How far down the road are you willing to go?

no one is really arguing for that

No, my analogy, to date, is far-fetched, I admit. But men today are declaring they are women when there is no biological justification for the claim. As a result, women are being injured, both physically and emotionally. What justifies those injuries so a man, who could not compete and win with other men, can usurp roles and compete, and win, pretending to be a woman? Just as a man pretends to be an eagle, and kills another who pretends to be a puppy. Both need to stop pretending. As Oscar Wilde once said, "Be yourself. Everyone else is taken." I say we should fulfill our personal performance dreams, just as long as in doing so, we are not individually the cause of another's dreams ending. It's as simple as the freedom of speech.

The problem women have with men declaring they are women is men do a better job being a woman because they know what en like in women.

But men today are declaring they are women when there is no biological justification for the claim.

Even if gender and sex were the same thing (which they are not), this statement would still be wrong. Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.

Former Mrs. America, Jackie Blakenship has XY chromosomes and naturally developed as a woman. Is she a man in your eyes, or can nuance penetrate your argument?

As a result, women are being injured, both physically and emotionally.

Citation needed.

What justifies those injuries so a man, who could not compete and win with other men, can usurp roles and compete, and win, pretending to be a woman?

Transgender individuals make up 1.5% of the population (at the most) and less in sports - .002% of NCAA college athletes and .001% of Olympians.

Just as a man pretends to be an eagle, and kills another who pretends to be a puppy.

This is one of those thoughts that probably sounded great in your head.

How come most real women athletes don't have any boobs?

FLRW wrote:

How come most real women athletes don't have any boobs?

...and why are there so many boobs among male athletes?

Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.

I'm not sure how this makes fauxlaw's statement wrong. You believe biological sex exists, so someone can be a man or a woman. Someone who has male genitalia, XY chromosomes, and other physical characteristics typical of males could say they are the biological sex of female, but at that point we're just saying sex doesn't exist anymore.

For example, let's say I make the argument that I'm blind despite being fully able to see. Blindness is a spectrum, but that's irrelevant to the issue of whether me calling myself blind makes me blind.

And sure you might say that the individual with male genitalia, XY chromosomes, and other physical characteristics typical of males has a gender that doesn't match her sex, but at that point why appeal to sex being a spectrum at all? It's all irrelevant, right?

Me know what men like in women. Boobs is one of them.

Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.

I get it. However, the numbert of pretenders far, far outrnumber true biological intresex indivduals, who, according to the library of Medicine, affects 0.00000007% of the world populatiion. At least Jsckie Blakenship is not confused. To answer your question, no, I don't think she looks like a man, she says she did not grow up as a man, and considers herself a woman who is infertile. Pretenders make this an issue, when, worldwide, for 99.99999993% of us, sex is abnsolute binary, biologically, with tens of thousands who, by choice, confuse the matter. Doesn't make it so, regardless of hormone treatment and surgery.

This is one of those thoughts that probably sounded great in your head.

Merely an effort to climb in to my head, but, try as you might, it doesn't work that way. Nice try, but, fail.

Biological sex isnt an absolute binary.

I'm not sure how this makes fauxlaw's statement wrong.

Expecting "biological justification" when sex (much less gender) isnt built exclusively on chromosomes or genitalia is oversimplification to the point of being wrong.

At least Jsckie Blakenship is not confused. To answer your question, no, I don't think she looks like a man, she says she did not grow up as a man, and considers herself a woman who is infertile.

To clarify, you acknowledge she is a woman in spite of her biology? How do you define "woman"?

Expecting "biological justification" when sex (much less gender) isnt built exclusively on chromosomes or genitalia is oversimplification to the point of being wrong.

Setting aside the point about gender for a moment (which I don't disagree with, but it's a separate point), even if sex isn't based exclusively on chromosomes or genitalia, that doesn't mean there can't be a biological justification for it. Sex is based on biological attributes, even if there's not a specific agreed upon cutoff. If a cis woman is infertile and doesn't have XX chromosomes, she can still point to other biological attributes.

A common argument is that you can't strictly define a chair in a way that excludes all non chairs (I'm not sure it's impossible, but it's difficult, sure). But even then, if you have a chair, you could still point to attributes it has that make it a chair.

If a cis woman is infertile and doesn't have XX chromosomes, she can still point to other biological attributes.

I agree biological sex is generally determined by biological attributes. My point is that biological attributes aren't always unambiguous, or, in the case of Blakenship, they can be contradictory. "Biological justification" would necessitate ignoring part of her biology thereby nullifying the whole justification as an arbitrary pretense. If and when biological justification is possible, great - but let us not pretend it is the end-all be-all of sex and (especially) gender determination.

Yes I agree, but I don't think that is responsive to fauxlaw's point. If someone is attributing their species or sex to how they dress, that's not how sex and species are really defined. You can say the biological attributes are ambiguous, but that's not really the point if someone is attributing sex to something totally separate from biological attributes altogether. Let's say someone's guilt or innocence is ambiguous, and someone says "they are innocent because their zodiac sign is Leo and Leos don't kill their cubs." You could acknowledge that their guilt or innocence is ambiguous while also acknowledging that their zodiac sign is totally irrelevant.

If someone is attributing their species or sex to how they dress, that's not how sex and species are really defined.

I dont think anyone is arguing this point. I am arguing sex and gender are far more complex than Fauxlaw is making them out to be, and his inability to keep up with, and/or indifference to, the cutting edge of our best understanding isnt an argument against it.

Me know what men like in women. Boobs is one of them.

How you doin?

FLRW wrote:

Me know what men like in women. Boobs is one of them.

How you doin?

Friends - How you doin' ( Joey ) - YouTube

To clarify, you acknowledge she is a woman in spite of her biology? How do you define "woman"?

"Jackie has a condition called complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). She described it as having 'XY chromosomes, which you typically see in males, but I developed externally female because my body can't respond to testosterone.'"  https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/health/know-my-intersex-story-west-mi-tv-radio-personality-jackie-blankenship-opens-up-hormone-condition/69-400b33dc-3798-4e65-b932-5a88a3da53a2

This is quoted from an article about Jackie I found online, and cited above. AIS is one of about 40 separate conditins that define "intersex," each a different varaible that occrs who knows why. To define a "woman" such as Jackie gets into the weeds of biologf, and Ill be the first to admit it. A woman, a person who expresses as XX, the normal femal 23rd chromosome experessed by greater than 99.99% of gumman females is an adult female. Jackie, trhough, had intrernal testes, located abdominally [they never dropped] which were removed when she was a late teen.

To define a "woman" such as Jackie gets into the weeds of biologf, and Ill be the first to admit it.

What are you admitting? Jackie is a woman or not? ...what is your "biological justification" for that admission?

I submit Jackie identifies as a woman, and that is enough to define her as a woman. The fact of the matter is that gender is more complicated than sexual determination which is more complicated than you admit or understand.

Egg producer, sperm producer...Definition is easy.

Whereas overthink revels in over-complication...Evolution indeed.

And just for the record...Occasionally developmental anomalies may occur, but they are rare and a separate issue altogether.

Egg producer, sperm producer...Definition is easy.

This definition is inadequate. It does not account for impotence, intersex, or age.

Whereas overthink revels in over-complication...Evolution indeed.

...and the corollary: underthink revels in oversimplification.

Nuance is the happy middle-ground.

Hi Skeptic 1.

Well I did account for anomalies.

And in terms of a binary species we rely upon gamete fusion and therefore binary gamete producers...Which basically in terms of primates and mammals and lots of other species (and not just animalia) means male and female.

Though I also acknowledged the human propensity for overthink and therefore an ongoing desire to redefine the lexicon in accordance with socio-psychologically inspired necessity...So both gender and binary take on a new guise these days.

And hey, if Fred want's to cut off his dick and Call himself Fifi, then it's of no concern to me...Other than as a observational and compositional exercise.

But why would they need to change their name?...Is it going to make much difference to who does what to whom during a few brief moments of procreationally inspired exuberance.

Dysphoria for sure, is a human thing.

I think that may be, by far, the most words I have ever seen on one of your posts. I am glad I could be involved - Cheers!

That’s the most involved he has ever been.

Yes, I used to look just like him!

Why did he pick Trump and not Obama?

While Joey never voted for or endorsed Trump, Donald Trump is jokingly referenced in connection to Joey and the rest of the gang in a couple of memorable moments: