05-03-2023, 07:20 PM
(05-03-2023, 03:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're saying anyone is female just because they say they are.
You're not thinking about all the different hormones, chemical levels, dealing with things like periods, most women being able to bear children and whatever else that is unique to women by just saying anyone can be one.
And it's a disservice because all of the things I listed above are struggles that women go through and have to deal with and saying "oh, well anyone can do all that."
False.
The objective reality of what a woman is can't change. The people who enslaved blacks had a subjective reality, which you're actually proving my point because, just because someone sees something in a certain way, i.e. that they're really a woman when they're actually a man, doesn't change the reality that they're actually a man.
The terms male-female and man-woman fall under very different categories. You seem to be struggling with differentiating between the two. When you speak of chemical levels, the menstrual cycle and childbearing capacity, you're referring to the biological classification; what it means to be female. That biological classification does not automatically translate to gender, which is an identity classification that only the individual can determine; man or woman.
As a very simplistic example, suppose a biological male encapsulates every outwardly normative notion you have of a woman; by what standard would you refute their assertion of womanhood that isn't completely subjective and arbitrary?
I'm simply curious as what objective standard you think you're applying to determine who meets the criteria to be deemed a man or women.
