View Poll Results: Should transwomen be legally trreated as women?

Voters
162. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    77 47.53%
  • No

    63 38.89%
  • Maybe

    11 6.79%
  • Don't know

    11 6.79%
Page 38 of 141 FirstFirst ... 2836373839404888138 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 1409

Thread: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:165,1392]

  1. #371
    Puer Aeternus
    Tsunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-08-16 @ 03:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Your choice of criteria is a subjective value judgement and the fact that there are those that disagree with you demonstrates that. Moreover, that FACT that there are women who have neither XY chromosomes nor ovaries demonstrates that there is much more to the experience of being a woman that that.
    This is nonsense. It's not subjective, it's biology. You are using circular reasoning to call these people without ovaries "women" which you say proves that it can't be the defining criteria. You are defining sex by secondary sex characteristics and ignoring the primary one.

    I was watching Family Feud one day, and the question was "what is the largest state?" The #1 answer was of course, Texas. By your way of thinking, I got it wrong when I said Alaska, because "the fact that there are those that disagree with you demonstrates that."

    Women are females beyond the age of puberty, and females have ovaries containing egg cells. This is the origin of the term and the entire reason we have binary gender classification, it was based on reproductive function. It's okay if you want to change that, but no new meaning will change the biological facts behind it. And the reason for our laws is also based on reproductive function. So if you want to use semantic arguments to claim the words "woman" and "female" as gender instead of sex, maybe we need new terms for the sexes, but it still makes more sense to define laws based on biology than gender.
    Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

  2. #372
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    This is nonsense. It's not subjective, it's biology.
    No, it is subjective. Your choice of the criteria of what is a woman is subjective and is based on your subjective values. For example someone could take a bus that was painted white and use it to pick up children from school. It is a school bus. But someone could say, well school buses are all painted yellow so it can't be a school bus. Yes most of them are yellow, but functionally speaking, a bus that is painted white that is used to pick up children from school is a school bus. Now the person that says it can't be a school bus because it is not yellow could say, well the bus is yellow and that is objective. Yes the bus is yellow, but the choice of saying that only yellow buses that pick up children from school are real school buses is a subjective value judgement and ignores on the primary function of a bus that used to pick up children from school.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    You are using circular reasoning to call these people without ovaries "women" which you say proves that it can't be the defining criteria. You are defining sex by secondary sex characteristics and ignoring the primary one.
    No it is not circular. There are women who were not born with ovaries. Such persons behave like women and feel as though they are women. Therefore you cannot confine the condition of being a woman to someone who has ovaries, any more than one could say that a white bus that picks up children from school is not a school bus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    I was watching Family Feud one day, and the question was "what is the largest state?" The #1 answer was of course, Texas. By your way of thinking, I got it wrong when I said Alaska, because "the fact that there are those that disagree with you demonstrates that."
    The criteria for being a state of United States was a subjective value judgement made by lawmakers. IF one accepts that subjective criteria, if one were asked such a question, the objective answer would be Alaska. That is not the dispute in this case however. What I am saying is that your choice of the criteria for being a woman is a subjective value judgement, just like the criteria that the lawmakers chose for being a state of the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    Women are females beyond the age of puberty, and females have ovaries containing egg cells. This is the origin of the term and the entire reason we have binary gender classification, it was based on reproductive function.
    Again, not all women have ovaries that contain egg cells. That is one point. Moreover, that fact that you can take out a woman's ovaries and she would still be a woman means that the condition of being a woman is more than just having ovaries containing egg cells. IF that were all to it, removing a woman's ovaries would mean that she would cease to be a woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    It's okay if you want to change that, but no new meaning will change the biological facts behind it.
    I am not changing anything. It is a biological fact that there were women born without ovaries before I was born and there will be women born without ovaries after I am dead. That is just the way it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    So if you want to use semantic arguments to claim the words "woman" and "female" as gender instead of sex, maybe we need new terms for the sexes, but it still makes more sense to define laws based on biology than gender.
    Again the biology of the situation is that there are women who do not have ovaries, some of whom were not born with them.

  3. #373
    Puer Aeternus
    Tsunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-08-16 @ 03:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No, it is subjective. Your choice of the criteria of what is a woman is subjective and is based on your subjective values. For example someone could take a bus that was painted white and use it to pick up children from school. It is a school bus. But someone could say, well school buses are all painted yellow so it can't be a school bus. Yes most of them are yellow, but functionally speaking, a bus that is painted white that is used to pick up children from school is a school bus. Now the person that says it can't be a school bus because it is not yellow could say, well the bus is yellow and that is objective. Yes the bus is yellow, but the choice of saying that only yellow buses that pick up children from school are real school buses is a subjective value judgement and ignores on the primary function of a bus that used to pick up children from school.

    No it is not circular. There are women who were not born with ovaries. Such persons behave like women and feel as though they are women. Therefore you cannot confine the condition of being a woman to someone who has ovaries, any more than one could say that a white bus that picks up children from school is not a school bus.

    Again, not all women have ovaries that contain egg cells. That is one point. Moreover, that fact that you can take out a woman's ovaries and she would still be a woman means that the condition of being a woman is more than just having ovaries containing egg cells. IF that were all to it, removing a woman's ovaries would mean that she would cease to be a woman.

    I am not changing anything. It is a biological fact that there were women born without ovaries before I was born and there will be women born without ovaries after I am dead. That is just the way it is.

    Again the biology of the situation is that there are women who do not have ovaries, some of whom were not born with them.
    You're not understanding me somewhere. You are saying I am the one defining a school bus by the color rather than the function? I am defining the sexes by reproductive function, you are the one choosing secondary criteria and elevating them above the primary and original meaning. A woman can behave any way she wants to and still be female. I find your way of thinking sexist.

    And then by circular reasoning you are saying I cannot define the sexes that way because historically we've called people women who didn't have ovaries. That's like saying Pluto is a planet because we used to call it a planet. Guess what, that criteria didn't make sense. There are not women by my definition born without ovaries. You can call them women out of sympathy, but it isn't meaningful as their lack of reproductive function makes them neuter. And making laws based on compassion over function is irrational.
    Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

  4. #374
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    You're not understanding me somewhere. You are saying I am the one defining a school bus by the color rather than the function?
    The point is that you are making a subjective value judgement that ignores based on chromosomes and ovaries that ignores many of the important aspects of the condition of being a woman. Women do many more important things and have many more important experiences that are centered on the notion of being a woman that are not centered on the notion of having kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    I am defining the sexes by reproductive function, you are the one choosing secondary criteria and elevating them above the primary and original meaning. A woman can behave any way she wants to and still be female. I find your way of thinking sexist.
    Actually your way of thinking is sexist because you have restricted the primary criteria to that of having children. Although it is an important aspect of the condition of being a woman, it is not one that is so essential that one cannot be a woman without it. And the fact that there are indeed women who don't have ovaries proves that. Moreover again, if the reproductive function was so essential to the condition of being a woman, we should be able to observe that if you took away a woman's ovaries and uterus, she would no longer be a woman. Since that is not the case, your assertion that this is the critical criteria, without which one cannot be considered to be a woman, is flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    And then by circular reasoning you are saying I cannot define the sexes that way because historically we've called people women who didn't have ovaries. That's like saying Pluto is a planet because we used to call it a planet. Guess what, that criteria didn't make sense. There are not women by my definition born without ovaries.
    No it isn't circular because of the fact that you can take out a woman's ovaries and she will still be a woman. It's just like gas provides the energy that makes a car run. If I say that, I would expect that if there is no gas in the car, it will not run. And guess what? If there is no gas in the car, it will not run. As a result of the fact that you can take the ovaries out of a woman and she will still be a woman, AND because their persons born without ovaries who are function, look, and act as women, we can say that being born with ovaries is not an imperative condition for being a woman. Now you don't have to accept that, but that is a subjective value judgement on your part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    You can call them women out of sympathy, but it isn't meaningful as their lack of reproductive function makes them neuter. And making laws based on compassion over function is irrational.
    No it isn't out of sympathy, it is a recognition that women, behave and have essential functional value besides the role of reproduction. Your attempt to limit them in that way is very narrow minded.

  5. #375
    Puer Aeternus
    Tsunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-08-16 @ 03:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The point is that you are making a subjective value judgement that ignores based on chromosomes and ovaries that ignores many of the important aspects of the condition of being a woman. Women do many more important things and have many more important experiences that are centered on the notion of being a woman that are not centered on the notion of having kids.
    The problem with this idea is that men also do many important things and have important experiences that are centered on the notion of being a woman. The only things men can't do are related to reproductive function.

    Actually your way of thinking is sexist because you have restricted the primary criteria to that of having children. Although it is an important aspect of the condition of being a woman, it is not one that is so essential that one cannot be a woman without it. And the fact that there are indeed women who don't have ovaries proves that. Moreover again, if the reproductive function was so essential to the condition of being a woman, we should be able to observe that if you took away a woman's ovaries and uterus, she would no longer be a woman. Since that is not the case, your assertion that this is the critical criteria, without which one cannot be considered to be a woman, is flawed.
    It is the one that is essential, the only thing unique to females. Your circular reasoning astounds me.

    No it isn't circular because of the fact that you can take out a woman's ovaries and she will still be a woman. It's just like gas provides the energy that makes a car run. If I say that, I would expect that if there is no gas in the car, it will not run. And guess what? If there is no gas in the car, it will not run. As a result of the fact that you can take the ovaries out of a woman and she will still be a woman, AND because their persons born without ovaries who are function, look, and act as women, we can say that being born with ovaries is not an imperative condition for being a woman. Now you don't have to accept that, but that is a subjective value judgement on your part.
    Lol I guess you might not understand what circular reasoning means. You are saying women aren't defined by ovaries because there are women without ovaries. The first part of your statement is only true because the second part says it is true. This isn't a fact, it's a definition, and not a very meaningful one.

    No it isn't out of sympathy, it is a recognition that women, behave and have essential functional value besides the role of reproduction. Your attempt to limit them in that way is very narrow minded.
    I'm not limiting women to reproductive function, I'm determining sex by reproductive function. You can behave in any manner you want whether you have ovaries or not. By defining them some other way, you are the one limiting women to certain behaviors. What exactly determines whether a person is a male or female to you?
    Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

  6. #376
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    The problem with this idea is that men also do many important things and have important experiences that are centered on the notion of being a woman. The only things men can't do are related to reproductive function.
    The problem with your idea is that you have created this restrictive definition of what it means to be a woman merely to facilitate your ability to discriminate against a group of individuals whose behavior that you find repulsive. People do this for various reasons, amongst which are to protect some sort of egotistic position that they have, and some do it because they are fighting against something that they don't like in themselves. That is just to give examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    It is the one that is essential, the only thing unique to females. Your circular reasoning astounds me.
    No you are wrong. And it is because of your rather limited field of vision. The truth of the matter is that there is quite a bit that differentiates females from males. Some vans have seats that are designed to take passengers. Actually most of them are equipped in that way. However, there are some that are not meant to carry passengers at all, and don't have any seats for passengers. What you are doing is saying that the vans without seats for passengers are not really vans. That is not the case. It is just that although one function of vans is to transport passengers, they can be quite useful for far more than that. And that is what you are ignoring in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    Lol I guess you might not understand what circular reasoning means. You are saying women aren't defined by ovaries because there are women without ovaries. The first part of your statement is only true because the second part says it is true. This isn't a fact, it's a definition, and not a very meaningful one.
    No, I understand exactly what circular reasoning means, and your statement here reveals the distortion that is taking place in your thinking. I am going to say again why the reasoning is not circular, so please take note this time. The reason is that you can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. Did you get that? I will say it again. You can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. That is the crucial point. IF having ovaries was such a crucial aspect of being a woman, one should be able to take them away and the person would not longer be a woman. Again to give an example. If I say gasoline creates the energy that make a car run, then I should be able to observe that if there is no gasoline in the car, then the car would not run because there would be no energy. Indeed this is the case. No gas in the car, the car does not run. You are saying that having ovaries is what makes a woman, a woman. If that is the case, then we should be able to observe that taking a woman's ovaries away would result in her no longer being a woman. Since that is not true, your assessment is flawed. Over and above that, we observe that there are persons who are born without ovaries who feel are though they are women and behave as though they are women. Some of them do not even know that they don't have ovaries until they observe that they don't experience menstruation. AS A RESULT OF THESE TWO OBSERVATIONS, we can say that the condition of being a woman is indeed not restricted to having ovaries. THEREFORE THE REASONING IS NOT CIRCULAR, but is based upon observable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tsunami View Post
    I'm not limiting women to reproductive function, I'm determining sex by reproductive function. You can behave in any manner you want whether you have ovaries or not. By defining them some other way, you are the one limiting women to certain behaviors. What exactly determines whether a person is a male or female to you?
    The problem is that you are restricting the condition of being a woman to that of a person being born with ovaries. You are doing this because you want to create an exclusive barrier to facilitate your ability to discriminate against persons who have characteristics that for whatever reason you are uncomfortable with. I have broadly touched on some things that I felt are the defining characteristics of the experience of being a woman in this post:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1064513740
    Last edited by MildSteel; 04-12-15 at 09:01 AM.

  7. #377
    Folle
    Urethra Franklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    European Union
    Last Seen
    03-18-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,293

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    So, lets say a convicted sex offender who's raped women, decides one day he's a woman, and starts dressing like one, would you still have "no problem"?


    and yeah, as I said, personally I don't care who uses what bathrooms, but can see why others would have an issue with it.





    right, there is that far left PC kook accusation again. Look, as I said numerous times, I don't care what you choose to do to your body, or what you believe you are. I have a problem being forced to accept others delusions as reality.

    I don't advocate discrimination, or any laws against these choices. I simply don't accept being forced to accept things which are not true.
    You believe you have the right to tell a transgender person exactly what he or she is, contrary to what they feel inside. That's pretty patronising.

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post

    You are far less tolerant than I am. *shrug*
    "C'est le dernier qui a parlé qui a raison"
    Amina.

  8. #378
    Puer Aeternus
    Tsunami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    11-08-16 @ 03:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,132

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The problem with your idea is that you have created this restrictive definition of what it means to be a woman merely to facilitate your ability to discriminate against a group of individuals whose behavior that you find repulsive. People do this for various reasons, amongst which are to protect some sort of egotistic position that they have, and some do it because they are fighting against something that they don't like in themselves. That is just to give examples.
    I don't understand where you perceive any discrimination or judgement of behavior. You are confusing me with the other people you are arguing with (I also haven't mentioned chromosomes, btw). I've said multiple times that anyone can behave in any way they like. I am very much a feminist, I just don't think acting feminine makes you female. It's the other way around, and not always.

    No, I understand exactly what circular reasoning means, and your statement here reveals the distortion that is taking place in your thinking. I am going to say again why the reasoning is not circular, so please take note this time. The reason is that you can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. Did you get that? I will say it again. You can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. That is the crucial point. IF having ovaries was such a crucial aspect of being a woman, one should be able to take them away and the person would not longer be a woman. Again to give an example. If I say gasoline creates the energy that make a car run, then I should be able to observe that if there is no gasoline in the car, then the car would not run because there would be no energy. Indeed this is the case. No gas in the car, the car does not run. You are saying that having ovaries is what makes a woman, a woman. If that is the case, then we should be able to observe that taking a woman's ovaries away would result in her no longer being a woman. Since that is not true, your assessment is flawed. Over and above that, we observe that there are persons who are born without ovaries who feel are though they are women and behave as though they are women. Some of them do not even know that they don't have ovaries until they observe that they don't experience menstruation. AS A RESULT OF THESE TWO OBSERVATIONS, we can say that the condition of being a woman is indeed not restricted to having ovaries. THEREFORE THE REASONING IS NOT CIRCULAR, but is based upon observable facts.
    This is exactly circular reasoning. She's a woman because she's a woman. That statement is meaningless. Why is she still a woman? By what criteria? I am disputing your "fact" and you aren't supporting it by anything except circular reasoning.

    When you take the testicles from a horse it's not still a male horse, it's a gelding. In many cases we have different terms for fertile or infertile individuals. I'm saying to you that by a biological definition, a woman without ovaries is no longer a woman, she is neuter. There's no harm in still calling her a woman for tradition's sake, but just because you use that as part of your definition doesn't make it a "fact". That's circular reasoning.

    But there is harm when you call her a man and she still has ovaries, because then we have men who can get pregnant. And that is really all that matters in this conversation, because our sex laws are based on reproductive issues.

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Female
    Last edited by Tsunami; 04-12-15 at 01:05 PM.
    Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

  9. #379
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    56,624

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

    Quote Originally Posted by Urethra Franklin View Post
    You believe you have the right to tell a transgender person exactly what he or she is, contrary to what they feel inside. That's pretty patronising.
    Facts shouldn't be patronising. Feelings can be based on falsehoods and in fact many times are.

  10. #380
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 11:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:65]

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    Well, what do you think?
    Pre-op, no, post-op, yes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •