1083
"What is a woman?"
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1083 points (94.2% liked)
Political Memes
5454 readers
1589 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"A woman is someone with XY chromosomes..."
off to a good start
Haha 😂😂 My bad on the typo y'all
I see, so this person is not a woman:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30799415/
They got pregnant, but their chromosomes are XXY.
So what are they?
Cool. Thanks for your queerphobic take.
Disagreement with the politically correct about transgender is necessarily transphobic.
Do tell me where you studied genetics at a graduate level to make the determination you just made.
Otherwise yeah, you're being a queerphobe.
Your right: only the elite and/or those with a university degrees can discuss this issue.
You are defining a woman by her genes. So yes, I expect you to have a university degree to be able to make such an authoritative definition.
Just like I would expect you to have a degree in physics before making an authoritative definition based on properties of physics.
Believe it or not, Facebook University isn't a real university.
Several decades ago, the authorities on the subject regarded homosexuality as a mental disorder. Fortunately not all LGBT lay-people deferred to their judgements.
So I need a degree to say "E=mc^2^."
I never joined that site.
You are seriously doing the "science was wrong before" argument while trying to use science?
The whole point of science is that new ideas replace old ones when new information comes up.
I don't think you understand what science even is.
Agreed.
Also: wp:Argument from authority.
Did you know that Trump has a university degree and Dubya Bush went to Harvard and Yale?
You keep saying irrelevant things. You also have yet to define a woman. Isn't that interesting?
A woman is a human female.
If a person has XX chromosomes, quite probably she is a woman.
Most people who describe themselves as women have XX chromosomes.
Okay, that's a partial definition. Now let's hear your full one. Since you are being an arbiter, we need a full definition.
I don't have a full definition, however, I think my parameters apply to >98% of women and >98% of those with XX chromosomes.
IIUC, your definition of a woman is a person who self-identifies as one, and currently at least, most of those who identify themselves as women have XX chromosomes, and for that matter, female genitalia, breasts disproportionately larger than men, and naturally talk at slightly higher pitches.
I also think that this will be the case for at least a few decades, though what do I know?
If someone with XY chromosomes and male genitalia wants to call thonself a woman, fine, it's (still) a (relatively) free country, but just don't expect me to always play along—and with that, I expect to be banned for transphobia, because not only do I don't completely agree with the so-called progressives, but that I posted such.
"This applies 99% of the time" is not a scientific definition.
Also, I never gave a definition.
This is literally bigotry.
I see. And what about people with Swyer Syndrome? They can live their entire lives with no one, not even them, suspecting their chromosomes are XY. Men? Should we be genetically testing every woman to make sure she isn’t really a man and doesn’t know it?
Such a person can compete in womens sports FAIC.
wp:Swyer syndrome
You are defining 'woman' by whether or not sports officials decide they can compete with other women? And then you try to use science afterward?
I think anyone who defines wt:thonself as a woman should be able to compete in any Olympic event as a woman.
You do know that we can see your post history, right?
But this 'thon' thing is very droll. I'm sure you think you've done a real gotcha with it.
As one who dislikes the singular they—I kinda like distinctions in regards to numbers in pronouns—I kinda like "thon."
Again, everyone can see your post history.
Not only can everyone see your post history, they can see the posts you've made in this thread.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11956439
So why you're even attempting this nonsense is beyond me.
I kinda wished English 2nd-person pronouns made distinctions for plurality. We know they exist with 1st-person pronouns, but alas, the so-called progressives are ruining plurality in 3rd-person pronouns.
I suppose we could take it up a notch and replace all gender-specific 3rd person pronouns with the singular they.
Cool. That has nothing to do with all the queerphobic shit you're spreading all over this comment section.
What "queerphobic shit."
I neither fear nor hate the transgender, and most of their detractors are conservative bigots and/or idiots.
You're being a bigot.
because I disagree with you.
No, because you say bigoted things like:
I'm not blind.
If a white man says he's a woman, we should accept that thon is a woman.
If a white man says he's black, he should be pilloried for mocking people of African descent.
Once again, you seem to think I'm blind.
Seems like if you have to make exceptions for your definition to work, it's not a very good definition.