Biology defines woman - maybe this is the best answer.

Chris P Bacon said:
This is one thread of how many. And I too am not blind to the political matters being discussed. It just seems that most people aren’t happy unless most people are unhappy. Maybe it’s a gender or age thing, I don’t know. But I’m sure that there are dozens of people here who know for sure what I do not and aren’t afraid to say so in no uncertain terms.

Why do you think that at almost any given time visitors outnumber the members exponentially so? They look at what’s here and decide, maybe, “Wow, these people don’t get along very well at all.”

There seems to be a core group of ~50 or so members who post most of what’s here. But of those ~50 or so voices, one half generally seems to vehemently disagree with the other. Just my personal perception perhaps. But that you disagree just furthers my personal perception.
Click to expand...
I have found this forum to be quite the opposite actually. It is generally a nice group of people who get along pretty well and are kind to each other, for the most part. There are lots of discussions here wherein no one is arguing, but simply sharing.

In my humble opinion, we've simply hit on a couple "hot button" issues lately that tend to divide people along "party lines."

And even at that, it really hasn't gotten too out of hand. People can disagree on an issue and still like each other, agree on other things.

I enjoy this forum and the people here.
 
Alligatorob said:
I think that is one of the things that makes this place interesting. So long as the discussions are civil and somewhat reasoned I like hearing both sides. And I do see a lot of the civil and reasoned debate here. Not always, but mostly.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t take many turds in a punch bowl to make it undrinkable. Only one, or even just a part of one. I seem some well thought out and reasonable debate here but I also see a lot that’s unpalatable to me. But we’re way off topic with what you or I see in general. This thread was/is for something else and we all have varying opinions. I know I’ll not change anyones mind about what they “know” but maybe I can get some to examine their personal base of knowledge.
 
Medusa said:
I have found this forum to be quite the opposite actually. It is generally a nice group of people who get along pretty well and are kind to each other, for the most part. There are lots of discussions here wherein no one is arguing, but simply sharing.

In my humble opinion, we've simply hit on a couple "hot button" issues lately that tend to divide people along "party lines."

And even at that, it really hasn't gotten too out of hand. People can disagree on an issue and still like each other, agree on other things.

I enjoy this forum and the people here.
Click to expand...

I like and enjoy some of it and some of the people here. But as with most things, there seems to be room for improvement. Your view may vary but I’m not here to discuss that at length.
 
Chris P Bacon said:
Thank you for your definitive proclamation. I’m no expert on words but I believe that the folks at Merriam-Webster are. They don’t seem to see it quite as black and white as you though. You can see what they have to say here - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Click to expand...
I really could not care less what Merriam-Webster has decided to define gender. I am in the medical field and gender is a biological definition of one's sex. You are male or female unless an aberration occurs causing one to be what is known as a hermaphrodite. Society may wish to condone the idea, one can be whatever gender one wishes, but it cannot change the physiology of fact.
 
Medusa said:
A lot of this went over or around my head, but I agree with you about the sex vs. gender thing. It's just that it's not that hard. However, I've given my opinion on this (ad nauseam) and I need to bow out of these threads, I think.
Click to expand...
You're quite right. Those of us who know the truth can retire smugly and let the deluded ones continue with their fantasies. The problem is, unfortunately, that those deluded ones are determined to impose their delusions on the rest of us....and much worse, our children. This is why it has become a political issue.
Minorities dislike being minorities.
 
Lavinia said:
You're quite right. Those of us who know the truth can retire smugly and let the deluded ones continue with their fantasies. The problem is, unfortunately, that those deluded ones are determined to impose their delusions on the rest of us....and much worse, our children. This is why it has become a political issue.
Minorities dislike being minorities.
Click to expand...
You are quoting my response to @Gary O's post, not yours, or for that matter, the larger discussion.
However, if you are referring only to my statement that I need to bow out of this discussion, we're in agreement. Enough already. Let's agree to disagree and move on. :)
 
Lewkat said:
I really could not care less what Merriam-Webster has decided to define gender. I am in the medical field and gender is a biological definition of one's sex. You are male or female unless an aberration occurs causing one to be what is known as a hermaphrodite. Society may wish to condone the idea, one can be whatever gender one wishes, but it cannot change the physiology of fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I kind of had you pegged as not caring what a respected authority had to say if it conflicted with your view.
 
Chris P Bacon said:
Sure, why not? Or are you in favor of the current rate of or even more malignment of men by women?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the point of difference is here but what I am actually in favour of is less women being afraid of their male partners. It is said that men are afraid of being laughed at (or maligned?) by women but women are afraid that they may be murdered by a man. The two fears are not equivalent.

I am one of the lucky women who has nothing to fear from my husband and I grew up in a family where the menfolk were not violent to the women, with one exception - I had one cousin who was a mongrel b*st*rd to his poor wife. In my experience such men are not the norm. Similarly, not all women (your words) are antagonistic to all men. If you think we are... :cry:
 
None of it really matters to me.

If sexual reassignment is helpful to a person and the technology exists to do it safely, why not?

It may improve their lives and it certainly does no harm to me.

Right or wrong, I think of it as attempting to correct a birth defect and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
I'm not sure what the point of difference is here but what I am actually in favour of is less women being afraid of their male partners. It is said that men are afraid of being laughed at (or maligned?) by women but women are afraid that they may be murdered by a man. The two fears are not equivalent.

I am one of the lucky women who has nothing to fear from my husband and I grew up in a family where the menfolk were not violent to the women, with one exception - I had one cousin who was a mongrel b*st*rd to his poor wife. In my experience such men are not the norm. Similarly, not all women (your words) are antagonistic to all men. If you think we are... :cry:
Click to expand...

I said nothing about equivalency and my words did not include the word “antagonistic.” Those are your words and not mine. But being a man, I seem to notice where life is unfair to men in ways that many women don’t consider, or so it seems to me. And sometimes women do kill or injure men, be it their husband, partner or acquaintance. Notice my wording, I said sometimes. Thanks for sharing your opinions but mine are not the same.
 
There are two aspects to this issue. Emotional/psychological identification which is fine with me whatever a person chooses. There's also biology which must be considered medically.

Biological men who emotionally and psychologically identify as women still need PSA levels checked yearly unless they've had their prostate removed. Biological women who identify as men and have had their uterus removed can still develop endometrial cancer if they had endometriosis and bits of that tissue remain post hysteroctomy. There are numerous other diseases that are biologically sex related. For a healthcare practitioner to provide proper care to a trans man or woman, they must know birth biological sex. Regardless of identity choice, sex at birth is a biological fact that a person must still accept if they care about their physical health.
 
AnnieA said:
There are two aspects to this issue. Emotional/psychological identification which is fine with me whatever a person chooses. There's also biology which must be considered medically.

Biological men who emotionally and psychologically identify as women still need PSA levels checked yearly unless they've had their prostate removed. Biological women who identify as men and have had their uterus removed can still develop endometrial cancer if they had endometriosis and bits of that tissue remain post hysteroctomy. There are numerous other diseases that are biologically sex related. For a healthcare practitioner to provide proper care to a trans man or woman, they must know birth biological sex. Regardless of identity choice, sex at birth is a biological fact that a person must still accept if they care about their physical health.
Click to expand...
Disregarding the "identify as women" part, men that have had a radical prostatectomy due to cancer need to have their PSA checked annually. The test reveals the presence of the prostate antigen in the blood. Ideally, the test will show what is considered undetectable levels of the antigen post surgery. Annual tests are compared and used to monitor the recurrence, and growth rate of disease, if any.

I just had to respond to that, Annie, not disagreeing with the premise of your general comment.

I am ignorant if bio. men have their prostate removed in the sex change process. I cannot image they do. Do they?
 
Chris P Bacon said:
Woman = Female = Human = words that all end in either male or man.
Coincidence, or something more? What about a boy named Sue? 🤔
Click to expand...
The craziest part of that linguistic nonsense is that every human embryo begins as female and a complex series of things happen including chemical, hormonal influxes to produce males.

What is more XX and XY are not the only sexually related chromosonal options, tho other variants tend to be labeled disorders because they can effect development and behaviors in ways that society considers abnormal.

The same types of hormones (estrogens and aNdrogens) are basically present in both sexes but in varying amounts.and influencing different organs. Tho in trying to refresh my memory on this some sources say testosterone exclusively male while FSH and progesterone exclusively female, but that may be a function of how the basic androgen or estrogen present at birth interacts with the different organs present. And or a function of when and how what hormonal tests are run, with social assumptions about sexuality based on sexual organs influencing what tests are run unless the person shows 'symptoms' of being XXY or XYY.

My point is that it is not as cut and dry, either/or as we tend to think. But then i'm a humanist, despite the flaws in us i dislike, and am not big fan of how most male vs female disputes descend into some form seeing one as less or more when we all are capable of both great kindness and monstrous behaviors depending on various factors.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
In my view, if we are talking about gender, clearly men and women's bodies and genetic make-up are very different and it is those differences which define us. I am refraining from taking the conversation too far as I am not sure if that is the subject of this thread :)
Click to expand...
Nope. This is not about gender. This is about people who cannot define a woman or describe a woman because they are not "biologists", which I think is a copout so I played the "biologist" by giving a biological definition of a woman.
 
feywon said:
The craziest part of that linguistic nonsense is that every human embryo begins as female and a complex series of things happen including chemical, hormonal influxes to produce males.

What is more XX and XY are not the only sexually related chromosonal options, tho other variants tend to be labeled disorders because they can effect development and behaviors in ways out what society considers abnormal.

The same types of hormones (estrogens and adrogens) are basically present in both sexes but in varying amounts.and influencing different organs. Tho in trying to refresh my memory on this some sources say testosterone exclusively male while FSH and progesterone exclusively female, but that may be a function of how the basic androgen or estrogen present at birth interacts with the different organs present. And or a function of when and how what hormonal tests are run, with social assumptions about sexuality based on sexual organs influencing what tests are run unless the person shows 'symptoms' of being XXY or XYY.

My point is that it is not as cut and dry, either/or as we tend to think. But then i'm a humanist, despite the flaws in us i dislike, and am not big fan of how most male vs female disputes descend into some form seeing one as less or more when we all are capable of both great kindness and monstrous behaviors depending on various factors.
Click to expand...
If a human produces ova it is a woman. If it produces sperm it is a man. That's all. It's just simple biology here. That's all I wanted to say.
 
Medusa said:
A lot of this went over or around my head, but I agree with you about the sex vs. gender thing. It's just that it's not that hard. However, I've given my opinion on this (ad nauseam) and I need to bow out of these threads, I think.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get a bit OT ever so often.

And, yes, bowing out is not a bad move from time to time.


Chris P Bacon said:
There seems to be a core group of ~50 or so members who post most of what’s here. But of those ~50 or so voices, one half generally seems to vehemently disagree with the other. Just my personal perception perhaps. But that you disagree just furthers my personal perception.
Click to expand...
@Chris P Bacon
I'm sure I don't agree with you on several subjects, but I do love reading your points of discussion. They have some intellect behind them.
 
Alligatorob said:
Although rare these people do exist, as do other variants: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909519/#:~:text=Although 47,XXY is the,less frequently than 47,XXY.
Click to expand...
Yes part of my point--- however infrequently variants occur they exist. It is not always either/or. Hermaphrodites still occur.

chic said:
If a human produces ova it is a woman. If it produces sperm it is a man. That's all. It's just simple biology here. That's all I wanted to say.
Click to expand...
Few things about biology are simple, physcal life manifests due to complex processes and interactions. While somewhat entangled, sexual definition and gender identity are not the same thing.

Your first statement In this comment is what got JK Rowling in trouble. Her statement of 'biological fact' implied postmenopausal humans are no longer women. Also Hormonal deficiencies can result in a human with all the obvious and internal organs but not being able to produce ova, or not consistently. And after menopause none of us do. (Which one could argue is nature's way of saying female humans have value beyond being incubators).

In your OP you expressed it better by saying 'does, has or can'. But that still excludes female looking humans who hormones and organs are impaired someway and can't produce ova. It happens.

Personally i am much more concerned with how people behave towards each other than their physicality, or even how they 'identify'.
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
I think that is one of the things that makes this place interesting. So long as the discussions are civil and somewhat reasoned I like hearing both sides. And I do see a lot of the civil and reasoned debate here. Not always, but mostly.
Click to expand...
Yes every person should have the freedom for themselves to define what gender they are. If they want to go further with surgery, then that is their right to do so (after careful consideration I would hope). But the societal problem that none of you have addressed concerns allowing transgender women to compete in sports with biological women. Recently, a transgender woman has been dominating college swimming.

A human being born male will on average eventually have more muscle mass, lung capacity, etc. than the average human born female, and no amount of testosterone suppression drugs can change that. So I don't believe that transgender women should be allowed to compete against biological women since they have an inherent physical advantage.
 
spectratg said:
But the societal problem that none of you have addressed concerns allowing transgender women to compete in sports with biological women. Recently, a transgender woman has been dominating college swimming.

A human being born male will on average eventually have more muscle mass, lung capacity, etc. than the average human born female, and no amount of testosterone suppression drugs can change that. So I don't believe that transgender women should be allowed to compete against biological women since they have an inherent physical advantage.
Click to expand...

Most biological female athletes I've read about are sympathetic to a person's right to identity choice, but agree that if a person went through puberty as a male, she has an unfair advantage over biological females. No matter how many years of hormone therapy, Lia Thompson has a physical unfair advantage over all but a very few birth females.

Title IX resulted from years of hard fought battles to ensure adequate funding for women's sports; to allow birth males who developed traditional male bodies in puberty to compete with birth females is discriminatory to those born female. The current controversy in swimming doesn't even take into consideration the physical dangers of trans women competing in team sports such as women's basketball.
 
Last edited:
Everybody believes that if you look between someone's legs, you can determine if the person is male or female. Generally, that's true, but not always. Biology is always a range of outcomes. And being male or female is also a host of hormones, developmental issues, and emotional issues. Again, with all these factors, there is an enormous range of outcomes.
I think this post is in regard to "men" in women's sports. When you have a segregated sport by gender, it's up to the officials in that sport to determine what they mean by "male"/"female". Even if you use the "looking between the legs" test, there are some with both, none, or modified.
Yes, life gets more complicated every day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top