7 ms·

If trans women are women why are you calling them trans?

floatingatoll 5y ago
Operations engineers are engineers, just as much as other engineers. But when you’re discussing the subgroup (opseng) in specific and whether it’s a member of the overall group (engineers), it’s logical and appropriate in conversational English to refer to the subgroup by specific label, as the comment you’re replying to does. Women can be sexed at birth as female, male, intersex, neither; women can have genes for XX, XY, XXY, etc; women can have zero or more genitalia; women can have masculine, feminine, androgynous, mixed facial bone structures. Each of these is a valid subgroup of women which can, if necessary, be described as a subgroup. Normally, just “women” should suffice, but the app linked by this post actively excludes at least one of those subgroups from the label “women”. So it becomes necessary to discuss those subgroups by name, such as “trans women” and “black women”, in order for discourse to occur.
- Minor49er 5y ago
  Do you also consider "trans women" to be a subgroup of "men"?
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    Generally, no; if one represents as binary gender “woman” with subgroup “trans”, it is implied and understood that they are not a member of binary gender “man”. That they are a member of subgroup “trans” is not relevant to resolving their binary gender either-or, in your example. They might be “male at birth” or “intersex at birth” on certain medical paperwork, and those physical sex characteristic will remain unchanged in subgroup “at birth” regardless of any shift in gender or medical alterations to their present-day sex characteristics. (To avoid any possible confusion, I’m keeping in mind that “male” is sex and “man” is gender, as this is often confused in discussion of these topics. One’s sex is a physical characteristic like one’s eye color or skin tone; most people assume that everyone has just one and that it doesn’t change, neither of which are true. One’s gender is a behavioral characteristic like accent or musical tastes; it can’t be reliably guessed from any physical characteristic, and it can change at any time, either gradually over years or all at once at a coffee shop or anywhere in between.)
    - Minor49er 5y ago
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        Nope, I wouldn’t agree, sorry. You’re attempting to redefine the gender characteristic “man” in terms of physical sex characteristics “male”, which isn’t valid; this invalidity is proven by the existence of both intersex men and intersex women. You’re also using the invalid term “biological sex” to refer to “sex at birth”, which can be male, female, or intersex — but due to your imprecise phrasing, your use could also refer to “current sex”, which is a modifiable state that can be altered surgically and thus invalidates your point further. Minor49er, I don’t think you’re participating in good faith here. You’ve presented a view that doesn’t stand up to the facts after repeatedly being confronted with them in multiple threads, your concluding question “Don’t you agree?” is a direct quote from the sealioning comic, and you’ve asked the mods to delete this post in a different thread while continuing to engage here. You’ll need to shop your anti-trans trolling elsewhere, as it’s not productive for me to engage with you further.
        Nicksil 5y ago
        floatingatoll 5y ago
        Hi, and welcome to this post and discussion for the first time. If you’d like to register a complaint with the mods about my participation here, you can email them directly at the footer contact link.
        Minor49er 5y ago
        I'm not redefining gender characteristics or anything of the sort. I'm genuinely curious how biological sex, which is physically based, is discarded in favor of a description of an idea of gender that only exists in the mind. "Sex at birth" implies that the biology can change after birth, which it cannot. To me, it seems that it's not in good faith to categorize "trans women" only as "women" and reject the idea that they can be categorized as "men" at all. And yes, I asked the mods to delete the story because obviously a lot of posts have been getting flagged. The story appears to be causing a lot of strong responses either for or against Giggle, its community, and its owner. It's simply not resulting in constructive discussion. I mean, you're even accusing me of "ignoring facts" (?) and of being an "anti-trans troll". Also, what's the sealioning comic?
- jandorn 5y ago
  Women aren’t “sexed” at birth. Woman means adult human female. Female is sex of a organism and is distinguished by egg cells (gametes).

Operations engineers are engineers, just as much as other engineers. But when you’re discussing the subgroup (opseng) in specific and whether it’s a member of the overall group (engineers), it’s logical and appropriate in conversational English to refer to the subgroup by specific label, as the comment you’re replying to does. Women can be sexed at birth as female, male, intersex, neither; women can have genes for XX, XY, XXY, etc; women can have zero or more genitalia; women can have masculine, feminine, androgynous, mixed facial bone structures. Each of these is a valid subgroup of women which can, if necessary, be described as a subgroup. Normally, just “women” should suffice, but the app linked by this post actively excludes at least one of those subgroups from the label “women”. So it becomes necessary to discuss those subgroups by name, such as “trans women” and “black women”, in order for discourse to occur.

Minor49er 5y ago
Do you also consider "trans women" to be a subgroup of "men"?
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Generally, no; if one represents as binary gender “woman” with subgroup “trans”, it is implied and understood that they are not a member of binary gender “man”. That they are a member of subgroup “trans” is not relevant to resolving their binary gender either-or, in your example. They might be “male at birth” or “intersex at birth” on certain medical paperwork, and those physical sex characteristic will remain unchanged in subgroup “at birth” regardless of any shift in gender or medical alterations to their present-day sex characteristics. (To avoid any possible confusion, I’m keeping in mind that “male” is sex and “man” is gender, as this is often confused in discussion of these topics. One’s sex is a physical characteristic like one’s eye color or skin tone; most people assume that everyone has just one and that it doesn’t change, neither of which are true. One’s gender is a behavioral characteristic like accent or musical tastes; it can’t be reliably guessed from any physical characteristic, and it can change at any time, either gradually over years or all at once at a coffee shop or anywhere in between.)
  - Minor49er 5y ago
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      Nope, I wouldn’t agree, sorry. You’re attempting to redefine the gender characteristic “man” in terms of physical sex characteristics “male”, which isn’t valid; this invalidity is proven by the existence of both intersex men and intersex women. You’re also using the invalid term “biological sex” to refer to “sex at birth”, which can be male, female, or intersex — but due to your imprecise phrasing, your use could also refer to “current sex”, which is a modifiable state that can be altered surgically and thus invalidates your point further. Minor49er, I don’t think you’re participating in good faith here. You’ve presented a view that doesn’t stand up to the facts after repeatedly being confronted with them in multiple threads, your concluding question “Don’t you agree?” is a direct quote from the sealioning comic, and you’ve asked the mods to delete this post in a different thread while continuing to engage here. You’ll need to shop your anti-trans trolling elsewhere, as it’s not productive for me to engage with you further.
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        floatingatoll 5y ago
        Hi, and welcome to this post and discussion for the first time. If you’d like to register a complaint with the mods about my participation here, you can email them directly at the footer contact link.
      - Minor49er 5y ago
        I'm not redefining gender characteristics or anything of the sort. I'm genuinely curious how biological sex, which is physically based, is discarded in favor of a description of an idea of gender that only exists in the mind. "Sex at birth" implies that the biology can change after birth, which it cannot. To me, it seems that it's not in good faith to categorize "trans women" only as "women" and reject the idea that they can be categorized as "men" at all. And yes, I asked the mods to delete the story because obviously a lot of posts have been getting flagged. The story appears to be causing a lot of strong responses either for or against Giggle, its community, and its owner. It's simply not resulting in constructive discussion. I mean, you're even accusing me of "ignoring facts" (?) and of being an "anti-trans troll". Also, what's the sealioning comic?
jandorn 5y ago
Women aren’t “sexed” at birth. Woman means adult human female. Female is sex of a organism and is distinguished by egg cells (gametes).