Sittingpretty wrote: » That’s a no then. For all the walls of obfuscation, whataboutery, links, posturing, anecdotal evidence and circular arguing in this thread, I would have thought that amongst the afore mentioned, a clear answer to a simple question would be available. From people who believe and espouse the theory that a transwoman/transman Is the same as a woman/man I find that to be a rather unfortunate shortcoming.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Ye, broadly speaking the social sciences and the hard sciences are distinct. The standard of proof required for the hard sciences is superior. No physicist, chemist, mathematician or biologist worth their salt will go into a lab and take into account the 'political aspects' of their research or findings. Doing this would be doing exactly what you are NOT to do. You truly haven't a clue. This response here in fact shows the dangers of this ideological nonsense.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Claiming to be a molecular biologist is clearly not the same thing as being a molecular biologist... or do you imagine that your claims should simply be taken at face value, or add any kind of authority to your opinions? Even if you actually are a molecular biologist, the title alone doesn’t indicate anything as to your ability, and if I were going off your opinions alone, I would never imagine you actually are a molecular biologist. In short, I couldn’t care less for whether or not you’re a molecular biologist, it’s only your opinions I’m interested in, not your academic qualifications or work experience. I’d only be interested in those if I were considering you as a potential candidate for employment, and fortunately you’re not the only molecular biologist I could choose from.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Claiming to be a molecular biologist is different than being one, yet anyone can claim to be any gender and that's ok. Ha. That tickled me.
LLMMLL wrote: » Except the equivalent of what OEJ says is not being trans. It is some randomer claiming to be male.or female online. And if I claim to be Male or female, you are underno obligation to believe me. Thatbahs nothing to do the trans issues at all.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I have a serious issue with some of the binary some trans activists advocate. They are a small if vocal group. That does not mean all transgender people believe in those narrow binary definitions so it is not an issue I would have with all transgender people. And to be honest there are far more cis people who hold those same binary views that trans people.You are a woman - do you feel like a woman? What does that feel like? I'm no expert as I am cis myself but I reckon it feels like you fit your body and your body fits you. I am content in my female body so I am content with my gender being female.
LLMMLL wrote: » It's mainly because definitions don't actually exclusively define anything in the natural world and often conflict with the way people have been using those words without issue for centuries. Try and define a very simple thing like a table and I'll take apart your definition in about 10 seconds. And if you can't define a table then how do you expect and easy definiton of "woman".
[Deleted User] wrote: » It has a lot to do with self identification.
Smith152 wrote: » The phrase people who menstruate is stupid and unnecessary and clearly being used to appease a small minority of loony activists who get offended at everything. It would be like Gillette advertising shaving foam and male razors as being for "people who have hairy faces".
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Because a woman isn't an inanimate object. A woman has clear definition with a scientific under pinning. It just doesn't suit your world view. You still have not given us your definition of a woman, which you can't do, because to do so would be 'exclusionary'. You are a nihilist. There is no truth, nothing has a meaning.
LLMMLL wrote: » You are completely incorrect and are just showing your ignorance of science. All good scientists know that outside the scientific method, deductive reaosning, inductive reasoning, and to some extent statistical inference then their statements have no more validity than any others. You may have missed the constant disagreements between scientists on many aspects within their own disciplines. Treating "science" as one monolithic opinion is pure nonsense.
Sittingpretty wrote: » Well I didn’t know there was going to be a test so I didn’t brush up on my table definitions for this evening but I can give you my definition of a woman and a transwoman if you like and see if you can pick them apart in 10 seconds......how’s that? Woman - Adult human female. Transwoman - A person though born Male who struggles throughout his life with feelings that his body doesn’t match how he feels in his mind. He decides to live as a woman and and finds that this is a happier way of life and feels more intune with how he feels inside. He may or may not undergo physical alteration of his male body to outwardly resemble a woman (see previous). And she lives happily ever after now that her outward appearance matches that of her inner thoughts. And most decent people will afford her the respect and rights she deserves as a transwoman.
LLMMLL wrote: » Ok I can play the game though I think you'll find it dull. Define adult. Is there an exact point at which someome becomes an adult? What is a non adult human female? Let's assume girl. When does a girl become a woman? Can an individual be a woman and a girl at the same time. Can you take any individual using your definition and conclude whether or not they are a woman or a girl? If not then you have not provided and exclusive definition. You've provided a loose fuzzy description which isn't at all scientific.
LLMMLL wrote: » Never said a woman is an inanimate object. And the fact that women are bilogival and not inanimate makes the word even harder to define, not easier. Just do some basic research into biological nomenclature and you'll quickly encounter vastly more difficulties than the already impossible task of giving an exclusive definition of relatively simple inanimate objects.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Engaging such types of reasoning is distinct from taking into account the 'sociological philosophical cultural and political aspects of science'. A social scientist may need to do such things, but someone involved in the hard sciences rarely will, if ever. Hence why they are distinct from each other.
[Deleted User] wrote: » It really doesn't. So to recap, transwomen are women according to you, but you can't define what a woman is, making the calling of them women pointless in the first place as you can't define what it is you are calling them. And tables don't have a definition now either.... What a bizarre mental gymnastic session.
joeguevara wrote: » When i see a woman I see her eyes, her lips, her hair etc, i don’t see a scientific underpinning. All this discussion about what’s on the inside, dna, chromosomes. When did the joie de vivre leave us when discussing people
CtevenSrowder wrote: » They are all female. That's the scientific part.
mohawk wrote: » If you remove biology from the equation. How do you truly define women or men. I don’t know the answer anymore then anyone else. I don’t mean to come across as picking on your post but your post did make me think. Do we revert to gender stereotypes or cultural norms if we take biology out of it. What I personally do find unsettling is when the words ‘women and girls’ are substituted for ‘menstrators’ or ‘people that menstrate’ with reason given is not to offend transmen and yet in one way when you say people who menstrate you are putting transmen back into the biological female box which excludes transwomen. (Of course not all women menstrate). The word woman doesn’t reduce us down to one bodily function and includes all the woman who have hit menopause and those who for whatever reason don’t get a period. Other thing I find interesting is how much of the debate is taken up by transwomen. They once made up the bulk of transgender population, but that appears to have shifted.
Deleted User wrote: » I think it left around the same time when some people believed that when you see a woman, it isn't unusual to see her Adams apple, her beard or, if in a changing room, her penis.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Your sex is not solely based on your genetalia. You are clearly afraid to clearly answer what is a very simple question with a simple yes or no. I don't believe you to be bat**** crazy and/or a scientific illiterate, so I'll take it that no, you are fully aware that one cannot change their sex. One can tell you what they think/feel they are, and you can belive them all you want, that doesn't mean they literally are what they say they are, unfortunately. And I'm aware of what we are discussing, as I've stated there are those here who believe you can change your sex. This is scientifically inaccurate.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » I don’t know what “I feel like a woman” means. I’m just here. My biology makes me a woman. How would a man know what it feels like to be a woman? Like, what does that actually mean?
LLMMLL wrote: » Wow you really don't know much about the history of physics.
LLMMLL wrote: » It is completely scientific and uncontroversial to say there is a class.of individuals who fall under the "gametes and chrokosome" definition. It's also fine but not scientific truth to give this group of individuals a collective name and to use that name to communicate research to other scientists. It is NOT scientific or science to claim exclusive ownership of that word and use it to further political objectives of denying people access to facilities. That's politics not science.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Do you believe that sex is either male or female?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
