You must log in or register to comment.
Born with the intention of holding eggs? Do they not know what the word intention means?
This is a really bad definition because it very obviously excludes people who transition to women later in life.
The following isn’t an argument against trans people in any way, only against this thought process. I’ve been having thoughts on this that I want to get out there and hear people’s opinion on. Don’t attack me, I have nothing against trans and fully support them. But I hate that this has become an argument. I’m not really sure what the point is. What is the end goal?
Scenario 1: Someone actually makes some 20 page long legal type document, going into every possible facet and exception, that actually fits what the person is asking for. Will they then agree with the haters that trans women are not women? I doubt it. But then why ask?
Scenario 2: They ask because they believe it isn’t possible. But then what does that mean? Because it’s not possible to define it, anyone can say what it means? First, you can say this for a lot of things. I’m betting you can’t make a definition for a car, that doesn’t exclude any actual car, but doesn’t include any vehicles that aren’t a car. Does that mean we all just get to say whether our particular vehicle is a car or not? I don’t think it’s a good argument.
Again, I support trans, and believe if someone says they want to be treated as and referred to as a woman (or whatever), they should be. I don’t agree that someone’s ability to define a word or not should dictate this though. So I don’t agree with this particular argument, especially when I truly believe it’s disingenuous in the first place, and that if someone did succeed, it wouldn’t mean anything to the people making the argument anyway.
No hate, but I love a good debate if you’re up for it.
Scenario 1:
Great points, honestly. However, even in this scenario where someone manages to cover all of the bases and managed to create an exact list of what it means to be a woman, it would be impossible to disqualify trans women.
Scenario 2:
I’ll get deeper into this one since it’s more realistic.
I bet you can’t define a car
Vehicles are defined by their frames, and the regulations that revolve around those. I can tell you with absolute certainty whether a vehicle is a car or a truck based off the frame. But this isn’t the point.
Does that mean we all just get to [define words ourselves]
Actually yes. Words gain their definition by how they are most commonly used. You learn a word based off its definition, but the word gains its definition from use. This is how Shakespeare managed to invent so many words in English. He just started using them, and when people asked what they meant he told them and they started using them. This is also why “literally” is defined as “not literally” by Webster dictionary, or at least it was around 2016 (may have changed).
As a matter of fact, entire languages have been built around this concept of redefining words. Most of German is just portmanteaus that were understandable enough to be considered a word.
In this particular case, the words “man” and “woman” is slowly being redefined by society to be more inclusive of trans people. Fighting against the progress of language, in this scenario, is nearly identical to fighting against the progress of trans people.
Sounds like a problem for their doctor or a scientist, there isnt anywhere else it would matter about their biological status. So a woman is someone that says they are a woman.
“It’s complicated” is probably better for doctors and scientists. The other day I was filling out a “women only” medical form and about half of the questions were relevant to me.
And for a scientist, what exactly are they studying? For social science or psychology I’m an outlier no matter which gender or sex box you put me in; for reproductive stuff I’m closer to male but still somewhat of an outlier (because hormones); for various other medical things I’m closer to female (hormones again); neurologically idk, but there’s evidence trans people tend to not match their AGAB here.
But yeah, normal people shouldn’t care about any of that when just talking to me.
trans people who want to update their sex in their passport, birth certificate drivers license etc are wild to me!
…that’s an exaggeration; it’s a much more complex issue that often involves public safety in ways that don’t affect me as a FtNB. If I go into a women’s bathroom people mostly just squint at me and if I went into a men’s people would probably mostly do the same. And if they did accost me in the ladies’ my plan is to show them my vagina then cry and ask how many women with their breasts surgically removed and no hair do they plan to do this to?
but somewhere deep down I can’t help but to think gender markers should never have been on government documents to begin with. the government doesn’t need to know what genitals I had when I was born or anything about how that may or may not have to do with the life I’m living now. massive governmental overreach if you ask me (and the bathrooms wouldn’t be an issue if Americans had real bathroom walls and doors where you can’t access others peeing like that anyway.
Huh, then menopause it’s the moment when a cis woman turns into a cis man? No wonder they are super upset about the whole thing. The more you know, the full cycle of manhood is more complex than you know.
Lav
The US seems to have an eggsistential crisis.
I just intentionally ate 2 more eggs then normal today. What’s going to happen to me?!1 am i going to get gregnat
This is the same way i got picante too
grEGGnat
I’m sorry you found out this way. Prepare your preganante fund
Went to shop today to buy egg specifically til I am woman amazing
“What’s up fuckers hey check out this woman I found, isn’t it such a woman? Look at her wow! Plegghh what a gal. Anyway, love to stay and chat but I saw some trash outside that looked delicious. Smell you later, deliberator.”
I didn’t know it was possible for everyone to simply intend for their body to engage or not engage in such a bodily function. Interesting.
wait until they find out about the p-spot!
Yeah, honestly, screw the meme reply. What the absolute holy hell is “the intention of holding eggs” in your body?
I mean, pretty sure that covers a whole bunch of trans women and decidedly not a whole bunch of cis women, but that’s besides the point. What did she mean?
I fear there is a whole pseudoscientific terfy rabbit hole behind this and I don’t want to fall down that hole, but I kinda need to know if it’s a slip of the tongue or what.
What did she mean?
She meant god.
If you listen to some people talk about evolution or ancient mysteries of the body, they love describing things by their supposed purpose.
I had a long argument with somebody once, trying to convince them that sex wasn’t for babies, even though that’s what it often results in.
So like, evolutionarily, sex produces babies, that’s why “it” “cares.” But, a bird doesn’t need to know what sex is or why it should want a baby to be motivated to do the thing that makes one. Similarly, a bee doesn’t need to know that it’s spreading pollen around, it just wants that sweet little flower juice.
I don’t remember why this argument was important to have, but I do remember them just not getting the distinction between “does” and “meant to.”
It’s just regular misogyny this time, in that they only see “real” women as capable of giving birth, and then tried to cover up medical problems that would get in the way of that with the word “intention”.
There are fights where wonen say you are a “real” mother only if you popped it out through the vagina, so no c-section.
Some people have so little to be proud about I guess 🤷🏼♀️
I intentionally ate an egg sandwich this morning, guess I’m a woman now
How you doin’
😎👉👉
To me, it seems like she was going to only say “capability of holding eggs,” then thought about it and actually realized it would exclude some cis women, so she added “intention” as if it meant “would usually be capable of” but just used a bad word to imply that. I could be reading into it a bit much though.
Of course, that wouldn’t work either, since that could then include or exclude people with various assortments of chromosomes in which it’s undetermined as to if they would or would not typically have eggs, and would also just open a whole meta argument about how early in the developmental process there would or wouldn’t be “intention” for that to happen, which is entirely subjective.
Ew. Yeah. The implication for a normal person is that the woman would be doing the intenting.
That’s probably not the meaning or the implication. It’s probably some religious/iusnaturalist nonsense where the intent is God’s or nature’s or somesuch. Gross.
Like, “oh, you can’t have kids, but I meant you to, it’s just an accident. You’re just God’s little mistake, you”.
It really gets worse the more you think about it.
I’m very confused, isn’t the reply in support of trans people while the OP is clearly against them? Like why bother replying with that if you agree with the OP?
Because I thought there was more than one interesting thing about this so I pointed a different one out?
I mean, I know the Internet rewards polarization, but I didn’t realize it had gotten to the point where more than one concurrent observation was seen as controversial.
I guess you are misunderstanding “screw the meme” as implying I find the meme objectionable, maybe? I don’t, I mean “ignore the meme for a moment, what’s up with that other part of the response?”
I’m not asking why you replied. I’m saying why would the second person bother replying unless they disagreed with the OP. They sound like they’re in support of trans people, which would mean you’re disagreeing with that. But your comment doesn’t sound like you’re disagreeing with it, it sounds like you agree with them.
Your comment is very very confusing if you read the post as commenter number 1 saying something very transphobic, commenter number 2 giving a definition that disproves commenter number 1, and then commenter number 3 making a meme.
if you mean the post in the image, only the second post is transphobic. the first says you can’t “define a woman” without excluding people who are afab.
if you mean this thread, i just see discussion.
The intention is there to cover the stipulation of, “without excluding any cis woman.”
If the answer was, “any person who could have kids” this may exclude biological women with reproductive defects.
In this, the “intention” refers to women who are born as a biological female but maybe without the means to reproduce due to deformations, diseases, or otherwise damaged/limited reproductive systems or parts, rendering them unable to reproduce and bear children.
This still excludes some afab intersex people etc. These definitions never hold water as “biological sex” isn’t really binary
deleted by creator
Behold, a woman
Modern day Diogenese over here
So as long as i have the intention to hols eggs i am a women or when people stop being capable of producing eggs they automatically get a raise for becoming a man?
No, no. You have to be born with the intention or capability. If you did not intend or were able to hold eggs at birth, then you’re not a woman.
tbh I don’t think most babies intend for anything the moment they’re born
Proximity to egg is inversely proportional to salary
With eggflation, salary can also be paid in eggs Sometimes I wish I could delete comments on Lemmy
you can (and should) delete your own
You can’t delete comments, it just shows as deleted and if you quote it you can read the original comment. You have to edit the comment and then save it and then delete it.
That’s because your client is caching it.
Nah it’s a relevant comment lol
