So equality is impossible and feminism was always a lie.
PACK IT UP FOLKS! WE'RE HEADING BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES!
That's about the stupidest interpretation one could make of what I said.
First off, there are multiple different measures of equality. An oft-used distinction is between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It is impossible to satisfy all measures of equality simultaneously. Satisfying some measures then violates others. So if you want to ask about equality, you need to specify equality
of what.
Males and females are not equal. Males have more strength, larger body size, increased heart and lung capacity, higher bone density. Females are able to give birth and nurse the young. These things are not equal. There are various psychological differences as well (and no, I'm not talking intelligence). You can provide equal opportunity to males and females, I'm all for doing that. But you will not produce equal outcomes if you do so, and that's OK. Males and females do not even WANT the same things, so why on earth should they get the same things? You can only produce equal outcomes if you deny equal opportunity, if you do not let people do what they want to do. That totalitarian urge is evil.
There isn't an alternative. That's the point I'm making.
If there is no alternative, if the definition of woman must therefore be adult human female, if that's your point, then you've done about the worst possible job at trying to make that clear in prior posts.
And if that's NOT your point, then THIS sentence is completely incoherent.
Either way, you're doing a really bad job at communicating, and that's not my fault.
And I've stated before that everyone deserves safety and privacy. The spaces we have now offer none of that for anyone. Yet, you're arguing that to change that, to make them more safe and private would be a bad thing. Why? You make no sense.
You claim you want more safety and more privacy, but if we did what you seem to be arguing for (self-ID allowing access to female-only spaces), then we would have less safety and less privacy. Either you're simply wrong about the consequences of what you're arguing for, or your communications skills are so terrible that everyone in this thread (not just me) thinks you want something completely different than what you actually want.
You wouldn't guess that from the responses in here, including your own.
YOU might not guess that, but you're still wrong. There are multiple reasons you might be under this mistaken impression. One is that you haven't been around this thread very long. Another is that this thread isn't about trans issues in general. A third goes back to males and females being different. The threat isn't symmetric. Females do not present an equivalent sexual threat to males that males present to females. There are female sexual predators, but they follow very different patterns of predation. One of the consequences of that is that there's basically no incentive for a female sexual predator to adopt a transman identity, but there is incentive for male sexual predators to adopt a transwoman identity.
There IS no alternative because there can be no definition.
That's... wow.
That's even dumber than I expected.
You cannot make sweeping social or even scientific ideas or changes without anything to base them on. That's religion's job.
Um... what? "A woman is an adult human female" isn't a change. It's what the word has basically always meant. And it's a god damn
definition. Definitions are always axiomatic. You don't need them to flow from anything else. And having static definitions for words doesn't even prohibit making social changes, if that's what you want. So how the **** does this have anything to do with it not being possible to define "woman"? Of course it's possible. You can always define any word.
Your definition excludes some women and includes trans men. By definition it cannot be a definition if it doesn't include all women while also excluding trans men who do not identify as women. Fix it so that it does.
You're really bad at this.
By definition, ANY definition of woman cannot exclude any women, under that definition. If they are excluded, they are by definition not women, and so it's not women who are being excluded. Basic logic.
Your actual complaint is that my definition excludes people that you think should be included. An alternative definition could include the people you think should be included. And that's true. But so what? You have not presented any reason why they must be included.
There isn't one to provide. Just a patchwork of incompatible ideas. I didn't provide a definition because there isn't one. I've said as much several time already. Can you read?
The problem isn't my reading comprehension. You have not formed any coherent objection to the standard definition. Why should I care that transwomen are excluded from my definition of woman? That's a feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned. Hell, why do YOU care? It's a perfectly workable definition, even if you would prefer a definition where they were not excluded. In fact, there is NO public policy position that adopting this definition would exclude. Using this definition does not prevent anyone from doing whatever they want. And how could it? It's just a definition.
And women prisoners assault other women prisoners, physically and sexually.
They don't impregnate each other, though, do they?
Well, they do if you include transwomen as women, but they don't if you don't.
Guess we can't keep any of them in prison then as they might get hurt, even in segregated facilities.
The fact that some risks exist is not a reason to simply ignore other risks. That isn't how it works.
Or is it only okay if it's woman-on-woman crimes?
No, it's not OK. But it's also not equivalent. Because again, males and females are not equal. I know that reality upsets a lot of people, but it won't go away no matter how much you pretend it's not true.
In short, because men and women are not equal. The long answer involves details of what the differences are and the consequences of those differences, but I don't think you're actually interested in those details. You won't even acknowledge that they exist.
I've been told we're striving for equality among all peoples.
What do you mean "we", white man? (That's a
joke, BTW)
And again, what kind of equality?
Those barriers are a direct affront to equality.
They are a barrier to a certain kind of equality I have no interest in, and you have not made a case for.
What purpose do they serve other than to continue inequality?
They serve to mitigate certain negative consequences of innate inequalities of biology that you cannot eliminate. No point in discussing more details since you haven't even acknowledged that these differences even exist.
Again with the "my choice of sexism and discrimination isn't sexism and discrimination because I say so," huh?
I wonder how you define sexism.
But that's probably pointless to ask. You don't seem to do definitions.
You've yet to state your ideology. I've stated mine: To reach as close to equality as possible. Not many people seem to think that's a good thing apparently.
Equality of outcome is a
terrible thing. It can only be achieved by totalitarian methods of denying individual free will and choice. But you don't seem to be distinguishing equality of outcome from any other form of equality. I'm left wondering if you've even ever thought about the fact that there are multiple different measurements of equality.
There isn't one. It's in constant flux over time and from society to society. That's why it's the only one that actually works. It accepts that the definition is always in flux and can never be pinned down. Counter-intuitively, it's a definition that there can never be a definition.
That isn't wisdom, that's
pseudo-profound bull ****.
No, they are an adult human with a specific organ arrangement. That's really all there is to it. And those organs carry no weight on who or what they choose to identify or live as. Why this is so important or hard to understand I have no idea.
This is simply wrong as a matter of fact. Your biological sex has a profound affect on how you live. It has a profound effect on how you CAN live, and absent some truly star trek levels of sci-fi advanced technology, that will always be the case. You may choose to try to live in a way other than your biological sex dictates, but even with surgery, you cannot fully escape the constraints of biology. No male has ever birthed a child. No female has ever impregnated another female. What you "identify" as is pretty meaningless to me. You are either male or female.
Now, if you're a male and you want to wear a dress, go for it. I don't care. I don't think anyone here objects to that. But that's a pretty god damn superficial reading of life, if you think that's what constitutes being a woman.
Again, it's an absolutely consistent definition. You don't like it because it doesn't produce the results you desire, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with consistency.
Sexism is also ideologically motivated. You seem to have no problem supporting that though. I wonder why.
At this point, I have no idea what you even mean by this word. Do you think I'm bothered by you calling me sexist? Because I'm not.
