a claim for trans-woman being actual women. It's an insidious little bit of baiting to gain acceptance to the new set of rules we were supposed to buy into.

The retort to this, as you have covered, is to not take the bait at all. I'll give people the argument that gender is fluid, and people can change their gender. I do this because it's really not the question I care about - I care about the claim laid against biology. If more people had insisted on discussing biology, instead of gender, then a lot of discussion would have been short-circuited.

Being specific in meaning is vital. It's vital in everything, to be honest. When I was teaching Computer Science, I used to discuss this very topic. That is, that we were going to be using certain words, and I wasn't going to be using them in the general sense, but with a very specific meaning. Language is, indeed, nuanced. But context is everything.
 
VaughanJB said:
Still, my question was earnest, I wanted to get your take. I am trying to understand, honestly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I posted umpteen posts before and if you didn't understand what I said then, me repeating myself now isn't likely to change anything. Especially since you asked me a question you had asked me and I had answered already - clearly you aren't trying as hard as you say if you dont read my answers.

VaughanJB said:
Let me ask you a question - is a man, who transitions to be a Trans woman, who dates men, a homosexual, or not?
Click to expand...
I would say not. But who cares?
Any variation on consenting adults is fine by me.
 
oslooskar said:
If no one is saying biology can be changed, then we should speak accurately. Calling someone the “other gender” suggests something more than a personal expression or identity, it suggests a factual change that didn’t occur. That’s not semantics; that’s clarity.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

If everyone in a discussion knows what is meant by a phrase, nitpicking for 'clarity' is just nitpicking.
 
January said:
Sorry, I posted umpteen posts before and if you didn't understand what I said then, me repeating myself now isn't likely to change anything. Especially since you asked me a question you had asked me and I had answered already - clearly you aren't trying as hard as you say if you dont read my answers.


I would say not. But who cares?
Any variation on consenting adults is fine by me.
Click to expand...
surely it depends what your definition of homosexual is doesn't it?? bring it on babe - let the hormones jingle!!
 
I was lucky to be “introduced” to someone transitioning from male to female starting when I must of been about 13. My mother was an electrologist (permanent hair removal) and this person was for many years her client. My mother’s office was in our home.
It was a privilege to be a part of what must of been a horrendous and dangerous process. Chandra had been in the service. Looked very masculine. But felt like a woman. By the time I went to college I could only think of her as a woman. Kind, funny and brave. She left and went to las vegas…hope she had a wonderfull life there.
 
January said:
No it isn't. If everyone in a discussion knows what is meant by a phrase, nitpicking for 'clarity' is just nitpicking.
Click to expand...

If accuracy is “nitpicking,” then you’ve already conceded the point. Language shapes perception, and phrases like “becoming the other gender” carry implications, intended or not, of a literal transformation. If we agree biology hasn’t changed, then why defend language that implies it has? Clarity isn't pedantry when the distinction affects law, policy, and public understanding. You can’t have meaningful discourse without precise language, unless the goal is to blur lines rather than define them.
 
we haven't all agreed that biology has or hasn't changed - a thorough exam by say a neurosurgeon or psychologist or such kind of scientist could very well find that there are molecular changes /chemical changes /neuro changes - that have probably not been examined yet that would demonstrate that in fact molecular biology has changed in such individuals and this is why the 1. feel more comfortable in a new skin and 2. definitely feel wholly like a new gender - all we look at presently is surface layers and then make wild judgements and statements? -
 
Muskrat said:
I was lucky to be “introduced” to someone transitioning from male to female starting when I must of been about 13. My mother was an electrologist (permanent hair removal) and this person was for many years her client. My mother’s office was in our home.
It was a privilege to be a part of what must of been a horrendous and dangerous process. Chandra had been in the service. Looked very masculine. But felt like a woman. By the time I went to college I could only think of her as a woman. Kind, funny and brave. She left and went to las vegas…hope she had a wonderfull life there.
Click to expand...
it's lovely to hear about the 'real' experiences and 'evidence' instead of the 'kitchen scientists' pouring over their manuals?? and spouting?
 
oslooskar said:
If accuracy is “nitpicking,” then you’ve already conceded the point. Language shapes perception, and phrases like “becoming the other gender” carry implications, intended or not, of a literal transformation. If we agree biology hasn’t changed, then why defend language that implies it has? Clarity isn't pedantry when the distinction affects law, policy, and public understanding. You can’t have meaningful discourse without precise language, unless the goal is to blur lines rather than define them.
Click to expand...

Only to you. nobody else takes it to mean one literally changes one's DNA or chromosomes.
 
oslooskar said:
If accuracy is “nitpicking,” then you’ve already conceded the point. Language shapes perception, and phrases like “becoming the other gender” carry implications, intended or not, of a literal transformation. If we agree biology hasn’t changed, then why defend language that implies it has? Clarity isn't pedantry when the distinction affects law, policy, and public understanding. You can’t have meaningful discourse without precise language, unless the goal is to blur lines rather than define them.
Click to expand...
wot on earth are you babbling about - I cannot even understand your english - it sounds meaningless? you don't sound real - more like a machine?
 
smiley said:
wot on earth are you babbling about - I cannot even understand your english - it sounds meaningless? you don't sound real - more like a machine?
Click to expand...

Smiley, your reputation for babbling incoherently is well established here. However, I will post a few comments in the future on this thread in pidgin English for you.
 
January said:
Only to you. nobody else takes it to mean one literally changes one's DNA or chromosomes.
Click to expand...

Oooh, so just me, huh? Nobody else think maybe you changin’ boy bits to girl bits mean you now got lady DNA? Uh-huh, sure. But see, when people say stuff all fuzzy-wuzzy, brain go squishy. Then law turn loopy, rules go bye-bye, and folks start thinking magic happened. Talk plain or get folks all mixy-messy. That’s how silly turns serious. (Pidgin English for Smiley)
 
January said:
yes it is just you who takes (or pretends to take) the phrase 'transitioning to other gender' to mean one literally changes one's DNA
Click to expand...

Ah yes, just me, the lone earthling who thinks words actually mean things. Thank you for your brave service in letting the rest of us know that phrases like "transitioning to another gender" are obviously never misunderstood by anyone, anywhere, ever. Must be nice living in a world where language is magically self-explanatory and questioning it means you’re just pretending. Very impressive.
 
oslooskar said:
Ah yes, just me, the lone earthling who thinks words actually mean things. Thank you for your brave service in letting the rest of us know that phrases like "transitioning to another gender" are obviously never misunderstood by anyone, anywhere, ever. Must be nice living in a world where language is magically self-explanatory and questioning it means you’re just pretending. Very impressive.
Click to expand...

yes you seem the lone person who thinks words always have their literal meaning (or who thinks pretending so makes any point 🙄)

posting sarcastic posts doesn't make you look any more credible though 🙄
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top