How do we define "man" and "woman"

[juvenissun]

This one is targeted at those who think there is no meaningful distinction between sex, gender identity, and gender expression (á la this convenient graphic).

What characteristic determines whether someone is a man or a woman?

One who has eggs is a woman.
No eggs, no woman.
(I love to see someone who can give an exception to this one)

 

[Dan Bert]

The Equipment, Regulatory Hormones, and their Spirit. God created man Male and Female. And also the order of authority and responsibilities.

any teachings or philosophies that seek to change or to blur those truths are inspired by Satan.

dan

This one is targeted at those who think there is no meaningful distinction between sex, gender identity, and gender expression (á la this convenient graphic).

What characteristic determines whether someone is a man or a woman?

 

[The Cadet]

One who has eggs is a woman.
No eggs, no woman.
(I love to see someone who can give an exception to this one)

Women with CAIS?

 

[juvenissun]

Women with CAIS?

Simple, a woman with CAIS is NOT a woman.
What would be wrong on that?

 

[juvenissun]

This one is targeted at those who think there is no meaningful distinction between sex, gender identity, and gender expression (á la this convenient graphic).

What characteristic determines whether someone is a man or a woman?

It is indicated in Gen 1. The fundamental reason for having woman is to have offspring of mankind. It fits the modern biological principle about sex. And it is the ultimate guideline to define a woman.

Man is designed not to give a physical birth. So a woman, should be defined as a human who is able to give birth of a baby. So, my definition is one down to the ground. A woman must have eggs in her body. Otherwise, for whatever reason, the person is not a woman.

 

[The Cadet]

Simple, a woman with CAIS is NOT a woman.

They look like women. They're raised like women. They hold themselves to be women. Why should we consider them men? Given the context, I don't see any reason to consider them not women in any context save for childbirth, where they can be placed on an even footing with infertile women - who I suppose are also "not women"?

 

[juvenissun]

They look like women. They're raised like women. They hold themselves to be women. Why should we consider them men? Given the context, I don't see any reason to consider them not women in any context save for childbirth, where they can be placed on an even footing with infertile women - who I suppose are also "not women"?

The basic function of a women is to give childbirth. If you don't accept this, then you violated the basic principle of life evolution.
A human does not have a potential to give childbirth is not a female human, which we called woman.

 

[The Cadet]

The basic function of a women is to give childbirth.

...

The Victorian Era called. It wants its offensive, limiting stereotypes back.

A human does not have a potential to give childbirth is not a female human, which we called woman.

Great. So women whose tubes have been tied, who were born infertile, and who for any other reason cannot have viable offspring are not women.

So which bathroom should my aunt Janet use? Or, you know, any woman over the age of 60?

 

[lesliedellow]

A man has got a dangley bit between his legs.

 

[Hoghead1]

The basic function of a women is to give childbirth. If you don't accept this, then you violated the basic principle of life evolution.
A human does not have a potential to give childbirth is not a female human, which we called woman.

Well, you sure aren't gong to be well-received among the many women who, for one reason or another, can't bear children.

 

[juvenissun]

...

The Victorian Era called. It wants its offensive, limiting stereotypes back.

Great. So women whose tubes have been tied, who were born infertile, and who for any other reason cannot have viable offspring are not women.

So which bathroom should my aunt Janet use? Or, you know, any woman over the age of 60?

I am not sure (due to poor biological knowledge), but I think your aunt should still have eggs. Is that correct? If yes, she is still a woman.

In terms of which bathroom to use, it is a second or third level argument. We can use a derivation of the main definition for that. For example, a person who has her ovary removed (not a natural process), can still be called a woman because it was there before the surgery.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, you sure aren't gong to be well-received among the many women who, for one reason or another, can't bear children.

If they have eggs, they CAN, one way or another.

 

[lesliedellow]

If they have eggs, they CAN, one way or another.

Juvenissun MD.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun MD.

Thanks. I am poor in biology. But, thanks to science education, I can afford, to a certain degree, not listen to whatever my doctor told me. I do not trust them.

 

[durangodawood]

......We are rushing to change the world based on incomplete evidence....

This is total sky-is-falling hyperventilating.

The world is gonna be just fine and the change is just a tiny blip in the big picture.

 

[PapaZoom]

Not according to the law in many places, not according to her gender, and not according to any reasonable consideration of the evidence. Is this a woman?

Why? Because he was born with a vagina? Why should that trump every other factor here? Particularly when it comes to the question of which bathroom he should use?



What pressing concern do women have here, exactly? Fear of sexual assault? Oh, right, please, cite the cases you know of where a transwoman committed sexual assault in a women's bathroom - I can tell you right now there aren't any. Privacy? Most transwomen just want to go in, do their business, and get out like anyone else. They have even more interest in respecting other people's privacy and having their own privacy respected, because trans people face incredible amounts of violence for their use of public restrooms, regardless of whether they use the restroom that corresponds with their sex or the one that corresponds with their gender.

Meanwhile, you know what's stacked up against that? General mental health - WPATH, the APA, and the AMA all recognize that living life as a member of the opposite sex is, in fact, part of treatment. Physical safety and wellbeing - trans people forced to use the opposite gender's restroom face far more harassment, assault, and abuse, and if you look at Shawn Stinson up there, you can probably figure out why. The gender of the individual - transwomen have a female gender. I realize you don't accept that gender is a thing which is distinct from sex, but you're just wrong - you might as well deny that genes exist, or deny that testosterone is a thing people have.


You're right! Our anatomy also defines our sex. These are two distinct things! For some people, they get a female gender and a male sex. They may be the rare exception, but that does not diminish their existence, or their rights.



They're there to shower and change, not show off each other's genitals. If they have a problem with this transwoman, then yes, that is their problem. They can get over themselves. You might as well complain about a gay person sharing the shower - and they're more likely to stare.

I guarantee you that there are more cases of a transwoman being murdered for entering the men's bathroom than of transwomen raping women in the women's bathroom.

I think I've pretty much answered the OP's question and stated my POV. To respond further is to repeat what I've already said.

 

[FireDragon76]

The basic function of a women is to give childbirth. If you don't accept this, then you violated the basic principle of life evolution.

Oh my... not only is that very sexist, it completely misunderstands Darwinian evolutionary theory. The "functions" of organs in Darwinian thought are for derived purposes, which are distinct from designed purposes. Like using a mousetrap as a tie tack.

A human does not have a potential to give childbirth is not a female human, which we called woman.

Plenty of infertile women will never give birth, yet it would baffle common sense to call them men.

This is the problem with the dogmatic essentialism at the heart of religious fundamentalism. It's just flat-out limiting to adhere to this sort of thinking, it narrows intellectual, moral, and spiritual horizons.

 

[juvenissun]

Plenty of infertile women will never give birth, yet it would baffle common sense to call them men.

If they are women, they would all have eggs, fertile or infertile.

 

[Locutus]

If they have eggs, they CAN, one way or another.

There are some manifestations of infertility which prevent conception/term pregnancy. I can't believe you're not aware of this.

 

[Locutus]

I don't think that a civilized society would pursue medical treatments trying to fix the brains of transsexuals to make them happy with their birth-sex. The phenomenon of gender identity is so complex that it would probably required very intrusive medical interventions. That strikes at the heart of the dignity of the human being and their self-determination, something we in western societies value a great deal... precisely because it is part of our Jewish and Christian traditions.

Yet we do just that with most other forms of mental illness. Especially those which express delusion. Are you saying we are not considering the 'dignity' of the schizophrenic, when we treat him? Because you'd be wrong. We treat these people so that they can have dignity. The dignity of reasonable health.

Gender confusion is not any more complex than schizophrenia. We have been convinced of non-existent complexity by those with a vested interest in de-pathologising the condition. The mechanics of this neat trick are easy to see with minimal consideration. Add a reasonable understanding of the conditions mentioned and the jig is up. Clinicians who seek to de-pathologise notwithstanding - after all, they're the same people who would have every manner of misbehaviour in kids pathologised. It's all about telling us what we want to hear, selling drugs, and fear of litigation.