The costs of trans visibility

What - objectively - is an "objective definition"?

I also don't think there is any real lack of clarity over the idea of trans women. Nobody is actually confused about who to label a transwoman or not. Some people are mad about it, some refuse to use the term, but I don't think being "clear" is particularly the problem.

Agreed. And there really isn't some objective definition of a word like "woman" written in the sky. It's just however people use it and there might be multiple ways people use it.

Chanting "transwomen are women" as a thought-terminating cliche and constantly badgering people by asking "what is a woman?" are two sides of the same coin.

You sound like people who earnestly argue over what counts as a sandwich.

We weren't talking about the definition of a trans woman.

A hot dog is not a sandwich!!!

What is a woman has profound legal ramifications.

So even if in common parlance you could accept different people meant different things , you can't at a society level at least for legal purposes.

Trans women are women people want to force their label legally.

"What is a woman" is the right question which society has to answer in a very precise way, for legal reasons.

This is the part which needs fixing.

Something that 1000 judges out of 1000 would agree with when needing to adjudicate if a person is a woman for any statute that applies to women only (say: avoiding mandatory draft)

Even if at the public level you can reduce the different legal treatment of women, private parties still have a right to use that word in contract do they?

And then you still need a precise legal definition.

I don't know in what context that would be in a private contract, but if it were they could include the definition as well.

I recently cited ongoing litigation about a sorority which , while having "women only" in their statute, accepted a man who thinks he is a woman as a member.

Remember though that if "woman" has NO public legal definition, then you cannot have anti-discrimination laws for women.

I would agree with that but i think vast majorities of the public don't

I think the anti-discrimation laws should say that no discrimination is allowed based on sex or gender, not specifically protecting only women.

That sorority story was a pretty stupid situation, but it could have been prevented by including a definition.

I understand the rules were probably made a long time ago before anyone thought it might be necessary, but I imagine similar ones in the future will include that.

In that specific case the other members of the local sorority house actually approved that person, presumably before meeting. It said something about being pressured by the national organization, but that was the time to fight it, not later. The whole idea of a national sorority or fraternity is pretty silly regardless.

how do you verify if a company discriminates against women (for ex) if you don't have a legally applicable, objectively always identical, definition of woman? remember that in your example, you need to define sex and gender, how do you define them without defining man and woman?

If you don't believe gender exists, then your question, "What is a woman?" seems like it would always lead to precisely this post by you. That is, you'd respond to any definition of the gender 'woman' with a rant about how gender isn't a thing so the definition doesn't make sense. But it's not like I just made up a definition on my own -- you can find this definition yourself in many sources, some maybe even with fewer fancy words so you'll have an easier time reading them.

So what do you think is going on with people who claim to be trans? What were you implying with those tweets you posted?

An important question is why, for people who don't deny sex as biologically determined exists (and both you and uke don't deny it afaik), but believe gender as defined as something inside and unrelated to biological sex exists, decided to use the SAME IDENTICAL WORDS.

If you had , for example, kept using WOMAN for the biological sex only, and , say "feminine" for the gender (or anything else similar to that), 80-90% of the discussions won't happen.

We would still have to decided whether to use gender or biological sex for prisons and so on, but at least we won't be wasting time trying to guess if the use of woman by someone is to talk about gender or to talk about biological sex.

BUT, maybe you don't realize it tbh, gender theory activist end game is to DENY BIOLOGICAL SEX EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. And that's why they start with the dichotomy sex/gender, but use the SAME WORDS, and then move slowly toward the denial of biological sex with things like "gender assigned at birth" (no, we DETERMINE your SEX at birth, or in the womb).

"trans women are women" is a phrase you can use only because woman is both a biological sex, and a gender, in gender theory.

Instead a much much proper use of language would be "trans women are men of feminine gender". That though wouldn't in any way allow them to play in women sports, to be in women prisons, to count as women for gender quotas in the jurisdictions when that's applicable, to count as women when assessing sex crime rates, to count as women in employment or unemployment statistics and so on.

I don't think this would be necessary. AFAIK we don't have a definition of "black person" or "white person", but we still have laws which prohibit discrimination based on race.

This is the kind of stuff you can find , the moving toward denial of biological sex

https://www.everythingishorrible.net/p/b...

Typically it's about "0.01% of people don't have clear cut biological sex so it doesn't exist and it's a transphobic dogwhistle".

Which would be like denying that "humans have 5 fingers" is a meaningful sentence anchored to biological reality EVEN IF very few people are born with less or more than 5 fingers in hands and/or feet.

Denial of the biological sexual binary is the same attempt, to dismantle the (obvious, and obviously true, and anchored in biology notion) notion that normal, healthy people are either fully men or fully women. The denial of sexual dimorphism as a biological truth of **** sapiens sapiens

https://www.sapiens.org/biology/biologic...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...

https://slate.com/technology/2018/11/sex...

They want to posit there is a spectrum, and they want to posit no "normality" can be defined.

If there is no legal definition of what black is, how can people be accused of fraud for claiming a false race in college applications?.

When blacks were legally discriminated against there were legal definitions of blackness

I've never heard of this happening, have you? Have you heard of a legal definition of race?

Meat on bread? It most certainly is!

Speaking of women , democrats want to draft them

https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/fires...

No one would say “trans women are women “ if we just called them women.

I guess in your version of reality, no one politely says trans women are women either. Instead, they are always chanting, always mob like and confused, never knowing their true selves, being confused by “them” etc etc.

If you called them women you would be denying biological sex. You would make phrases like "women have vaginas" false and so on. Why do you hate the idea of different words for biological sex as the vast majority of human beings who ever lived intend it, and gender as you guys think it is?

why violently appropriating a word with very specific meanings different than yours? why pushing semantic horrors like "birthing people", or "women with dicks" and so on?

Create a different word for gender(s) that isn't linked very specifically in culture and language to stuff people want to be able to keep using ffs

So, if we just called trans women women, we wouldn't say trans women are women?