Anonymous #3 13w

Your definition of “woman” doesn’t seem very useful if it allows for exceptions.

7

Anonymous #2 13w

a woman is someone born with (xx) chromosomes. a person who menstruates, and has the anatomy to give birth. i’m not sure what else you’re looking for?

-3

Anonymous #3 13w

Your last sentence is what causes me to reject your definition.

8

Anonymous #3 13w

like anyone born biologically a man can never turn into a woman and do all those things…

-4

Anonymous #2 13w

what’s your definition?

-2

Anonymous #3 13w

I get that you’re running a biological essentialist definition for “women”, but your definition seems unable to include all women and exclude all non-women if it allows for the exceptions that you mention.

10

Anonymous #3 13w

I believe that “woman” is a socially constructed role, as opposed to a biologically innate role. I can spell my precise definition out in more detail if you’d like, but I’m sure that you’ve heard something similar before.

9

Anonymous #2 13w

exactly that’s your “belief” of what a woman is. but an actual fact/ definition is different than a belief

-4

Anonymous #3 13w

I agree with you on the distinction between beliefs and facts. I’ve provided a reason for why I don’t think your definition is not factually true (it does not effectively include/exclude along what it is attempting to define), and I’d like to hear your response to my objection. BUT, you’re also more than welcome to attack the definition that I provided, if you don’t believe that it is factually true.

8

Anonymous #2 13w

*why I think your definition is not factually true

5

Anonymous #2 13w

can you explain more about how my definition does not include or exclude what it is attempting to define?

0

Anonymous #3 13w

A good definition should include all things that it is trying to define and exclude everything else. If I define swans as “white waterfowl”, but then I realize white egrets and black swans also exist, then my definition for what a swan is isn’t good. In your original comment, you defined a woman as “a person who has (xx) chromosomes”. However, in the last sentence of your original comment, you say “in extremely rare cases you can be born with both and then chose to live which one you want”,

7

Anonymous #2 13w

which seems to indicate that your definition for what a woman is breaks in a similar way that my swan example definition breaks.

6

Anonymous #3 13w

Great, so you’re saying that men born with XX Male Syndrome (de la Chapelle Syndrome) are women. That’s a contradiction. the Karyotype is 46,XX (no Y chromosome), but with SRY gene present. Meaning they have male genitalia, but a set of XX chromosomes.

8

Anonymous OP 13w

EXACTLY

7

Anonymous #3 13w

Maybe you’re talking about Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) in XX Individuals which causes men to have XX chromosomes. These people typically have a uterus but masculinized genitalia.

9

Anonymous #2 13w

i’m talking about the everyday non medically diagnosed problems. you guys are digging way too deep into this. male or female you can not change how you are born no matter how hard you try

-4

Anonymous #3 13w

If I say “all swans are white waterfowl”, and then go on to observe a million white swans and only one black swan, is my claim still true?

8

Anonymous #3 13w

Your definition of woman needs to be applicable to everyone. Terms like this are prescriptive not descriptive. You can’t pretend people just don’t exist when it isn’t convenient. If someone is born with XX chromosomes but exhibits male genitalia, grows facial hair, and has higher levels of testosterone, are they a man or woman?

8

Anonymous OP 13w

Sorry descriptive, not prescriptive. Misspoke

7

Anonymous #3 13w

If a rule has so many exceptions, it shouldn’t be a rule.

7