Transgender man gives birth

If you want me to call you 'he' or 'she' or Dave or Boris or them or whatever, I'll do it. Really, it's no effort and it might be something you go home and cry about, I don't know.

I call people by their preferred title because I'm not a ****.

I don't really worry about the penalty because anyone deliberately, repeatedly using a moniker that they have been asked not to is clearly a **** and a bully. Stuff them.

There may be other issues but simply using someones preferred form of address costs, literally, nothing. Not using it might cause them a world of emotional hurt you just don't know about.

Be nice. How difficult is that?
 
Argumemnon said:
What part of "this is not what the discussion is about" is so hard to understand?

Again, this is all a distraction to avoid discussing the factual basis of the claim.
Click to expand...



Crikey, really? I have to stay bang on the topic?

Which claim are you talking about?
 
Argumemnon said:
How about you respond to what I actually posted?



:rolleyes: Pretending not to have read the thread isn't a very good strategy.
Click to expand...


I skipped the long, boring middle bit.

Given that my comment was fairly well related to the OP and that I didn't quote any particular post so I wasn't actually responding to you or anyone else, I@m still sort of failing to see your point.


I genuinely would like to know to which question you are referring. Ho hum.
 
3point14 said:
I skipped the long, boring middle bit.

Given that my comment was fairly well related to the OP and that I didn't quote any particular post so I wasn't actually responding to you or anyone else, I@m still sort of failing to see your point.


I genuinely would like to know to which question you are referring. Ho hum.
Click to expand...

Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.
 
Cavemonster said:
.... The truth or falsity would rest somewhere within behavior, culture or psychology. Now an academic definition would give us more specificity, but since we're not using those, and the dictionary has defined our term, the truth rests on there simply being some element within those three domains that is masculine....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you here. Do you mean that only one behavioural, cultural or psychological trait is necessary to label someone a man? Is it like a one-drop rule for gender?
 
xjx388 said:
Because men do not have babies. That's just an objective truth. Men who were born women do have babies, though. So that's the problem. It isn't reflective of reality to say that a transman is fully a man. Especially when they are pregnant.
Click to expand...

The article about the OP clearly shows that men do have babies.
Why? Her biology is clear cut. A surgeons knife does not alter her biology one whit. Why? A little snip on a tube doesn't change biology. Just as, in the present case, saying you are a man, living as a man and insisting you are a man does not change biology. Maybe in 50 years, little kids will grow up thinking that men can have babies.
Click to expand...

And yet for millennia a little snip is all it took to turn a man into a eunuch.
"Daddy, I'm a boy, can I have babies?"
"No."
"But Michael's daddy is a man and he can have babies."

I'm sure there will be some fun conversations in the future.
My wife keeps threatening to sue me for harassment. I just tell her it isn't harassment if you like it . . .;)
Click to expand...

Yep just like men can only marry women of the same race. Women can't own property and so on.

Then there is my favorite little girls who grow up to be men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-astonishing-village-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/

Thank god they don't actually exist.
 
Argumemnon said:
Lying requires a deliberate attempt to deceive. Someone who is wrong, deluded, misinformed, or whatever, is not lying. Some might be lying, I guess, but I would think that the overwhelming majority truly believe it. Hence the word: belief.
Click to expand...

But like gay people they are simply wrong and biology tells us so.
 
Argumemnon said:
Ugh. The question is whether a person is of the gender they claim to be by the simple fact of the claim itself. It is _not_ whether it's rude or preferable to go around on the street, pointing to random stragers while shouting their gender and, once one objects that you got it wrong, insist that they're insane and hope they kill themselves to get your gold star.
Click to expand...


Thank you :)
 
Argumemnon said:
I think it's been well established at this point that how things seem to you have no relationship with reality.
Click to expand...

You can't even explain your rigid perfect definition. It is all based on "those people are too small a group to matter in my definition". But in science small groups still matter to taxonomy. Which shows your contempt for actual science on these issues.

Able to fill the reproductive role of male or female is a great biological definition. It is clear and concise and everyone fits into it in some way as male, female or other. You don't need qualifications of "female but sterile because of X Y and Z" or any of that. If you are female it all fits then.
 
picture.php
 
mumblethrax said:
No, a female is a member of the sex that produces egg cells.
Click to expand...

So then we have "A woman would then be any adult human who exhibits the gender attributes (especially gender identity) traditionally associated with the sex that produces egg cells"

To me, I don't see any difference between that and "A woman is someone who has gender attributes of a woman".

To my way of thinking, a better definition would be "A woman is someone capable of creating egg cells, or of the same sex as someone who can." Now, we would have to define how we determine that someone is "of the same sex", but that's left as an exercise for the reader. Of course, my definition doesn't include transwomen or exclude transmen.

Then we also have the "gender attributes" clause. So, one of the most common attributes of the sex that produces egg cells is that they produce egg cells. Apparently, that particular attribute isn't all that significant. So, someone can have a whole lot of attributes associated with men, or associated with women, but really, none of them matter except for the identity.

And that is where we are today.

Some might say, "Well, language doesn't work that way..." If we have fuzzy, indistinct, concepts of something, we can't expect our language to correct that for us. Our language will be fuzzy and indistinct. So, the concept of "woman" is pretty fuzzy and indistinct.

It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.
 
Meadmaker said:
It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.
Click to expand...

Exactly it is crazy like gay marriage. Who is the husband and who is the wife? Who is the one who can sign legal documents and who can't? Things are now all fuzzy and indistinct. We need to go back to the old days of clear and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom