Frame the other perspective honestly, even if you disagree with it. The question isn't "can a man be a lesbian." That's definitionally absurd. The question is are trans women, "women."

if you call em trans women you are saying they are women



it's on you brother

ye trans women are women and can be lesbians

No I don't believe they are women, because they aren't women. They're delusional men.

I'm going to assume you're coming into this discussion in good faith.

There's a huge difference between gender and species, in that one is social and one isn't. Gender is about social presentation - what you dress like, what you act like, what social expectations you have. There's no biological reason why men wear suits and women wear dresses. Species is about biological classifications.

There are so many things we accept "identifying" as. I can say, "I identify as a fan of the Kansas City Chiefs." I wouldn't be able to say "I identify as a 12 year old." This is a totally fair distinction and not even close to a slippery slope.

If you meet enough people, you've probably seen or talked to a trans person without even knowing it and assumed they were cis. I know people who I genuinely would not know were trans unless they told me. There's no benefit to a definitional categorization that says those people aren't the gender they OBVIOUSLY present as. It's silly.

If you think gender and sex are identical, ask yourself if you could guess what pronouns people probably prefer to use without seeing their genitals or chromosomes. If yes, you're talking about gender, not sex.

Definitions that we use are about providing value. There's no value to a definition of "woman" that excludes Blair White, for a conservative example. That's silly to me. She's obviously a woman, and I don't care if she has a vagina or a ***** or whatever chromosomes.

What about the dude that just got fired?
Sam Brinton?
"Presented" as a woman but kept his facial hair.

I kinda get what you're saying because I'm sure I've met or know trans folks and am unaware, because they present a certain way as you allude to.

However I'm gonna have a hard time thinking or believing Sam Brinton is a woman. If it's fairly obvious then I can't unsee it and pretend.

You can't see any value for a definition of woman that doesn't include Blaire? What about biology?

Or are we saying that the word woman is strictly social and perhaps when discussing biology we should use the word female instead?

So it would be accurate and acceptable to say Blaire is a male woman, while Beyoncé is a female woman?
That would at least make some kind of logical sense to me.

Are social delusions are the only ones that you support or condone or whatever?

The rest are silly?

I'd also argue that your own distinction between gender and sex would/should disallow trans women from competing in sports against actual biological females.

Biology is real. Muscle mass is real. Bone density is real.

Let them present however they want but don't now dismiss actual biological sex from the discussion of fairness in women's sports. They're at a biological disadvantage regardless of presentation in social situations.

The two are either mutually exclusive or they aren't. Right?

What about the dude that just got fired?
Sam Brinton?
"Presented" as a woman but kept his facial hair.

I looked it up and Sam Brinton doesn't identify as a woman, they use they/them pronouns and are gender-fluid, so it makes sense that they have parts of gender expression that appeals to them from both ends of the aisle. I'm going to respect the pronouns that people prefer because there's no reason for me not to. It doesn't harm me in any way. However, it's not as cut and dry. These are complex questions! Real debates can be had once we get past the dogma and silliness of "chromosomes and genitals."

Or are we saying that the word woman is strictly social and perhaps when discussing biology we should use the word female instead?

Generally, when we talk about "men and women," we're talking about the social factor and not the biological factor. On a day to day basis, gender is by far the most important. A trans woman is a woman that is biologically male. For social categorization, they fit under the "woman" category, just like tall women and short women are both women.

Are social delusions are the only ones that you support or condone or whatever?

I think I gave a pretty clear redline for what crosses the barometer. The reason why trans identity is valid is because gender is a social phenomenon. It's not tied to biology.

I'd also argue that your own distinction between gender and sex would/should disallow trans women from competing in sports against actual biological females.

You're gonna be surprised from this answer, but yeah, actually. If you go through puberty as a guy, and then transition, you still have some studied competitive advantages that should bar you from competing professionally in the women's division.

Now, here's the nuance. I think at a high school level, they should be allowed to compete in the women's division. High school sports aren't *really* as competitive as college sports. I don't feel comfortable robbing trans women of the ability to compete at a high school level because of slight biological differences. In college and pro, sure. But those are debates that can be legitimately had.

Also, if you are on puberty blockers as a teen and then have hormones, research has shown that you don't have the biological edge that people who go through male puberty have. So I would probably let trans women who never went through male puberty compete in the women's division.

Every trans woman/man that I know genuinely wants to fit within the bounds of the social category they identify with, so they make as much of an attempt as they can to "pass" as a cis man/woman. It would be the same as if I woke up tomorrow in a woman's body - my body wouldn't match what I see myself as internally, so I would try to change my body/expression to match the mind.

There's also nonbinary people who don't identify with either category or have things they like from both. And that's fine too.

These are complex discussions and I'm really glad to have them respectfully with people who approach the topic in good faith (as I believe you have been so far).

Posted by tangplay on 12/16/2022 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Every trans woman/man that I know genuinely wants to fit within the bounds of the social category they identify with, so they make as much of an attempt as they can to "pass" as a cis man/woman. It would be the same as if I woke up tomorrow in a woman's body - my body wouldn't match what I see myself as internally, so I would try to change my body/expression to match the mind.

There's also nonbinary people who don't identify with either category or have things they like from both. And that's fine too.

These are complex discussions and I'm really glad to have them respectfully with people who approach the topic in good faith (as I believe you have been so far).

I once drove a Cadillac

One day, it decided it wanted to be a Dodge, and it would no longer start. It demanded that I change it's badge to read Dodge.. and stick a 440 Wedge under it's hood. I refused. I insisted that it was a Deville (not a devil) and that it was stuck with the 472 big block. It then became a Dodge and the right side door flew open during a quick left turn.

The thing still said Caddy ack ack ack (Billy Joel had one just like it)

Anyhow, it seemed I had hurt it's feelings so then threatened to take me before the Dep of Motor Vehicles, and trade me in on a new owner. My ex wife ended up with the car..and one day it drove off on it's own and went head on into a 17 ton truckload of Gravel.

She still blames me for all this.

and if you think my story is a bit far fetched, well there once was this Trans Am named 'Kit' Trans Gender... Trans AM.. so history repeats itself

This still makes more sense than the topic being discussed

and 'Christine' and 'Herbie' are now lovers.

Posted by tangplay on 12/16/2022 12:33:00 AM (view original):
Every trans woman/man that I know genuinely wants to fit within the bounds of the social category they identify with, so they make as much of an attempt as they can to "pass" as a cis man/woman. It would be the same as if I woke up tomorrow in a woman's body - my body wouldn't match what I see myself as internally, so I would try to change my body/expression to match the mind.

There's also nonbinary people who don't identify with either category or have things they like from both. And that's fine too.

These are complex discussions and I'm really glad to have them respectfully with people who approach the topic in good faith (as I believe you have been so far).

We may not agree on a lot, but I can assure you I typically enter every discussion I engage in with a pure heart and in good faith.

I TRY to always put myself in the other's shoes and see if I can understand where they're coming from.

Otherwise why bother engaging at all?

I do think you've come at this with an open mind, which I appreciate. It's been way more fun talking to you than the normal people on here who realistically won't listen or respond to anything outside their worldview.

It sucks that the most active ones also tend to be the least willing to have substantive discussions.

Yep. I gotta agree here. Isn't it queer how some people maintain their worldview and won't embrace every new notion or fad.

I'm all for meaningful discussions.

We should do one sometime.

At one time the concept that the Earth was round was a new notion.
Why should humans limit their understanding of truth to comply with their worldview?
Why should humanity be doomed because we're limited by the MOST unimaginative and fearful of those amongst us?

Tell us Doug, if you can?