How would you define a woman?
(Please understand I ask this without malice, I just want to know what you think)
How would you define a woman?
Someone born to be raped. Hope this helps!
ask chatgpt, faggot
but then...
that means
...
all those poonahs
...
what is a woman
something i'll never be. though admittedly this doesn't narrow it down much because i'm equally unlikely to become a meringue
I'm afraid so.
adult human female adult human female adult human female adult human female adult human female
the only response that isnt some coping troon trying to coyly avoid answering the question
This is the reaction everyone wants to scream in the face of obstinate trannies, but
I think it's a little wider of a net: adult AFaB
Determined F (most proximally) at birth. Treated like F for a long time. Conditioned to be F unless the poonah infection sets in.
you cant define social constructs in a succinct manner.
like all things it is "whatever is perceived to fit this category by majority of people who interact with it" so passers and cis women are women, also hons in a bubble of hugboxers who dont go outside are also women
Hormones and a developed feminine identity. Like a fully developed identity. no boymoding or half assed transitions. also you cant transition when your like fucking 40. you dont snap your fingers and become a woman its a fucking process. transitioning is basically go through puberty.
dumb question, when you interact with (real, unambiguous) women you get a sense of what they are like and can sense if other people are either like them or not. "umm if i'm not a woman then define woman then??" is a pointless and dishonest attempt to drag the debate into the realm of "facts and logic" when really everybody has subconsciously already either put you in the woman category or not independent of whatever justfication they give for doing so
He's right you know
And is instead a seething repper or terfoid coping about its uselessness
Someone whose thoughts are several curves and not singular lines
your mother
not you
someone with behavior and biology within the cluster created by estrogen/progesterone exposure
Adult human female (large gametes, lack of SRY gene)
A woman is anyone whose mere presence destroys a WoW guild.
"A woman is created, not born."
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex.
A soup of metabolites inside a leaky, carbon-based, flexible bag, with some rigid calcium-based rods floating in it. And in some circumstances they can replicate.
A woman is an adult human whose cells that have nuclei predominantly lack a y chromosome.
bro ur so validating ty
Yes, through socialization and gender validation that she's female from utero and onward :>
otherwise, you get a broken male with some attempts at manual overwrites of socialization but ultimately you can't get rid of that core scaffolding
Pretty sure the core scaffolding is mutual between sexes
You lack an understanding of genetics.
You are male.
visible female secondary sex characteristics
this is the only definition that works that includes transsexuals and our actual real-life behavior when socializing.
It's not like we have to include transwomen
They can just be separate but not quite men or women
honestly, probably most transsexual people, and a lot of ugly/fat people just fit into a weird 3rd sex catagory in our head subconciously.
like, we think of hons as something distinctly different then the kind of women that transphobes would accidently keep correctly gendering
Transsexuals are men.
FTM transsexuals are, indeed, men
I'm not sharing a category with those fucking things
If they don't look like a trans GODDESS, they're not a woman, buddy.
ftm transsexuals are absolutely not men lmao
bro, I wish they was, but theres just nothing masculine about a single one of them.
poonerism is a social contagion & transsexualism is downstream from endocrine disruption, often from birth control babies but also any myriad of chemical soup modern life doses us with these days
they literally look like this shut ur bitch ass up. dont u see how having wrinkles make u masculine? Its why people think dykes are men. There has to be some sociopath who wants to poonezise dykes just to feel their facial hair and weird scratched voices.
person who occupies the female social role and is treated by society at large as a member of that group. a descriptive approach like that is the only one that makes sense.
yes this means hons and nonpassers aren't women no i don't care. a woman is someone who experiences the world from the perspective of a woman, the same way a rich person is someone who experiences the world from the perspective of a rich person, or a short person is someone who experiences the world from the perspective of a short person. There's no way to cleanly categorize with objective measurements as definitions like that vary.
How does that explain genetics?
Ive met passing transmen who were far more chad than Im sure you are, anon.
Agree
Just because transphobes see someone and assume they're a woman doesn't mean they're a woman. There's no requirement that what makes you a woman is easily observable
to give you a genuine but wordy attempt at answering--
I think of any gender role, "woman" included, as something you sort of qualify for based on a number of different criteria. (All of these criteria are determined by your society to some extent, so if they seem like tropes or stereotypes, they kind of are.) No individual one of them is required to be a woman, and no individual one of them is sufficient to be a woman. Using the example of XX chromosomes--that is not required to a woman, and just because you have them it doesn't override any other category.
Put on the list of criteria--stuff like
primary and secondary sex characteristics or hormones associated with women (including ones created intentionally like breasts from HRT)
chromosomes
gametes
vocal qualities
mannerisms and ways of moving
personality qualities
jobs
hobbies
relationships with others
sexual preferences
identification/a sense of same-ness with other women
clothing preferences
life history
on and on. All of these things are weighted differently depending on which other ones are present (for example, the quality of protectiveness could be gendered very differently by and in the same person depending on how they look and sound, whether they have children, etc) and how the person sees women (and other gender categories) and their own womanhood.
When you weight these qualities and tally them up in the right amounts and combinations, you get a woman. Or a girl, or a man, or a nobinary person, whatever. It's not that the qualities that make you a woman under this definition are meaningless, per se; it's that the system is complicated and they shift over time, with a difference culture or a different person being assessed.
But this works for everything, anon. Not just women. People get a general sense of what sonething is and don't really think of a definition for it before subconsciously deciding. That doesn't mean there's no definition, though. It just means they don't know the definition.
People subconsciously consider Pluto to be a planet if they grew up seeing it used as such, for example. That doesn't mean it is.
this is reasonable but you could use a historical anchor, where we got these classes of people to begin with and how they reproduce themselves
at some point, maybe in prehistory, human beings must have started grouping people this way based on something, maybe it was a simplification of previous groupings (such as children, the currently fertile, adults with dicks, infertile or invalids or aged people)
and I think we all know the ways these categories have been reproduced, rampant gender policing over millennia
the definition of planet that excludes pluto is just something we chose so we didn't have to include a ton of other stuff, there are no objective definitions, reality has no divisions, all groupings are made by us in our heads
I'm saying this unironically a form of shared suffering both socially and physically.
I don't. To define is to confine and I prefer to be free.
So I can turn a victim into a woman if I do enough surgery on them? And if I had gay sex with such a person, would that make me straight again?
all groupings are made by us in our heads
This doesn't mean the groupings we make should be insonsistent. We are dividing up and grouping reality after all, which itself doesn't change. The lines we draw, while somewhat arbitrary, still need to be singular lines and not multiple at the same time somehow. If people are talking about two definitions of the same word, then they're talking about two different lines that might as well BE different words.
reality is always change
need to be
nothing needs to be anything, language seems to mostly work fine with everybody only having approximately the same lines, it really doesn't matter that much if two people disagree on whether a shoe is a wedge or a heel
Adult that can give birth (and no, a fat log of shit doesn't count as giving birth)
infertile women BTFO
black children aren't logs
why did anybody believe a man called fraud
Ftms are women, mtfs are men.
Incorrect
Adult female homo sapiens
That's not how his name is pronounced. Also, women (literally his first patients were hysterical women who started feeling better because someone actually payed attention to their schizobabble for once)
An long haired adult without body hair
Why do people pretend they don't know the answer and they have to count mutations as a completely different thing.
You will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever be a real woman. You will never look female. Others will never perceive you as such. You are male and always will be.
Reality does not change. If it did, it wouldn't be reality. Our computer code would fall apart. Physics would break. Flat eathers could be right.
Everybody only having approximately the same lines indicates that there is a trend line, aka a definition, of the word itself rather than one person's definition.
The only issue with defining a woman is that there are like 15 different trend lines people use that all fall under the same label, a "woman." We should be talking about women like how the eskimos talk about what we generally call "snow" because we keep using the same word used for what should be many different words.
As an ftm, thats very reassuring to hear. Thank you anon.
I would happily affirm every last ftm alive if it meant I could also call mtfs he and male and sir without being socially ostracized for it.
it was a joke
As nice as it is to see you have no logical argument and therefor render yourself dismiss-able, iss your insecurity or fear of effeminacy relevant though?
It's really weird how people are more protective of women than they are anything that's vaguely "man". Really makes you wonder if maybe the robots are right about the misandry.
It’s not really weird when you think about it for 2 seconds tho
you're confusing objective truth and reality, reality is just all the stuff that is actually there, and it's always shifting around, the universe isn't static (right now)
a trend line, aka a definition
not the same thing, we can choose to use a mean, median, or mode to determine which definition we want to use, but that is a choice, it's not automatically equivalent
We should be talking about women like how the eskimos talk about what we generally call "snow"
that's a racist misconception about yupik/unangan/inuit languages
we already have subcategories like cis and trans, and other useful terms like afab, amab, intersex, hrt femboy, nb, it really doesn't seem to be a language problem, it's easy to be clear about who you mean if you want to be
A Freudian joke. Freud believed wordplay is a product of the unconscious.
The anthropological reason for this is no different from why people are more concerned with protecting vaults of gold or valuable paintings than men.
it was a Harlowian joke actually, because I'm torturing a monkey right now
It's because they value gold and valuable paintings more than men. This doesn't exactly support your argument.
Do you mean to suggest it's mostly other women who are transphobic?
I mean obvious evo psych things are obvious
Misandry doesn’t exist.
Yes we do value objects of exchange more than men. What argument do you think I am making?
without value things don’t have value
Can you just speak like a man? Anyway there is no particular reason to value a man unless you can make him your property. If you think of women as a subclass of men that are valued as property then the rest is obvious.
you're confusing objective truth and reality, reality is just all the stuff that is actually there, and it's always shifting around, the universe isn't static (right now)
Well, I was talking about objective truth then. Reality only changes within the bounds of objective truth. Time passes and things change, sure. But reality itself does not just shift itself to whatever we want to say words mean. We're still cutting something up, not making shit up from nonsense goop that changes on a whim and doesn't stay within the bounds of objective truth.
not the same thing, we can choose to use a mean, median, or mode to determine which definition we want to use, but that is a choice, it's not automatically equivalent
There's still an approximate trend line. So this point doesn't matter. You've already conceeded that people have definitions which are approximately referring to the same thing.
that's a racist misconception about yupik/unangan/inuit languages
I just thought that was how their languages worked because their cultures existed where they needed to tell the differences between kinds of snow or die. If any race had to deal with that, they'd end up with similar language patterns. So, no. It's not racist. Do you call everyone you disagree with racist? And yes, I aknowledge that they don't actually have different words, but combinations of words so it looks like there are more words than there are for "snow". But they still needed to be really specific when they talked about "snow" and what it was useful for.
we already have subcategories like cis and trans, and other useful terms like afab, amab, intersex, hrt femboy, nb,
Yes, but people still use the term "woman" and hold onto it as if it means one consistent thing. When you say "woman" and mean something specific, you're just assuming one trend line/definition appplies for the term "woman." And those definitions maybe aren't perfect. We'd want to look at latent space to see the groupings.
Trans women belong to the feminine male grouping, socially, biologically, and spiritually.
I think the fact men and women have inherently different sex drives is what created extra value for women (at least initially). Not ownership. If women wanted to fuck men at the same frequency and holding the same standards that men want to fuck women then women would have less social value because they can’t lift things as heavy or run as far.
Perhaps sex drive is what causes the ownership structure to develop in that way. It makes sense intuitively that the subset of humanity that is more covetous of the other would establish the system of exchange in which the other subset circulates. A world where women desired to posses men as much as men desire to posses women would perhaps be better for men but how do you get there? My main point intially was that the underlying reasons for the difference is more complex than the word "misandry" implies.
Perhaps sex drive is what causes the ownership structure to develop in that way
I wasn’t even involved in the discussion itt or knew what it was about tbhon I jumped in like 3 posts back because I’m a cringe evo psych pseud.
about the way ownership of people evolved it’s probably the effect of the invention of agriculture. Because hierarchal organizational structures were needed to manage settled land. If you look at nomadic groups throughout the ages there are a lot of matriarchal societies and same with some closely related ape species like bonobos
Uhh, the other anon was not me. I thought that you were making the argument that women are protected not because they're valued more but because they're objectified.
My rebuttal was that we treat men as lower than objects and value objects more.
Bullshit. Intersectionality exists. Subsets of men and women don't experience the benefits of and detriments of the "patriarchy" the same way, assuming there even still is a patriarchy, so misandry must exist. Not even the basic definition of women hating men that has nothing to do with systems. There is systemic misandry toward people like gay men or autistic men or loser men where women are prioritized over them and thought of as superior and given more legal benefits and protections and college grants.
Do you mean "male" as in their gender or do you mean their sex?
Value is inherently objectified. This must be what causes the confusion. Value is tied to a thing, to an object. If you want other people to value you, you want to be a valuable object to them. Of course that is less than what you actually want, which is unconditional and unobjectifying love, but that love exceeds social value that is a product of exchange relations and tends towards a transcendence that people associate with spirituality rather than material things. I know it has feminist theory baggage but objectification is not a dirty word. My interest is phenomenology and philosophy where the subject-object distinction has a more nuanced usage.
Terfs belong to the retarded male category spiritually, biologically and socially
Oh, okay, so you're actually agreeing with me then that women are more valued than men, and that's why the term "woman" is so autistically fought over while it's fine if trans men muddy what it means to be a man?