It was answered multiple times and you chuds can't accept it.
A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
those are all instances of a tree, none of those are definitions of a tree. >a structure that begins with zero or 1 node >linked to zero or more child nodes, which can be have any zero or more of generations of children link >child nodes are only linked via parental relationships, no "siblings" or "uncles"
Humans (homosexual sapiens) are the most abundant and widespread species of primate, characterized by bipedalism and large, complex brains. This has enabled the development of advanced tools, culture, and language. Humans are highly social and tend to live in complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to political states. Social interactions between humans have established a wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which bolster human society. Curiosity and the human desire to understand and influence the environment and to explain and manipulate phenomena have motivated humanity's development of science, philosophy, mythology, religion, and other fields of study.
Although some scientists equate the term humans with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to homosexual sapiens, the only extant member. Anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago in Africa, evolving from homosexual heidelbergensis or a similar species and migrating out of Africa, gradually replacing local populations of archaic humans. For most of history, all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Humans began exhibiting behavioral modernity about 160,000-60,000 years ago. The Neolithic Revolution, which began in Southwest Asia around 13,000 years ago (and separately in a few other places), saw the emergence of agriculture and permanent human settlement. As populations became larger and denser, forms of governance developed within and between communities and a number of civilizations have risen and fallen. Humans have continued to expand, with a global population of over 7.9 billion as of March 2022.
All modern humans are classified into the species homosexual sapiens, coined by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema Naturae.[2] The generic name "Homo" is a learned 18th-century derivation from Latin homō, which refers to humans of either sex.[3] The word human can refer to all members of the homosexual genus,[4] although in common usage it generally just refers to homosexual sapiens, the only extant species.[5] The name "homosexual sapiens" means 'wise man' or 'knowledgeable man'.[6] There is disagreement if certain extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens.[4]
Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind).[7] The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this form is less common in contemporary English.[8]
Despite the fact that the word animal is colloquially used as an antonym for human,[9] and contrary to a common biological misconception, humans are animals.[10] The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).[11]
2 years ago
Anonymous
that didnt answer my question, why is a person with no legs who is antisocial still considered a human?
2 years ago
Anonymous
it's a trick question, i don't consider them at all
why would anyone consider an anti-soc
2 years ago
Anonymous
how anti social do you have to be before you lose your human status
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes
2 years ago
Anonymous
not an argument
2 years ago
Anonymous
society dictates that in real time, and once you are incarcerated due to your behaviors you lose your rights
it's not a trick, the answer to when they lose rights is: Yes
2 years ago
Anonymous
im not asking how aociety dictates that in real time, im asking how YOU discern that in real time. not talking about incarceration or rights.
let makes this simpler, lets imagine i can do these while being kept alive on some life support system
if i cut off my finger, im still a human, right?
if i got off my arm am i still a human?
what about both arms and legs?
what about both arms and legs and my body? now im just a head kept alive in a jar. am i a human?
what if it was just my brain? am i still a human?
2 years ago
Anonymous
why would i discern it? not my problem
2 years ago
Anonymous
You would be a human brain being kept alive in a jar. An incomplete human. Just like there are malformed humans, this does not alter the definition of a human. You think you’re being philosophical or thinking about things on a deeper level than others but in reality you’re just an idiot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>social
depends on when and where you are, and what your crime was
sex and gender are biological constructs, not social. a cavewoman who is orphaned and raised by wolves, who hunts, makes weapons, builds a shelter with tools is still a woman. It would make more sense to make the office of the President (an actual social construct) into a male identifying trait.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They are a member of the homosexual sapiens species. And a real hero
Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind).[7] The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this form is less common in contemporary English.[8]
Despite the fact that the word animal is colloquially used as an antonym for human,[9] and contrary to a common biological misconception, humans are animals.[10] The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).[11]
Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind).[7] The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this form is less common in contemporary English.[8]
Despite the fact that the word animal is colloquially used as an antonym for human,[9] and contrary to a common biological misconception, humans are animals.[10] The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).[11]
Tl;dr.
Just like Matt Walsh did to those giving him a complex definition of woman, I too will ignore the answer.
You can't give a simple answer to what a human is.
A human is a member of the homosexual sapiens species and a real hero.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>A human is a member of the homosexual sapiens species
That's weird, so what's all this talk about "other human species" that weren't homosexual sapiens?
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html#:~:text=Apart%20from%20our%20species%2C,eight%20other%20kinds%20of%20human:
Not those anons but the issue isn't really that it's a complex or even long winded answer, it's that progressives give non-definitions to the word woman because definitions by their function are describing the essence of the word or idea. Progressives are fundamentally anti-essentialists meaning they don't believe in any sense of the idea that things can have fixed qualities beyond just the arbitrary designations we give them. But that means they cannot define anything or identify anything as true, it's an circular regression in solipsism and relativity.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The social category of "woman" is indeed a social construct that isn't fixed or immutable.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so what does it mean right now?
2 years ago
Anonymous
What does "American" mean?
It's a social construct. It literally doesn't mean anything aside from the meaning ascribed by society.
2 years ago
Anonymous
typically, that means to be a citizen of the united states
So, if a trans woman has documents stating she's a woman, that means she's a woman?
2 years ago
Anonymous
what does it mean to be a human?
2 years ago
Anonymous
nationality is a mutable characteristic baka
2 years ago
Anonymous
So is gender and sex.
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
Having organs is not a mutable characteristic. There is no rational discussion to be had with someone who is unwilling to take the premises set out by nature as a given. The flat out rejection of reality is a dead giveaway of mental illness like psychotic personally disorder
2 years ago
Anonymous
that's nice dear, why don't you tell it to the border patrol
2 years ago
Anonymous
But the idea of what that means must have something concrete to it and one that stays concrete over the passage or time and space, even our social lense of that idea shifts. Otherwise words lose all sense of function.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then why is it necessary to play dress up to be a woman then you stupid homosexual. You're already completely 'a woman,' dressing, acting, talking, etc.. like a man.
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]
Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.[11]
>makes documentary asking the question "what is a woman? >receive the answer >well actually according to me this and that answer is funny and disagreeable, but that and this answer is true and based, suck it libtards
I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
the point of it was to show the absurdity of even having discussion and convoluted explanations for this extremely easy question. It's like making a documentary called "what is 2+2" and then have mathematicians go through extremely complex theory and equations just to avoid the obvious answer everyone knows because for some reason, the number 4 is now deemed politically incorrect by a part of society.
One of the basic pieces of furniture, a chair is a type of seat. Its primary features are two pieces of a durable material, attached as back and seat to one another at a 90°-or-slightly-greater angle, with usually the four corners of the horizontal seat attached in turn to four legs—or other parts of the seat's underside attached to three legs or to a shaft about which a four-arm turnstile on rollers can turn—strong enough to support the weight of a person who sits on the seat (usually wide and broad enough to hold the lower body from the buttocks almost to the knees) and leans against the vertical back (usually high and wide enough to support the back to the shoulder blades). The legs are typically high enough for the seated person's thighs and knees to form a 90°-or-lesser angle.[1][2] Used in a number of rooms in homes (e.g. in living rooms, dining rooms, and dens), in schools and offices (with desks), and in various other workplaces, chairs may be made of wood, metal, or synthetic materials, and either the seat alone or the entire chair may be padded or upholstered in various colors and fabrics.
Chairs vary in design. An armchair has armrests fixed to the seat;[3] a recliner is upholstered and under its seat is a mechanism that allows one to lower the chair's back and raise into place a fold-out footrest;[4] a rocking chair has legs fixed to two long curved slats; and a wheelchair has wheels fixed to an axis under the seat.[5]
>A woman is an adult female human. >Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology. >In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Have you ever taken five minutes to really consider the things you think. For instance consider the 'non-binary,' character. Effectively gender is by this logic a fluid construct, yet if this is the case why is it necessary for a 'trans woman' to play dress up and otherwise simulate the properties of a female, which by the aformentioned logic is a socially constructed category. in order to be a female. Does their insistence on presenting in a way that they determine to be specifically reserved for 'women' not obviously betray their own implicit belief in essential and distinct qualities between men and women? If anyone can be a woman, then of what need is it to present as what you should rightly view as a backwards stereotype. Are you already not perfectly 'a woman,' regardless of how you present yourself? Obviously the answer is this entire intellectual structure is built on a shoddy foundation and cannot survive even the lightest appraisal
>I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
No you wouldn't. Such a discussion isn't even possible with those people, and you know that.
>most
they are literally all mentally ill and need help, most familiar, but it's a dead end from the beginning because the lack of family affection brought it up to begin with
So you would be satisfied if someone made a documentary about gun control and the only definition the "experts" gave when mentioning banning assault rifles is that an assault rifle is something that can be identified as an assault rifle?
>makes documentary asking the question "what is a woman? >receive the answer >well actually according to me this and that answer is funny and disagreeable, but that and this answer is true and based, suck it libtards
I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
>a woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someo
>makes documentary asking the question "what is a woman? >receive the answer >well actually according to me this and that answer is funny and disagreeable, but that and this answer is true and based, suck it libtards
I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
I understand that you want to be an ally, but "individual" is a derogatory singularist term. It's demeaning to multi-minded people like those with split personalities or two-spirited indigenous peoples. Do better.
Frick I remember this same joke being made in 2013/2014 by JelloApocalypse in his tumblr video but you ask him about it now and he'd probably disavow it
So what conforms that group?
See? This can't be a real definition, because it just opens up more questions.
The answer to "what does she identify as" can't be "the thing she identifies as". There is some intrinsic meaning to what a woman really is.
You'd have more success, if you said wanting to be pretty, liking girly things, wanting beautiful hair, etc.
>makes documentary asking the question "what is a woman? >receive the answer >well actually according to me this and that answer is funny and disagreeable, but that and this answer is true and based, suck it libtards
I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
>I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
That would just be a short biology skit. The whole point of the documentary is to show the biased, insane answers of leftwing morons.
chuds when pretending to be impartial and rational objectivists: >look we're just asking questions, there's no need to get hostile, we aren't hateful people
chuds when challenged even slightly on their ideas >I HOPE YOU have a nice day FRICKING homosexual Black person troony israelite, YOU'RE DELUSIONAL AND I WILL SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
it's like clockwork
>chuds when pretending to be impartial and rational objectivists
We are not just asking questions. It's obviously to mock you, because we already know the answer. We just want to expose your moronic answers. >chuds when challenged even slightly on their ideas
We are challenged, but we disagree, because we think gender is sex and don't agree with you. In German we don't even have a different word for sex and gender. We just use "Geschlecht", but you leftist morons just blatantly use the english term "gender" in German exposing to everyone that it's just ideological moronation from overseas.
See, even if what you say is true: >Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.
your conclusion doesn't logically follow >Trans women's gender is female.
Just because someone identifes as something, doesn't mean they are that thing. Just because a Eunuch wants to be seen as a woman, doesn't make him a woman. He's not a female. It's logic.
self id is nice and all but it doesnt tell us what the word means or what criteria makes you that thing. why not just use any word at that point?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why does the word need to "mean" anything?
Why do there need to be "criteria"?
Why can't the word simply be a social identity and little besides, when we know living as women makes life more enjoyable to some with practically no harm to others?
2 years ago
Anonymous
because the basis of life is to reproduce and the basis of society is founded on men finding women to reproduce with
don't act coy you fricking homosexual
2 years ago
Anonymous
>because the basis of life is to reproduce and the basis of society is founded on men finding women to reproduce with
This is irrelevant actually.
Infertile women play no role in reproduction whatsoever and they're still women.
2 years ago
Anonymous
that's an issue of medicine. every woman has the potential of producing ovum inside of her. things can always go wrong. but just because you cut your wiener and balls off doesn't mean you're not a man either.
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>being unable to engage with a hypothetical is really fricking boring, let the adults talk >REEEEEEE ENGAGE WITH MY ENTIRELY MADE UP FANTASY SCENARIO
2 years ago
Anonymous
Reality.
2 years ago
Anonymous
because truth is not dependent on your or others' perception of it
that is what it makes it truth
it is true whether you believe in it or not
2 years ago
Anonymous
>there is an abstract concept of truth that exists outside of human observation
how can you know that, when all we have to base this on is human observation, and when truth is very obviously highly flexible?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how can you know that [...] when truth is very obviously
lol
2 years ago
Anonymous
did the Holocaust happen?
2 years ago
Anonymous
there exists no evidence to support that hypothesis
2 years ago
Anonymous
well except for the evidence that does exist
and for many people it is truth
and for many others it is not
so is the truth flexible and varied, or is there an absolute reality?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>muh subjective reality
why don't we put this subjective reality to the test. i take a gun and put it against your temple and you wish REAL HARD that it's not loaded and then I pull the trigger, ok?
2 years ago
Anonymous
continue this line of thinking to justify the existence of God. go on.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>zeno paradoxing the ability to understand
thanks for infinitely conceding
2 years ago
Anonymous
just holding you to your own standards like your daddy saul taught your kind
´>being unable to engage with a hypothetical is really fricking boring, let the adults talk
Okay, let me take over. >everyone sees you as that thing
It's not everyone though. Conservatives don't. Right-Wingers don't. Everyone outside the Left in the West doesn't. Many normal, unpolitical people don't.
>and you live your life as that thing >and you strongly identify with the experiences of that thing
Transsexuals aren't effortless, natural being. They are self-destructive, neurotic "wanting to become". They are permanently obsessed with taking step and step to become. It's a disgusting fetish, which we have to pretend is a normal identity. It's not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if hypothetically >everyone sees you as that thing >and you live your life as that thing >and you strongly identify with the experiences of that thing >why the frick arent you that thing?
I don't know. Why are they going through all the struggle and strife of changing physical characteristics if manhood or womanhood or personhood is an arbitrary socially generated construct? If you think you're a woman, be a fat 6ft balding hairy woman with a wiener and balls. Why are you adhering to these strange gendered 60s era stereotypes? It all strikes me as a bit strange.
2 years ago
Anonymous
troonys put up an elaborate facade to present as their chosen genders
2 years ago
Anonymous
because the next question will be: "what is a child?" and they wont know the answer and therefore there cant be any age specific legislation because childhood is just an imaginary label too
2 years ago
Anonymous
>cant the word be a social identity
what are they identifying as?
and if you answer
a woman
I will ask what that means
you are trapped in infinite recursion
2 years ago
Anonymous
>what are they identifying as?
As women.
Which is a social category and identity constructed *around* one of the two predominant body types, not *inherent* to it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So you're building the identity of woman around the concept of being female, but somehow that still isn't inherent? So what are you taking to form this identity? What elements that we could use to try and answer the original question?
>What defines whether someone female? What are the criteria?
Biology. In particular the chromosomes. XX = female, XY = male
>So infertile women aren't women?
It doesn't define a woman, but being capable of birth is one of their attributes. You don't specify in biology books that horses can sometimes be born with no hooves.
>So women born without an uterus aren't women?
Same reply.
>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
Yeah.
>So "biological reality" is dictated by the state of things in the past, rather than the present?
They don't actually create veganas for transsexual men. They create some unholy abomination, an inverted penis skin, a hairball puss hole, which the body wants to close and heal, which has to be permanently kept open by inserting objects into it for 3 hours a day.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women? >Yeah.
There's a decent number of women, born with a vegana, raised as women, recorded as women on their paperwork and even completely unaware of their XX chromosomes that this would disqualify.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>MUH MUH MUH CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES
how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
stop with these disingenuous arguments
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
quite a lot, considerably more than the default rate within the population
which means it is not idsingenuous to bring up
of course, despite being obsessed with absolute genetic truth, you didn't actually know that, did you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
go ahead and show the stats then you fricking moron
>gametes
So women born without an uterus aren't women?
>chromosomes
So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
>being born with a vegana
So "biological reality" is dictated by the state of things in the past, rather than the present?
Making the category a matter of self-identification is genuinely more coherent than those.
Biology books define what women *typically* are, they don't define what *all* women are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
we're not talking about specifically what defines a woman right now. you are talking about sex. don't try this shit with me homosexual
2 years ago
Anonymous
>claims to be an expert on genetics >needs to have someone else tell him that intersex people are more likely to be trans and vice versa
lmao >I know this cuz I read it in a biology textbook
LMAO
charts you really do love outing yourselves as bottom of the barrel morons, huh?
2 years ago
Anonymous
go ahead and show the stats pussy
2 years ago
Anonymous
>how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
There is some overlap. But it doesn't even matter.
If you want to argue sex is immutable and cannot be altered, you have to define what, precisely, defines one's sex.
Medical transition is effectively an artificially induced intersex condition.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so this is the power of delusion >a one in a billion person has divergent sex organs, therefore; i can identify as a woman
yeah ,No
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cherry-picking outliers. Why is this the only way leftist morons can create arguments?
XX = female = woman
You don't need to know you have XX chromosomes to know you are a woman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What was his problem?
2 years ago
Anonymous
*XY chromosomes
XX = female = woman
You don't need to know you have XX chromosomes to know you are a woman.
There are women with XY chromosomes though, that's what I'm talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There are women with XY chromosomes though, that's what I'm talking about.
I doubt that. Unless it's like she had a twin in the womb, but then it didn't develop properly, so she absorbed it and now has a tiny amount of "male DNA" in her spine.
I don't know how this even relates to trannies, but you tell me.
In that case she is still a real woman.
In the case where her vegana is just a mircopenis, who was fashioned to look like a vegana by doctors at birth and she has no uterus, no female reproductive organs, just a surgically altered micropenis, then that's of course not a woman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I doubt that.
our highly informed experts on defining women, at work
Just did. It's like I said: >Gonads cannot make estrogen, so the breasts will not develop and the uterus will not grow and menstruate until estrogen is administered. This is often given transdermally. >Gonads cannot make progesterone, so menstrual periods will not be predictable until progestin is administered, usually as a pill. >Gonads cannot produce eggs, so conceiving children is not possible without embryo transfer.
They can't reproduce.
2 years ago
Anonymous
XY "women" are males with a defective SRY gene so they don't undergo proper masculinization in embryogenesis.
The issue is, they also don't have two X, so they don't develop ovaries or a functional uterus. Many times these individuals have a shallow vegana because the womb just never developed.
As sad as it is, XY "women" are defective men.
Same for XX men, in which the SRY gene translocates to an X chromosome. Since the Y chromosome is missing, they never undergo proper spermatogenesis.
Both individuals I mentioned are completely infertile and genetic dead ends.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>There are women with XY chromosomes though >There are squares with five sides thoever
>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
Yeah, because they were born defective, they are men that nature frick up, but we humans oversimplificate things, it's way more easy to say you are woman because you have a biological vegana, phenotypically these people look like men.
>exposing to everyone that it's just ideological moronation from overseas.
It's ironic how leftoids screech about colonisation like there is no tomorrow, but have zero issues with amerimutt cultural imperialism.
That’s an obviously bullshit nothing answer. If a woman is anyone or anything that is capable of calling itself a woman and chooses to do so then the term woman has no meaning at all. Modern academics are full of this floaty, intangible nonsense where nothing really means anything but anything can mean anything. Life is complicated but refusing to ever firmly classify things and trying to break down the classifications we already have is the complete opposite of progress. All it does is confuse people and blur everything. You can’t build an understanding without starting by establishing concrete definitions for concepts that are rooted in either unwavering rules or objective facts.
I just woke up. No webs. That was what the plan was, again. No webs, just gym, work, watch a movie. No webs. Had a chain, threw the chain out because a friend once called the links webs. I'm at the gym working out and its just a pump that you can't even imagine. Looking at myself in the mirror is like a gorilla sponsored by onlyfans and butter. I'm a butterfans gorilla. My head at this point is getting super hot from imagining myself as a buttery ape so I go to the shower and take a nice cold one. The beer doesn't help with the hot shower so I take a nice cold one with my nice cold one that I took, but I realize I'm getting a look from this sexy ape baby and it's a nice cold one, so I get a nice cold one and ask if she's like a nice cold one. >what makes you think I'm a nice cold one anon
I laughed at her noticing I asked if she was a nice cold one and I asked if she wanted a nice cold one.
She told me she already had a shower but would like a beer. I handed her a nice cold one and clinked my cold one against hers, and I wanted her to see my butter ape level so I told her I would be right back. I shaved my head. >yeah, I did >right there
I also shaved my scrotum and went back to enjoy the nice cold one but she had already left as the shaving took almost an hour while I was screaming Iron Maiden lyrics and squatting down like the gorilla from Rampage. Best part of all was by now I had completely FRICKIN forgotten about webs, and decided to get a little work in.
I took my bald ape gorilla shred to the workzone, and sat down, only to realize that my incredible bald butter brain was causing a reflection onto the screen from the lighting but I could not give less of a frick, this babyape was ready to gorillazone this butter e-mail.I open the Email, first email. Let's go. "No pictures of spiderman yet"
FRICK.
MOTHER. GORILLA. APE.
WEBS. FRICKING WEBS. IM APE. GORILLA GRAPE. BUTTER APE THE OFFICE. JUMP THROUGH THE GLASS
GO TO THE ER
BUTTERSTYLE.
t.moron answer. You mentally ill people deserve treatment,not validation. You don't see a lunatic that clains to be Jesus Christ being praised and getting applauses for it
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
And can you define, without using the word "woman", what it means to "belong to what conforms to the group" of woman?
Just face it, if woman means anything other than "adult of the female sex of the human species", then it must mean either a) nothing, removing the need for transgenderism to exist, b) to conform to the stereotyped behaviour of an adult human of the female sex
If b), then the supposed validity of transgenderism is implicitly either 1) perpetuating unnecessary stereotypes of how a member of the female sex should behave and/or 2) implying that the behaviour of the female sex is to some degree biologically determined by the female physiology and not a stereotype at all
Both of those are at odds with the "women's rights/empowerment" movement that the transgender community and their "allies" almost always align themselves with
The biggest problem with b is that it's a self-gotcha. If a biological female dresses like a lumberjack while still thinking of herself as a female, then all of a sudden she gets redefined as a man according to troony logic.
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
That's not even a sentence let alone a definition
They know though, it's a rhetorical question meant to ridicule the left, who can no longer answer a question that any child has known the answer to since the beginning of human life on earth.
>any answer you give that I don't agree with is WRONG >because I am infallible and correct in all things >there is no room for debate or grey area, everything is black and white
peak conservative mindset on display
Do you know what a definition is, you moronic homosexual? You use to to SPECIFY something. Not to endless argue about the theory of what that thing could or would have been, not what the parallels to it are. Sometimes I wonder how you idiots can even communicate given your inability to see anything as what it is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>autism >worse, autism mixed with moronation
let me guess, evolution is just a theory, yet you need concrete and absolute examples of everything in your daily life
2 years ago
Anonymous
The reason that evolution is a theory worth talking about is because it's based on actual evidence and marked definitions you fricking spastic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
ummm akshually sweaty, there is no evidence for evolution and if you claim otherwise I'm going to call you a lying israelite
because I am 100% right, and you're 100% wrong, and my definition of reality is based on facts and truth, and if you contradict me that means you hate God.
Sorry, but you lost, dilate.
being a troony (mtf) is actually the best of both worlds, I get to benefit from a society which coddles women but I was born with the superior mental and physical capabilities of a man
1/2 of a whole. A woman and man pair up to become one. It is the natural state of humans to pair up, as they can never be truly happy alone.
Two men cannot pair bond, two women cannot pair bond.
We are divine. Those who think overwise are cursed to unhappiness and denial of self.
Its still the same demographic doing those abuses
- sodomites.
So trying to attack the priests changes nothing. Those are abuses by sodomites, doenst matter if they are lawyers or priests or professors.
The insidious thing about trans people is that they claim they’re fighting gender roles, but their entire existence is structured around gender roles. Take trans women for example: >you never see a trans woman give themselves a name that could be mistakes for a “boy name” like alex, or jamie, only names that are unmistakably feminine, like eleanore or luna >you never see a trans woman wearing anything that could be mistaken for a “boy name” like trousers or shorts, only clothes that are unmistakably feminine, like skirts and thigh highs >trans women will often engage in “female activities” like playing with barbies and watching movies like legally blonde >even the trans flag has the colors blue and pink, the most stereotypical colors for boys and girls
Literally everything they do is built around artificial stereotypes. They reduce the entire feminine experience down to clothes, names, pronouns, and dumb trivial media, and demand to be called women for it. What a sick joke.
“Woman” refers to the specific evolutionarily-derived sense impression the male homosexual sapiens brain experiences when looking at a member of the opposite sex of breeding age, or at what it *believes* to be one. Hence a painting can feel like a “woman” and so can a cross dresser, but of course one can simply decide upon reflection that paintings and trannies aren’t real women.
chuds when pretending to be impartial and rational objectivists: >look we're just asking questions, there's no need to get hostile, we aren't hateful people
chuds when challenged even slightly on their ideas >I HOPE YOU have a nice day FRICKING homosexual Black person troony israelite, YOU'RE DELUSIONAL AND I WILL SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
it's like clockwork
Gee it's like disingenuously attacking the categorical norms that have structured everything positive we know about civilisation encourages a vitriolic response, who coulda thunk it?
>women are everything positive we know about civilization >strict Puritanical gender structures are the foundation of everything positive in civilization
at least try to sound like you aren't a christcuck simp
Puritanical gender structures are the foundation of everything positive in civilization
Can you prove a single example of the disintegration of sex-based norms contributing anything worthwhile to the technological marvels we enjoy today?
Also imagine thinking our biological design is puritanical. We've been this way since we crawled out of the oceans moron, back before the concept of a higher power could even be formulated.
nothing has been challenged though, you cannot give a coherent sefinition of what a woman is because you are too afraid of the definition being exclusionary in any way, despite the fact that categories are by definition meant to be exclusionary
Prime example of Conservatives still thinking this game is about reason and argument, when it's about power. >Heh, what's a woman?
A person who identifies as a woman. >BUT THAT'S A CIRCU-
Ok. What are you going to do about it?
does a woman with no womb and small breasts have to pretend to be a woman?
2 years ago
Anonymous
without a womb why bother pretending to be a woman anymore, what wombaning would be getting done without it ?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No because her genetic structure, the very core of her composition relies on chromosomal emergence displayed in phenotypic traits
2 years ago
Anonymous
but you dont analyze someone's chromosomal emergence when you see them on the street
how do you tell someone is a woman on the street?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hurr what is phenotype
there's a reason you homosexuals will always have broad shoulders, narrow hips, longer arms, bigger hands and stink of men
2 years ago
Anonymous
lets say hypothetically some device could alter someone's appearance 100% to make someone look like a convincing woman. after using this machine, this person would still have no womb and have xy chromosomes, however, if you saw this person on the street, you'd see them as a woman
if woman only refers to biology, how is this possible?
2 years ago
Anonymous
you'd like it if that machine existed, wouldn't you troony?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but you dont analyze someone's chromosomal emergence
You didn't read my full post then >how do you tell someone is a woman on the street?
this is an irrelevant question, perception has nothing to do with the biological composition of what we call woman
2 years ago
Anonymous
>does a woman with no womb and small breasts have to pretend to be a woman?
True womanhood is assumed by the way the question is asked. The answer to >does a woman [. . .] have to pretend to be a woman?
can only be 'no.'
It's true that a woman who's missing a womb is still a woman, but that doesn't mean that womanhood isn't linked to having a womb.
In fact, it's exactly because women are supposed to have wombs that we can identify someone without one as having a birth defect or a handicap.
The documentary raised a much more interesting question: Why is circumcision not viewed as multilation and should circumcised men be considered as 'real men'?
>Important book for anyone curious why these arguments, and all modern moral arguments, are eternally circular and essentially baseless.
They aren't baseless. So many things the Right always relied upon were based on Instincts.
Now we know about Evolution, Selection and Genetics.
It just makes me laugh tho, women are getting exactly what they deserve with this troony shit. They are always the most vocal when it comes to all this gay shit
linguistically slippery morons with chips on their shoulders made it difficult to question their arguments, especially as most of these degenerates were orbiting tumblr and the like while trying to out-snowflake each other.
At some point these college kids graduated and found out that if they claimed to be part of a "marginalized" group, they could get any position they wanted and no one was able to question them or their motives.
Then they either went into tech or school, and started to brainwash the next generation of morons.
One of the privileges of power is to define words. Any basis for a definition can be questioned. >woman = whoever defines herself as woman
Why? >woman = female adult human
Why?
The best you can do is look at which set of definitions lead to the best society, except people can't even agree on a coherent definition of the human good.
Kek imagine being a woman and having your entire existence debated all the time because mentally ill men want to be you. Let trannies be trannies but the idea everyone has to pretend they aren't men is ridiculous. But they know that deep down. I feel sad for them honestly. No amount of seething or calling people chuds and terfs online will take away the aching pain and emptiness inside.
Even if literally every single person in the world agreed that a trans man was a woman, it still wouldn't be true.
Because none of them would be capable of defining "woman". They would all just be part of mass delusion, everyone believing that 2+2=5 doesn't mean that they're right.
Objective reality. If chromosomes exist, the human race can be distinguished into 2 clear categories. Those with Y chromosomes, and those without. Those with Y chromosomes are deemed "male". Those without are "female". Males are commonly called "men". Females are commonly called "women".
This is the basis for all language, and our understanding of our world.
>commonly
So, not always. And trans women are commonly called women.
2 years ago
Anonymous
if you move to saudi arabia or indoneasia then reality somehow chanmges? woah . . . .
2 years ago
Anonymous
trannies were commonly called freaks for decades. i guess that makes them freaks in reality then doesn't it
2 years ago
Anonymous
What about when they were called mentally ill?
Did they stop being mentally ill just because people stopped calling them mentally ill and as soon as someone points out they are mentally ill, they automatically become mentally ill again?
2 years ago
Anonymous
so god existed but he magically stopped existing during enlightenment?
wow.... powerful ... sirs i kneel
2 years ago
Anonymous
"commonly called" isn't very convincing.
[...]
Why?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Taking this a step further, we get into terms like "femininity" and "feminine". These are terms that are ASSOCIATED with being female, but do not require it. You can be a feminine woman, or a feminine male.
You cannot be a male female, just like you can't be a male woman, or a man woman. These words are diametrically opposed. If you believe that you can be a man woman, then the whole concept of "feminine" ceases to make any sense. There are no attributes you can attribute to either of the 2 clear types of human, sexual dimorphism loses all meaning.
>And trans women are commonly called women.
Incorrectly. Again, if everyone believes the earth is flat, does that make the earth flat? No, it means those people don't know what they're talking about.
Technically a trans woman is a woman, though. Because a trans woman is a female who believes herself to be trans, i.e., thinks of herself as masculine. What you mean is "trans men".
Reality defines the conditional and logical relationships between words and metaphors and their real world counterparts. How the phonemes are arranged is arbitrary but insofar as the aforementioned words or metaphors are functional they must relate to their counterparts coherently in that framework. Nomatter what noises you use to describe it, so long as there isn't a violent chemical reaction occurring, water applied to an object is going to make it "wet." The fundamental relationships between words and the physical objects/phenomena they represent are far less constructed than most people think.
>I don't hold extremist views >I just want to amputate my genitals and help kids amputate theirs >I'm not wrong or mentally ill >It is simply the """social construct""" that is wrong
>critical thinking and philosophy >can't even properly define a word without relying on logical fallacies, inconsistencies, appeals to authority and denying the existence of objective reality
try harder next time moron
>why is the definition of a word used to describe and communicate a real world phenomenon based on that real word phenomenon
well gee anon, why don't you explain it to me?
jesus fricking christ man you're such a midwit it's hilarious
The physical characteristics are a matter of objective reality, sure.
The labels assigned around them, however, aren't.
And the physical characteristics can be altered to some extent.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The labels assigned around them, however, aren't.
the labels are still based on the physical characteristics. ignoring them or even defying them would hurt the definition and confuse any attempt at use of the word in daily communication
>And the physical characteristics can be altered to some extent.
did Michael Jackson turn into a white man because he had vitiligo?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Insisting on calling a passing trans woman a "man" is what creates more unnecessary confusion actually.
2 years ago
Anonymous
how the frick is insistance on the truth confusing in any way? >BUBUBUBUT YOU DONT KNOOOOW ITS A MAN!!!!
ok you wanna do a dna test then?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Luckily that's a situation that very few people will ever find themselves in since almost no trannies even remotely pass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, calling them something that isn't biologically accurate is what causes confusion especially among doctors regarding health diagnoses like what would be the point of pap smears and ovary cancer checks in someone who is not a biological female.
There are thing we know and there are things we don't know. We don't know and can't understand ultimate reality, we know and undertand reality through the scientific method, get your metaphysics right.
You mean like you don't seem to know what conform means and you can't actually say what properties a person needs to conform to to conform to being a woman?
the entire leftist ideology, construcivism, is fundamentally based on subjectivism, because it won't work otherwise
it's why every system of socialism or communism fails spectacularly
To be fair, communication would be very difficult if everyone was only allowed to use words that he or she could clearly define. Anyone could tell whether a given animal is an elephant or not, but I bet you couldn't define "elephant" without looking it up.
that's not true, everyone has some sort of definition for every word they use. now maybe they're not 100% accurate, which is fine, but they still operate with those definitions in mind
The ones using different definitions can never have a meeting of the minds or meaningful social cohesion when they disagree on basic meanings of things.
The group whose definitions aren't as accurate a reflection of nature will lose the evolutionary war.
I wonder which side of the gender debate is more likely to die of stress or kill themselves in the despair of failure when trying to apply their subjective definitions to reality?
mate i don't think self castrating troons are winning any evolutionary wars to begin with
2 years ago
Anonymous
They reproduce by grooming other people's children
2 years ago
Anonymous
and we will evolve to resist their grooming
2 years ago
Anonymous
They have always adapted to groom another generation or they would have been extinct by now just like the common cold.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's like saying we will educate men not to rape
2 years ago
Anonymous
Groups that exploit eunichs like troons have held considerable power in the past because it is much easier to manipulate someone who is only looking out for themselves than someone who has an entire family to consider.
But that's not what he was asking them to do. He wasn't giving them a pop quiz to rigidly define a women according to some specific source. He was asking them to give their definition of what a woman is with enough descriptors that you could differentiate what they say a woman is from any other thing. Of course they just gave non-answers, circular definitions or refused to continue the conversation. His point being that their goals require their opposition to work within a definitional framework, while they refuse to establish their own allowing them to move goalposts and points of argument as they please. They refuse to define the term because it gives them rhetorical leeway and an advantage in argumentation.
If you were to try to start a natural biological family with a ladyboy, you would have to eventually come to the realization that you are doing it wrong or die a failure.
I hate to say it, but they're right. Trans women are women. I agree with the transgender community.
But that's because we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of "trans women". A trans woman is easy to define, it's a woman who is trans. A trans woman is someone who was born a biological female, and then transitions to look like a man later in life. Trans women are women, they will always be women. It doesn't matter if they cut their breasts off, take T, put on a deep voice, or tell everyone that they're a man. They will always be women.
Not only can trannies not define what a woman is, or even describe one, they can't even use the proper terms to describe themselves.
>Greetings, humans. We came to this planet to get some Axunget. Please hand them over or we'll vaporize your cities. >o-ok... what's an "axunget"? >An axunget is a creature that identifies itself as an axunget. >ok but what is that? >I just told you. It identifies itself as an axunget. >Sorry but we just don't get it. Could you point out some characteristics, anything? >Well, you see, it's encompassed in the whole sphere of axungetness. It's an umbrella term for axunget. >YEAH BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN????? >*sigh* this planet is full of xigots
Gay guy
Um sweaty that question is actually violence I'm gonna have to ask you to leave
$40 bucks, same as downtown.
It was answered multiple times and you chuds can't accept it.
A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
>someone that belongs to what conforms that group
You will never be a woman you are a mentally ill homosexual
Do you know what a circular definition is?
Circular definitions are completely valid
>nothing is a tree
>a node with no children is a tree
>a node whose children are all trees is a tree
>
Only if you're a homosexual with AIDS
in english, doc
>Circular definitions are completely valid
Why do troons like discrete math so much?
those are all instances of a tree, none of those are definitions of a tree.
>a structure that begins with zero or 1 node
>linked to zero or more child nodes, which can be have any zero or more of generations of children link
>child nodes are only linked via parental relationships, no "siblings" or "uncles"
>muh circular definition
What is a human? What is consciousness?
Humans (homosexual sapiens) are the most abundant and widespread species of primate, characterized by bipedalism and large, complex brains. This has enabled the development of advanced tools, culture, and language. Humans are highly social and tend to live in complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, from families and kinship networks to political states. Social interactions between humans have established a wide variety of values, social norms, and rituals, which bolster human society. Curiosity and the human desire to understand and influence the environment and to explain and manipulate phenomena have motivated humanity's development of science, philosophy, mythology, religion, and other fields of study.
Although some scientists equate the term humans with all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally refers to homosexual sapiens, the only extant member. Anatomically modern humans emerged around 300,000 years ago in Africa, evolving from homosexual heidelbergensis or a similar species and migrating out of Africa, gradually replacing local populations of archaic humans. For most of history, all humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Humans began exhibiting behavioral modernity about 160,000-60,000 years ago. The Neolithic Revolution, which began in Southwest Asia around 13,000 years ago (and separately in a few other places), saw the emergence of agriculture and permanent human settlement. As populations became larger and denser, forms of governance developed within and between communities and a number of civilizations have risen and fallen. Humans have continued to expand, with a global population of over 7.9 billion as of March 2022.
so if someone isnt bipedal (no legs from birth) and isnt social they arent human?
You clearly are not human.
answer the question and stop dodging
All modern humans are classified into the species homosexual sapiens, coined by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema Naturae.[2] The generic name "Homo" is a learned 18th-century derivation from Latin homō, which refers to humans of either sex.[3] The word human can refer to all members of the homosexual genus,[4] although in common usage it generally just refers to homosexual sapiens, the only extant species.[5] The name "homosexual sapiens" means 'wise man' or 'knowledgeable man'.[6] There is disagreement if certain extinct members of the genus, namely Neanderthals, should be included as a separate species of humans or as a subspecies of H. sapiens.[4]
Human is a loanword of Middle English from Old French humain, ultimately from Latin hūmānus, the adjectival form of homō ('man' — in the sense of humankind).[7] The native English term man can refer to the species generally (a synonym for humanity) as well as to human males. It may also refer to individuals of either sex, though this form is less common in contemporary English.[8]
Despite the fact that the word animal is colloquially used as an antonym for human,[9] and contrary to a common biological misconception, humans are animals.[10] The word person is often used interchangeably with human, but philosophical debate exists as to whether personhood applies to all humans or all sentient beings, and further if one can lose personhood (such as by going into a persistent vegetative state).[11]
that didnt answer my question, why is a person with no legs who is antisocial still considered a human?
it's a trick question, i don't consider them at all
why would anyone consider an anti-soc
how anti social do you have to be before you lose your human status
Yes
not an argument
society dictates that in real time, and once you are incarcerated due to your behaviors you lose your rights
it's not a trick, the answer to when they lose rights is: Yes
im not asking how aociety dictates that in real time, im asking how YOU discern that in real time. not talking about incarceration or rights.
let makes this simpler, lets imagine i can do these while being kept alive on some life support system
if i cut off my finger, im still a human, right?
if i got off my arm am i still a human?
what about both arms and legs?
what about both arms and legs and my body? now im just a head kept alive in a jar. am i a human?
what if it was just my brain? am i still a human?
why would i discern it? not my problem
You would be a human brain being kept alive in a jar. An incomplete human. Just like there are malformed humans, this does not alter the definition of a human. You think you’re being philosophical or thinking about things on a deeper level than others but in reality you’re just an idiot.
>social
depends on when and where you are, and what your crime was
sex and gender are biological constructs, not social. a cavewoman who is orphaned and raised by wolves, who hunts, makes weapons, builds a shelter with tools is still a woman. It would make more sense to make the office of the President (an actual social construct) into a male identifying trait.
They are a member of the homosexual sapiens species.
And a real hero
they're a damaged human. birth defects are damage, just like manufacturing defects.
is a living head in a jar a human?
Tl;dr.
Just like Matt Walsh did to those giving him a complex definition of woman, I too will ignore the answer.
You can't give a simple answer to what a human is.
A human is a member of the homosexual sapiens species and a real hero.
>A human is a member of the homosexual sapiens species
That's weird, so what's all this talk about "other human species" that weren't homosexual sapiens?
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/the-origin-of-our-species.html#:~:text=Apart%20from%20our%20species%2C,eight%20other%20kinds%20of%20human:
actually this was debunked by snopes
Not those anons but the issue isn't really that it's a complex or even long winded answer, it's that progressives give non-definitions to the word woman because definitions by their function are describing the essence of the word or idea. Progressives are fundamentally anti-essentialists meaning they don't believe in any sense of the idea that things can have fixed qualities beyond just the arbitrary designations we give them. But that means they cannot define anything or identify anything as true, it's an circular regression in solipsism and relativity.
The social category of "woman" is indeed a social construct that isn't fixed or immutable.
so what does it mean right now?
What does "American" mean?
It's a social construct. It literally doesn't mean anything aside from the meaning ascribed by society.
typically, that means to be a citizen of the united states
So, if a trans woman has documents stating she's a woman, that means she's a woman?
what does it mean to be a human?
nationality is a mutable characteristic baka
So is gender and sex.
Having organs is not a mutable characteristic. There is no rational discussion to be had with someone who is unwilling to take the premises set out by nature as a given. The flat out rejection of reality is a dead giveaway of mental illness like psychotic personally disorder
that's nice dear, why don't you tell it to the border patrol
But the idea of what that means must have something concrete to it and one that stays concrete over the passage or time and space, even our social lense of that idea shifts. Otherwise words lose all sense of function.
Then why is it necessary to play dress up to be a woman then you stupid homosexual. You're already completely 'a woman,' dressing, acting, talking, etc.. like a man.
Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.[1] Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial,[2] being "at once the most familiar and [also the] most mysterious aspect of our lives".[3] Perhaps the only widely agreed notion about the topic is the intuition that consciousness exists.[4] Opinions differ about what exactly needs to be studied and explained as consciousness. Sometimes, it is synonymous with the mind, and at other times, an aspect of mind. In the past, it was one's "inner life", the world of introspection, of private thought, imagination and volition.[5] Today, it often includes any kind of cognition, experience, feeling or perception. It may be awareness, awareness of awareness, or self-awareness either continuously changing or not.[6][7] There might be different levels or orders of consciousness,[8] or different kinds of consciousness, or just one kind with different features.[9] Other questions include whether only humans are conscious, all animals, or even the whole universe. The disparate range of research, notions and speculations raises doubts about whether the right questions are being asked.[10]
Examples of the range of descriptions, definitions or explanations are: simple wakefulness, one's sense of selfhood or soul explored by "looking within"; being a metaphorical "stream" of contents, or being a mental state, mental event or mental process of the brain; having phanera or qualia and subjectivity; being the 'something that it is like' to 'have' or 'be' it; being the "inner theatre" or the executive control system of the mind.[11]
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
Is that a group or a cult?
This
>makes documentary asking the question "what is a woman?
>receive the answer
>well actually according to me this and that answer is funny and disagreeable, but that and this answer is true and based, suck it libtards
I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
>blah blah blah
trannies aren't women
>t. troony
Don't care. Hate trannies. Frick you.
the point of it was to show the absurdity of even having discussion and convoluted explanations for this extremely easy question. It's like making a documentary called "what is 2+2" and then have mathematicians go through extremely complex theory and equations just to avoid the obvious answer everyone knows because for some reason, the number 4 is now deemed politically incorrect by a part of society.
Do you know what a circular definition is?
define a chair without being circular
One of the basic pieces of furniture, a chair is a type of seat. Its primary features are two pieces of a durable material, attached as back and seat to one another at a 90°-or-slightly-greater angle, with usually the four corners of the horizontal seat attached in turn to four legs—or other parts of the seat's underside attached to three legs or to a shaft about which a four-arm turnstile on rollers can turn—strong enough to support the weight of a person who sits on the seat (usually wide and broad enough to hold the lower body from the buttocks almost to the knees) and leans against the vertical back (usually high and wide enough to support the back to the shoulder blades). The legs are typically high enough for the seated person's thighs and knees to form a 90°-or-lesser angle.[1][2] Used in a number of rooms in homes (e.g. in living rooms, dining rooms, and dens), in schools and offices (with desks), and in various other workplaces, chairs may be made of wood, metal, or synthetic materials, and either the seat alone or the entire chair may be padded or upholstered in various colors and fabrics.
Chairs vary in design. An armchair has armrests fixed to the seat;[3] a recliner is upholstered and under its seat is a mechanism that allows one to lower the chair's back and raise into place a fold-out footrest;[4] a rocking chair has legs fixed to two long curved slats; and a wheelchair has wheels fixed to an axis under the seat.[5]
what if it has an angle of 89 degrees
your mom has an angle of 89 degrees
>A woman is an adult female human.
>Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.
>In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.
>>In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.
Have you ever taken five minutes to really consider the things you think. For instance consider the 'non-binary,' character. Effectively gender is by this logic a fluid construct, yet if this is the case why is it necessary for a 'trans woman' to play dress up and otherwise simulate the properties of a female, which by the aformentioned logic is a socially constructed category. in order to be a female. Does their insistence on presenting in a way that they determine to be specifically reserved for 'women' not obviously betray their own implicit belief in essential and distinct qualities between men and women? If anyone can be a woman, then of what need is it to present as what you should rightly view as a backwards stereotype. Are you already not perfectly 'a woman,' regardless of how you present yourself? Obviously the answer is this entire intellectual structure is built on a shoddy foundation and cannot survive even the lightest appraisal
nobody asked
>I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
No you wouldn't. Such a discussion isn't even possible with those people, and you know that.
Have you ever considered the fact that your mindset takes multiple paragraphs to explains and still sounds fricking moronic?
Yo u wi ll ne ver be a w o man
I'm happy for this dude, most trannies are just misguided autists.
>most
they are literally all mentally ill and need help, most familiar, but it's a dead end from the beginning because the lack of family affection brought it up to begin with
He didn’t get bottom surgery, right?
Damn he actually looks pretty decent now.
>what is a woman
>a woman is someone who identifies as a woman
>am i a horse?
>WELL NO ITS NOT THE SAME
Correct, it's not.
And this person is somehow the definitive authority on what a woman is?
So you would be satisfied if someone made a documentary about gun control and the only definition the "experts" gave when mentioning banning assault rifles is that an assault rifle is something that can be identified as an assault rifle?
>a woman is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someo
you homosexuals mock yourselves.
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as a woman
Ok, that solves everything.
I understand that you want to be an ally, but "individual" is a derogatory singularist term. It's demeaning to multi-minded people like those with split personalities or two-spirited indigenous peoples. Do better.
Frick I remember this same joke being made in 2013/2014 by JelloApocalypse in his tumblr video but you ask him about it now and he'd probably disavow it
So what conforms that group?
See? This can't be a real definition, because it just opens up more questions.
The answer to "what does she identify as" can't be "the thing she identifies as". There is some intrinsic meaning to what a woman really is.
You'd have more success, if you said wanting to be pretty, liking girly things, wanting beautiful hair, etc.
>a woman is someone that wishes to be associated with being a woman
>someone is what they prefer to be identified as
We know though. We are a group that accepts this word to have a real meaning. A woman is an adult human female.
>I would watch an actual documentary on this subject that actually engages with the question objectively, unbiased and unjudgingly, not just some piece of grifting and mockery
That would just be a short biology skit. The whole point of the documentary is to show the biased, insane answers of leftwing morons.
>chuds when pretending to be impartial and rational objectivists
We are not just asking questions. It's obviously to mock you, because we already know the answer. We just want to expose your moronic answers.
>chuds when challenged even slightly on their ideas
We are challenged, but we disagree, because we think gender is sex and don't agree with you. In German we don't even have a different word for sex and gender. We just use "Geschlecht", but you leftist morons just blatantly use the english term "gender" in German exposing to everyone that it's just ideological moronation from overseas.
See
Trans women's gender is female.
their gender is male.
one person's imagination doesn't dictate reality.
Gender isn't the same thing as sex.
See, even if what you say is true:
>Trans women have a gender identity that does not align with their male sex assignment at birth, while intersex women may have sex characteristics that do not fit typical notions of female biology.
your conclusion doesn't logically follow
>Trans women's gender is female.
Just because someone identifes as something, doesn't mean they are that thing. Just because a Eunuch wants to be seen as a woman, doesn't make him a woman. He's not a female. It's logic.
This is an anonymous image board, anon. Stop stalking me.
then stop avatargayging
next time i'm calling the jannies
did you know they do it for free?
I just really like that image, anon. That's not a crime.
What defines whether someone female? What are the criteria?
>giving birth
So infertile women aren't women?
>gametes
So women born without an uterus aren't women?
>chromosomes
So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
>being born with a vegana
So "biological reality" is dictated by the state of things in the past, rather than the present?
Making the category a matter of self-identification is genuinely more coherent than those.
no, once you remove everything that makes a woman woman it's no longer a woman, no
self id is nice and all but it doesnt tell us what the word means or what criteria makes you that thing. why not just use any word at that point?
Why does the word need to "mean" anything?
Why do there need to be "criteria"?
Why can't the word simply be a social identity and little besides, when we know living as women makes life more enjoyable to some with practically no harm to others?
because the basis of life is to reproduce and the basis of society is founded on men finding women to reproduce with
don't act coy you fricking homosexual
>because the basis of life is to reproduce and the basis of society is founded on men finding women to reproduce with
This is irrelevant actually.
Infertile women play no role in reproduction whatsoever and they're still women.
that's an issue of medicine. every woman has the potential of producing ovum inside of her. things can always go wrong. but just because you cut your wiener and balls off doesn't mean you're not a man either.
yeah and if i wore blackface people might think i'm a Black person, but that doesn't make me black does it you fricking idiot
if you passed 100% as black you would, for all intents and purposes, be a Black person you dumb frick
>a disguise literally transforms you into something else
you're genuinely moronic.
if hypothetically
everyone sees you as that thing
and you live your life as that thing
and you strongly identify with the experiences of that thing
why the frick arent you that thing?
>if hypothetically
Leftism in nutshell.
being unable to engage with a hypothetical is really fricking boring, let the adults talk
what does it mean for something to be reality?
is it true that the sun is hot?
Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.
>being unable to engage with a hypothetical is really fricking boring, let the adults talk
>REEEEEEE ENGAGE WITH MY ENTIRELY MADE UP FANTASY SCENARIO
Reality.
because truth is not dependent on your or others' perception of it
that is what it makes it truth
it is true whether you believe in it or not
>there is an abstract concept of truth that exists outside of human observation
how can you know that, when all we have to base this on is human observation, and when truth is very obviously highly flexible?
>how can you know that [...] when truth is very obviously
lol
did the Holocaust happen?
there exists no evidence to support that hypothesis
well except for the evidence that does exist
and for many people it is truth
and for many others it is not
so is the truth flexible and varied, or is there an absolute reality?
>muh subjective reality
why don't we put this subjective reality to the test. i take a gun and put it against your temple and you wish REAL HARD that it's not loaded and then I pull the trigger, ok?
continue this line of thinking to justify the existence of God. go on.
>zeno paradoxing the ability to understand
thanks for infinitely conceding
just holding you to your own standards like your daddy saul taught your kind
´>being unable to engage with a hypothetical is really fricking boring, let the adults talk
Okay, let me take over.
>everyone sees you as that thing
It's not everyone though. Conservatives don't. Right-Wingers don't. Everyone outside the Left in the West doesn't. Many normal, unpolitical people don't.
>and you live your life as that thing
>and you strongly identify with the experiences of that thing
Transsexuals aren't effortless, natural being. They are self-destructive, neurotic "wanting to become". They are permanently obsessed with taking step and step to become. It's a disgusting fetish, which we have to pretend is a normal identity. It's not.
>if hypothetically
>everyone sees you as that thing
>and you live your life as that thing
>and you strongly identify with the experiences of that thing
>why the frick arent you that thing?
I don't know. Why are they going through all the struggle and strife of changing physical characteristics if manhood or womanhood or personhood is an arbitrary socially generated construct? If you think you're a woman, be a fat 6ft balding hairy woman with a wiener and balls. Why are you adhering to these strange gendered 60s era stereotypes? It all strikes me as a bit strange.
troonys put up an elaborate facade to present as their chosen genders
because the next question will be: "what is a child?" and they wont know the answer and therefore there cant be any age specific legislation because childhood is just an imaginary label too
>cant the word be a social identity
what are they identifying as?
and if you answer
a woman
I will ask what that means
you are trapped in infinite recursion
>what are they identifying as?
As women.
Which is a social category and identity constructed *around* one of the two predominant body types, not *inherent* to it.
So you're building the identity of woman around the concept of being female, but somehow that still isn't inherent? So what are you taking to form this identity? What elements that we could use to try and answer the original question?
>What defines whether someone female? What are the criteria?
Biology. In particular the chromosomes. XX = female, XY = male
>So infertile women aren't women?
It doesn't define a woman, but being capable of birth is one of their attributes. You don't specify in biology books that horses can sometimes be born with no hooves.
>So women born without an uterus aren't women?
Same reply.
>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
Yeah.
>So "biological reality" is dictated by the state of things in the past, rather than the present?
They don't actually create veganas for transsexual men. They create some unholy abomination, an inverted penis skin, a hairball puss hole, which the body wants to close and heal, which has to be permanently kept open by inserting objects into it for 3 hours a day.
>>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
>Yeah.
There's a decent number of women, born with a vegana, raised as women, recorded as women on their paperwork and even completely unaware of their XX chromosomes that this would disqualify.
>MUH MUH MUH CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITIES
how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
stop with these disingenuous arguments
>how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
quite a lot, considerably more than the default rate within the population
which means it is not idsingenuous to bring up
of course, despite being obsessed with absolute genetic truth, you didn't actually know that, did you?
go ahead and show the stats then you fricking moron
>you have to define what, precisely, defines one's sex.
why don't you read a biology book, moron. it's been defined for decades.
>why don't you read a biology book, moron. it's been defined for decades.
See
Biology books define what women *typically* are, they don't define what *all* women are.
we're not talking about specifically what defines a woman right now. you are talking about sex. don't try this shit with me homosexual
>claims to be an expert on genetics
>needs to have someone else tell him that intersex people are more likely to be trans and vice versa
lmao
>I know this cuz I read it in a biology textbook
LMAO
charts you really do love outing yourselves as bottom of the barrel morons, huh?
go ahead and show the stats pussy
>how many trannies are intersex? how many intersex are trannies?
There is some overlap. But it doesn't even matter.
If you want to argue sex is immutable and cannot be altered, you have to define what, precisely, defines one's sex.
Medical transition is effectively an artificially induced intersex condition.
so this is the power of delusion
>a one in a billion person has divergent sex organs, therefore; i can identify as a woman
yeah ,No
Cherry-picking outliers. Why is this the only way leftist morons can create arguments?
See
XX = female = woman
You don't need to know you have XX chromosomes to know you are a woman.
What was his problem?
*XY chromosomes
There are women with XY chromosomes though, that's what I'm talking about.
>There are women with XY chromosomes though, that's what I'm talking about.
I doubt that. Unless it's like she had a twin in the womb, but then it didn't develop properly, so she absorbed it and now has a tiny amount of "male DNA" in her spine.
I don't know how this even relates to trannies, but you tell me.
In that case she is still a real woman.
In the case where her vegana is just a mircopenis, who was fashioned to look like a vegana by doctors at birth and she has no uterus, no female reproductive organs, just a surgically altered micropenis, then that's of course not a woman.
>I doubt that.
our highly informed experts on defining women, at work
>I doubt that.
Look up XY gonadal dysgenesis.
yes we all saw that House episode
maybe if she's from Transnistria lmao
Just did. It's like I said:
>Gonads cannot make estrogen, so the breasts will not develop and the uterus will not grow and menstruate until estrogen is administered. This is often given transdermally.
>Gonads cannot make progesterone, so menstrual periods will not be predictable until progestin is administered, usually as a pill.
>Gonads cannot produce eggs, so conceiving children is not possible without embryo transfer.
They can't reproduce.
XY "women" are males with a defective SRY gene so they don't undergo proper masculinization in embryogenesis.
The issue is, they also don't have two X, so they don't develop ovaries or a functional uterus. Many times these individuals have a shallow vegana because the womb just never developed.
As sad as it is, XY "women" are defective men.
Same for XX men, in which the SRY gene translocates to an X chromosome. Since the Y chromosome is missing, they never undergo proper spermatogenesis.
Both individuals I mentioned are completely infertile and genetic dead ends.
>There are women with XY chromosomes though
>There are squares with five sides thoever
>So women with XY chromosomes aren't women?
Yeah, because they were born defective, they are men that nature frick up, but we humans oversimplificate things, it's way more easy to say you are woman because you have a biological vegana, phenotypically these people look like men.
is this you
>exposing to everyone that it's just ideological moronation from overseas.
It's ironic how leftoids screech about colonisation like there is no tomorrow, but have zero issues with amerimutt cultural imperialism.
That’s an obviously bullshit nothing answer. If a woman is anyone or anything that is capable of calling itself a woman and chooses to do so then the term woman has no meaning at all. Modern academics are full of this floaty, intangible nonsense where nothing really means anything but anything can mean anything. Life is complicated but refusing to ever firmly classify things and trying to break down the classifications we already have is the complete opposite of progress. All it does is confuse people and blur everything. You can’t build an understanding without starting by establishing concrete definitions for concepts that are rooted in either unwavering rules or objective facts.
troony
>A woman is someone who feels that they are a woman
>So what is a woman?
>A woman is someone who...
I identify as a Flobbowok. What is a Flobbowok? Whoever identifies as a Flobbowok.
This is what leftists actually believe.
LMAO, is this satirical or do leftists actually argue this way?
liberal arts majors
I just woke up. No webs. That was what the plan was, again. No webs, just gym, work, watch a movie. No webs. Had a chain, threw the chain out because a friend once called the links webs. I'm at the gym working out and its just a pump that you can't even imagine. Looking at myself in the mirror is like a gorilla sponsored by onlyfans and butter. I'm a butterfans gorilla. My head at this point is getting super hot from imagining myself as a buttery ape so I go to the shower and take a nice cold one. The beer doesn't help with the hot shower so I take a nice cold one with my nice cold one that I took, but I realize I'm getting a look from this sexy ape baby and it's a nice cold one, so I get a nice cold one and ask if she's like a nice cold one.
>what makes you think I'm a nice cold one anon
I laughed at her noticing I asked if she was a nice cold one and I asked if she wanted a nice cold one.
She told me she already had a shower but would like a beer. I handed her a nice cold one and clinked my cold one against hers, and I wanted her to see my butter ape level so I told her I would be right back. I shaved my head.
>yeah, I did
>right there
I also shaved my scrotum and went back to enjoy the nice cold one but she had already left as the shaving took almost an hour while I was screaming Iron Maiden lyrics and squatting down like the gorilla from Rampage. Best part of all was by now I had completely FRICKIN forgotten about webs, and decided to get a little work in.
I took my bald ape gorilla shred to the workzone, and sat down, only to realize that my incredible bald butter brain was causing a reflection onto the screen from the lighting but I could not give less of a frick, this babyape was ready to gorillazone this butter e-mail.I open the Email, first email. Let's go. "No pictures of spiderman yet"
FRICK.
MOTHER. GORILLA. APE.
WEBS. FRICKING WEBS. IM APE. GORILLA GRAPE. BUTTER APE THE OFFICE. JUMP THROUGH THE GLASS
GO TO THE ER
BUTTERSTYLE.
So what are they conforming to? What are all the properties someone needs to conform to to make themselves a woman?
t.moron answer. You mentally ill people deserve treatment,not validation. You don't see a lunatic that clains to be Jesus Christ being praised and getting applauses for it
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
And can you define, without using the word "woman", what it means to "belong to what conforms to the group" of woman?
Just face it, if woman means anything other than "adult of the female sex of the human species", then it must mean either a) nothing, removing the need for transgenderism to exist, b) to conform to the stereotyped behaviour of an adult human of the female sex
If b), then the supposed validity of transgenderism is implicitly either 1) perpetuating unnecessary stereotypes of how a member of the female sex should behave and/or 2) implying that the behaviour of the female sex is to some degree biologically determined by the female physiology and not a stereotype at all
Both of those are at odds with the "women's rights/empowerment" movement that the transgender community and their "allies" almost always align themselves with
I challenge you to refute this
The biggest problem with b is that it's a self-gotcha. If a biological female dresses like a lumberjack while still thinking of herself as a female, then all of a sudden she gets redefined as a man according to troony logic.
>A woman is an individual that identifies herself as someone that belongs to what conforms that group
That's not even a sentence let alone a definition
functional jizz receptacle
You will suck the sheenis
>You will suck the sheenis
If you are a man and suck dick you are a homosexual
somebody who wished to be associated with the average person with a vegana
No clue, I only have sex with men.
>no-life incel chud doesnt know what a woman is
Many such cases
Born with penis = not a woman
They know though, it's a rhetorical question meant to ridicule the left, who can no longer answer a question that any child has known the answer to since the beginning of human life on earth.
We can and do answer it actually.
You just always ignore the answer and continue to cry about the existence of trans people.
>2+2=5
WRONG.
>any answer you give that I don't agree with is WRONG
>because I am infallible and correct in all things
>there is no room for debate or grey area, everything is black and white
peak conservative mindset on display
Do you know what a definition is, you moronic homosexual? You use to to SPECIFY something. Not to endless argue about the theory of what that thing could or would have been, not what the parallels to it are. Sometimes I wonder how you idiots can even communicate given your inability to see anything as what it is.
>autism
>worse, autism mixed with moronation
let me guess, evolution is just a theory, yet you need concrete and absolute examples of everything in your daily life
The reason that evolution is a theory worth talking about is because it's based on actual evidence and marked definitions you fricking spastic.
ummm akshually sweaty, there is no evidence for evolution and if you claim otherwise I'm going to call you a lying israelite
because I am 100% right, and you're 100% wrong, and my definition of reality is based on facts and truth, and if you contradict me that means you hate God.
Sorry, but you lost, dilate.
a married father with a succesful career is a "no life incel chud"?
A woman is an idea, a feminine ideal, it's not a tangible thing you see
being a troony (mtf) is actually the best of both worlds, I get to benefit from a society which coddles women but I was born with the superior mental and physical capabilities of a man
1/2 of a whole. A woman and man pair up to become one. It is the natural state of humans to pair up, as they can never be truly happy alone.
Two men cannot pair bond, two women cannot pair bond.
We are divine. Those who think overwise are cursed to unhappiness and denial of self.
this
the hidden pearl in a ocean full of piss
Whatever turns me on
Bisexual degenerate
A human with two X chromosomes, a womb, ovaries, stuff like that.
nazi piece of shit, I hope the police catches you
?t=130
I love that this homosexual puts on a more masculine voice for "her" than his own whiny, murine, israelitey squeal of a voice.
I'd like to see them box it out
That would be amazing. The steel-jawed crossdresser would slap the shit out of that midget like he was Warwick Davis.
Stop checking kids' genitals
>priests molest kids
Which ones?
I was just looking for a pastor the other day
You realize that none of these people that claim to be pastors/priests are actually even involved in a church, right? It's a cringe larp by leftists
no U
>29 thousand cases of NICE each year
nice
Its still the same demographic doing those abuses
- sodomites.
So trying to attack the priests changes nothing. Those are abuses by sodomites, doenst matter if they are lawyers or priests or professors.
The insidious thing about trans people is that they claim they’re fighting gender roles, but their entire existence is structured around gender roles. Take trans women for example:
>you never see a trans woman give themselves a name that could be mistakes for a “boy name” like alex, or jamie, only names that are unmistakably feminine, like eleanore or luna
>you never see a trans woman wearing anything that could be mistaken for a “boy name” like trousers or shorts, only clothes that are unmistakably feminine, like skirts and thigh highs
>trans women will often engage in “female activities” like playing with barbies and watching movies like legally blonde
>even the trans flag has the colors blue and pink, the most stereotypical colors for boys and girls
Literally everything they do is built around artificial stereotypes. They reduce the entire feminine experience down to clothes, names, pronouns, and dumb trivial media, and demand to be called women for it. What a sick joke.
oh wow, you're so clever
the thing they're doing is the thing they're doing?! outrageous!
Nobody asked
Hey G, would you make me a sandwich?
No
1 word
Mentally Ill
“Woman” refers to the specific evolutionarily-derived sense impression the male homosexual sapiens brain experiences when looking at a member of the opposite sex of breeding age, or at what it *believes* to be one. Hence a painting can feel like a “woman” and so can a cross dresser, but of course one can simply decide upon reflection that paintings and trannies aren’t real women.
just point out what everyone is really doing, destroying the ability to procreate and pass on genes through offspring
A woman is a person with female reproductive organs.
>well, what IS a woman?
>"a woman is a person that identifies as a woman"
something something chromosomes, egg, womb and ovulation.
>IS THAT HECKIN TRANSPHOBIA??
chuds when pretending to be impartial and rational objectivists:
>look we're just asking questions, there's no need to get hostile, we aren't hateful people
chuds when challenged even slightly on their ideas
>I HOPE YOU have a nice day FRICKING homosexual Black person troony israelite, YOU'RE DELUSIONAL AND I WILL SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE
it's like clockwork
Just laying down facts.
Ywnbaw; getting real is the best thing you could do. Second place is removing yourself entirely tho.
Gee it's like disingenuously attacking the categorical norms that have structured everything positive we know about civilisation encourages a vitriolic response, who coulda thunk it?
>women are everything positive we know about civilization
>strict Puritanical gender structures are the foundation of everything positive in civilization
at least try to sound like you aren't a christcuck simp
Puritanical gender structures are the foundation of everything positive in civilization
Can you prove a single example of the disintegration of sex-based norms contributing anything worthwhile to the technological marvels we enjoy today?
Also imagine thinking our biological design is puritanical. We've been this way since we crawled out of the oceans moron, back before the concept of a higher power could even be formulated.
nothing has been challenged though, you cannot give a coherent sefinition of what a woman is because you are too afraid of the definition being exclusionary in any way, despite the fact that categories are by definition meant to be exclusionary
Its almost like they hate you or something.
Prime example of Conservatives still thinking this game is about reason and argument, when it's about power.
>Heh, what's a woman?
A person who identifies as a woman.
>BUT THAT'S A CIRCU-
Ok. What are you going to do about it?
God is a woman. A woman is a god.
All hail women.
>Only 1 critic review
>2500+ user ratings
>97%
What did critics mean by this?
It’s the polar opposite of Santa Inc.
but that definition doesnt make sense, taftaj isnt an adult human female but most people would call that person a woman
why?
taftaj is ugly, post an image of him taken in the wild
even if i grant you they are only convincing from behind a camera, you'd still agree that in that context, most people would see them as a woman
why? if the definition is adult human female, how does that work?
He's good at pretending to be a woman.
does a woman with no womb and small breasts have to pretend to be a woman?
without a womb why bother pretending to be a woman anymore, what wombaning would be getting done without it ?
No because her genetic structure, the very core of her composition relies on chromosomal emergence displayed in phenotypic traits
but you dont analyze someone's chromosomal emergence when you see them on the street
how do you tell someone is a woman on the street?
>hurr what is phenotype
there's a reason you homosexuals will always have broad shoulders, narrow hips, longer arms, bigger hands and stink of men
lets say hypothetically some device could alter someone's appearance 100% to make someone look like a convincing woman. after using this machine, this person would still have no womb and have xy chromosomes, however, if you saw this person on the street, you'd see them as a woman
if woman only refers to biology, how is this possible?
you'd like it if that machine existed, wouldn't you troony?
>but you dont analyze someone's chromosomal emergence
You didn't read my full post then
>how do you tell someone is a woman on the street?
this is an irrelevant question, perception has nothing to do with the biological composition of what we call woman
>does a woman with no womb and small breasts have to pretend to be a woman?
True womanhood is assumed by the way the question is asked. The answer to
>does a woman [. . .] have to pretend to be a woman?
can only be 'no.'
It's true that a woman who's missing a womb is still a woman, but that doesn't mean that womanhood isn't linked to having a womb.
In fact, it's exactly because women are supposed to have wombs that we can identify someone without one as having a birth defect or a handicap.
Simple, 'female' can refer to gender.
What is a female gender identity?
Didn't you watch the movie to the end? They said a woman is an adult female human that needs help opening a jar.
I am a (biological) woman and this question isn't best answered by a bunch of incels like Cinemaphile
breasts or gtfo
The documentary raised a much more interesting question: Why is circumcision not viewed as multilation and should circumcised men be considered as 'real men'?
What is an intact penis?
Israel is one of the greatest countries in the world and I'm glad the US supports it so strongly, so frick off back to Stormfront
Black personhomosexual detected
piercings and tattoos make you lose your gendered state too
Anti-semitism should be banned from Cinemaphile, FRICK OFF
>"what is a woman?"
>walls upon walls of text
ah yes, the societal rot, finely aged 246 years. bueno
See
Important book for anyone curious why these arguments, and all modern moral arguments, are eternally circular and essentially baseless.
>Important book for anyone curious why these arguments, and all modern moral arguments, are eternally circular and essentially baseless.
They aren't baseless. So many things the Right always relied upon were based on Instincts.
Now we know about Evolution, Selection and Genetics.
>Selection and Genetics
stop being racist
It just makes me laugh tho, women are getting exactly what they deserve with this troony shit. They are always the most vocal when it comes to all this gay shit
It's a non-leftist biological female.
morons who struggle with this concept want to dictate to me about economy, rights, or how society should work lmaoooo.
>leftist biological females are not women
lmao moron brain world view
Nah, they are just leftists, I don't care about the rest of word salad they throw around.
>"You won't find out!"
I am increasingly perplexed and appalled by the current state of liberalism. It is genuinely a mental illness. How the hell did we get here?
not sure since troonys didn't even exist until this past decade
Allowing women to vote was the first mistake.
if only they made voting rights come with mandatory military service, the suffragettes would have never existed.
linguistically slippery morons with chips on their shoulders made it difficult to question their arguments, especially as most of these degenerates were orbiting tumblr and the like while trying to out-snowflake each other.
At some point these college kids graduated and found out that if they claimed to be part of a "marginalized" group, they could get any position they wanted and no one was able to question them or their motives.
Then they either went into tech or school, and started to brainwash the next generation of morons.
One of the privileges of power is to define words. Any basis for a definition can be questioned.
>woman = whoever defines herself as woman
Why?
>woman = female adult human
Why?
The best you can do is look at which set of definitions lead to the best society, except people can't even agree on a coherent definition of the human good.
Kek imagine being a woman and having your entire existence debated all the time because mentally ill men want to be you. Let trannies be trannies but the idea everyone has to pretend they aren't men is ridiculous. But they know that deep down. I feel sad for them honestly. No amount of seething or calling people chuds and terfs online will take away the aching pain and emptiness inside.
because deep down troonys WANT TO BE A WOMAN but they should be told "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas."
If you want to amputate your genitals and pretend to be the opposite sex you are mentally ill.
What is there to discuss?
A miserable pile of secrets.
I have a feeling this will rather answer the question "How dumb a man can be?"
A female human being with two X chromosomes, capable of giving birth.
A woman is a human with female reproductive organs.
>but what if they are infert-
A barren womb is still a womb.
>but what about XXY hermaph-
Extremely rare.
>what about trann-
Ywnbaw.
>Extremely rare.
Exceptions to the rule hereby admitted, now trannies are also women. It happens that quickly.
>What do, my dudes?
just admit what the weirdos are going for with the whole >i'm a woman >and that means you have to sex with me
A female horse is a mare
A female pig is a sow
A female sheep is a ewe
A female human is…WHATEVER WE SAY IT IS YOU FRICKING BIGOT CHUD
Adult human female
Adult human female
Who or what dictates which attributes are part of a definition?
Society, what people agree upon
So, the moment most people in a society agree that transwomen are women, it becomes the truth, and the opposite?
Even if literally every single person in the world agreed that a trans man was a woman, it still wouldn't be true.
Because none of them would be capable of defining "woman". They would all just be part of mass delusion, everyone believing that 2+2=5 doesn't mean that they're right.
Then, what dictates the correct definition of the word "woman"?
Objective reality. If chromosomes exist, the human race can be distinguished into 2 clear categories. Those with Y chromosomes, and those without. Those with Y chromosomes are deemed "male". Those without are "female". Males are commonly called "men". Females are commonly called "women".
This is the basis for all language, and our understanding of our world.
See
>commonly
So, not always. And trans women are commonly called women.
if you move to saudi arabia or indoneasia then reality somehow chanmges? woah . . . .
trannies were commonly called freaks for decades. i guess that makes them freaks in reality then doesn't it
What about when they were called mentally ill?
Did they stop being mentally ill just because people stopped calling them mentally ill and as soon as someone points out they are mentally ill, they automatically become mentally ill again?
so god existed but he magically stopped existing during enlightenment?
wow.... powerful ... sirs i kneel
"commonly called" isn't very convincing.
Why?
Taking this a step further, we get into terms like "femininity" and "feminine". These are terms that are ASSOCIATED with being female, but do not require it. You can be a feminine woman, or a feminine male.
You cannot be a male female, just like you can't be a male woman, or a man woman. These words are diametrically opposed. If you believe that you can be a man woman, then the whole concept of "feminine" ceases to make any sense. There are no attributes you can attribute to either of the 2 clear types of human, sexual dimorphism loses all meaning.
>And trans women are commonly called women.
Incorrectly. Again, if everyone believes the earth is flat, does that make the earth flat? No, it means those people don't know what they're talking about.
Technically a trans woman is a woman, though. Because a trans woman is a female who believes herself to be trans, i.e., thinks of herself as masculine. What you mean is "trans men".
No satisfying response to this so far?
>Who or what dictates which attributes are part of a definition?
>>Who or what dictates which attributes are part of a definition?
Reality
How does reality define that the specific sequence of sounds that make the word "woman" corresponds to a given group of people?
Reality defines the conditional and logical relationships between words and metaphors and their real world counterparts. How the phonemes are arranged is arbitrary but insofar as the aforementioned words or metaphors are functional they must relate to their counterparts coherently in that framework. Nomatter what noises you use to describe it, so long as there isn't a violent chemical reaction occurring, water applied to an object is going to make it "wet." The fundamental relationships between words and the physical objects/phenomena they represent are far less constructed than most people think.
>I don't hold extremist views
>I just want to amputate my genitals and help kids amputate theirs
>I'm not wrong or mentally ill
>It is simply the """social construct""" that is wrong
Circumcision really is insane
You're telling me
Yes, it is.
Why do parents force circumcision on their babies?
No, mutilating your genitals and dressing in drag does not convince me you're a woman.
i just achieved enlightenment, ima go do cool shit
later bros
>trans women are women if we deny that objective truth and reality exist
Wow. . . chuds btfo. . .
>objective truth and reality
>exist
lol
lmao even
all this documentary has exposed is that chuds are seriously lacking in critical thinking and philosophy
ok groomer
>critical thinking and philosophy
>can't even properly define a word without relying on logical fallacies, inconsistencies, appeals to authority and denying the existence of objective reality
try harder next time moron
How is the word "woman" a matter of objective reality?
>why is the definition of a word used to describe and communicate a real world phenomenon based on that real word phenomenon
well gee anon, why don't you explain it to me?
jesus fricking christ man you're such a midwit it's hilarious
The physical characteristics are a matter of objective reality, sure.
The labels assigned around them, however, aren't.
And the physical characteristics can be altered to some extent.
>The labels assigned around them, however, aren't.
the labels are still based on the physical characteristics. ignoring them or even defying them would hurt the definition and confuse any attempt at use of the word in daily communication
>And the physical characteristics can be altered to some extent.
did Michael Jackson turn into a white man because he had vitiligo?
Insisting on calling a passing trans woman a "man" is what creates more unnecessary confusion actually.
how the frick is insistance on the truth confusing in any way?
>BUBUBUBUT YOU DONT KNOOOOW ITS A MAN!!!!
ok you wanna do a dna test then?
Luckily that's a situation that very few people will ever find themselves in since almost no trannies even remotely pass.
No, calling them something that isn't biologically accurate is what causes confusion especially among doctors regarding health diagnoses like what would be the point of pap smears and ovary cancer checks in someone who is not a biological female.
There are thing we know and there are things we don't know. We don't know and can't understand ultimate reality, we know and undertand reality through the scientific method, get your metaphysics right.
>when losing the argument, just pretend you don't understand the purpose of words anymore
You mean like you don't seem to know what conform means and you can't actually say what properties a person needs to conform to to conform to being a woman?
the entire leftist ideology, construcivism, is fundamentally based on subjectivism, because it won't work otherwise
it's why every system of socialism or communism fails spectacularly
Man professor dave is such a moron.
>well, what IS a woman?
idk, certainly not the janny of this board though
ACK!
trans women who actually pass as women are based tho
Post them
>male jawline
>long arms
>no hips, intentionally swayed to hide their narrowness
>hair over shoulders to hide their manly broadness
She's cute
Real trans-women have curves, bigot.
https://www.instagram.com/the_sphere_hunter/
yeah based in fantasy lmao
best "your mom" joke i've read in a long time
Are you talking about photographs aka drawings? You can draw whatever you want and call it whatever you want, but people live in reality.
To be fair, communication would be very difficult if everyone was only allowed to use words that he or she could clearly define. Anyone could tell whether a given animal is an elephant or not, but I bet you couldn't define "elephant" without looking it up.
>but I bet you couldn't define "elephant" without looking it up.
Anyone could describe an elephant.
Tell you what, why don't you describe a woman to me? If you can't define one, can you at least describe one?
An elephant woman or a regular one?
that's not true, everyone has some sort of definition for every word they use. now maybe they're not 100% accurate, which is fine, but they still operate with those definitions in mind
The ones using different definitions can never have a meeting of the minds or meaningful social cohesion when they disagree on basic meanings of things.
congratulations, you just figured out where miscommunications come from
The group whose definitions aren't as accurate a reflection of nature will lose the evolutionary war.
I wonder which side of the gender debate is more likely to die of stress or kill themselves in the despair of failure when trying to apply their subjective definitions to reality?
mate i don't think self castrating troons are winning any evolutionary wars to begin with
They reproduce by grooming other people's children
and we will evolve to resist their grooming
They have always adapted to groom another generation or they would have been extinct by now just like the common cold.
That's like saying we will educate men not to rape
Groups that exploit eunichs like troons have held considerable power in the past because it is much easier to manipulate someone who is only looking out for themselves than someone who has an entire family to consider.
But that's not what he was asking them to do. He wasn't giving them a pop quiz to rigidly define a women according to some specific source. He was asking them to give their definition of what a woman is with enough descriptors that you could differentiate what they say a woman is from any other thing. Of course they just gave non-answers, circular definitions or refused to continue the conversation. His point being that their goals require their opposition to work within a definitional framework, while they refuse to establish their own allowing them to move goalposts and points of argument as they please. They refuse to define the term because it gives them rhetorical leeway and an advantage in argumentation.
Is it wrong to frick a ladyboy? Most Thai ladyboys pass, let's face it.
If you were to try to start a natural biological family with a ladyboy, you would have to eventually come to the realization that you are doing it wrong or die a failure.
They can give birth out of there dicks in Thailand, it's a weird cultureal thing
I hate to say it, but they're right. Trans women are women. I agree with the transgender community.
But that's because we fundamentally disagree on the meaning of "trans women". A trans woman is easy to define, it's a woman who is trans. A trans woman is someone who was born a biological female, and then transitions to look like a man later in life. Trans women are women, they will always be women. It doesn't matter if they cut their breasts off, take T, put on a deep voice, or tell everyone that they're a man. They will always be women.
Not only can trannies not define what a woman is, or even describe one, they can't even use the proper terms to describe themselves.
rigtwingers are never going to win the left controls everything
norma mccorvey
>Greetings, humans. We came to this planet to get some Axunget. Please hand them over or we'll vaporize your cities.
>o-ok... what's an "axunget"?
>An axunget is a creature that identifies itself as an axunget.
>ok but what is that?
>I just told you. It identifies itself as an axunget.
>Sorry but we just don't get it. Could you point out some characteristics, anything?
>Well, you see, it's encompassed in the whole sphere of axungetness. It's an umbrella term for axunget.
>YEAH BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?????
>*sigh* this planet is full of xigots
a fricking VB
LONG NECK
kek
Something I fear