top 100 commentsshow all 174

[–]MarkTwainiac 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If women can be male

This is a faulty premise. Women can't be male. Ever. A woman is an adult human female.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I think I’ve finally got it!!!

“Woman: someone belonging to the set definition (a term masks seems to have made up) of the following group of people:

A “natal” woman: an adult human female that is not transgender


An adult human male who is transgender

or an intersex person who identifies as a trans woman.

Because of how society functions and is structured. “

Which in a way, works. Because males get to dictate how society functions and is structured. Still doesn’t make sense, like- at all; but I’m a female so I guess I just have to accept what the males say.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Obligatory not QT, but trans. So, woman meaning something relies on woman being primarily defined by being an adult human female. People understand being a transwoman because they already accept this definition of woman. If you completely take away any basis on sex, it doesn’t make sense anymore. It seems really counterproductive for trans people to want to get rid of that, even on the basis of pure self interest, because if you actually succeeded it would undermine what you wanted (to be considered a woman/man). You could make about sex stereotypes I guess, but even then you have to already understand who those stereotypes are about. I feel like maybe it’s not serious and more like them just wanting to say something to insist they should be included in the sex category (which I don’t quite understand tbh).

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, the answer as summarized from all the comments from team QT to the question "wtf is a woman then" is that they can not admit the definition of woman as a word and treat it like it was a label for a set the way sets of discrete numbers are labeled in math where one of the members of the set is the still undefined, by team QT, "woman".

Woman is probably too hard of a term to ask them to define. Waifu was probably a better ask.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (141 children)

Female describes the female sex. You just used it that way.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (57 children)

What are female humans called? Since male and female describes beings other than humans? You know how a female horse is a mare, a doe is a female deer, a female lion is a lioness...

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (53 children)

Female humans.

Since some female humans aren’t women and some women aren’t female humans.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (52 children)

So then what’s the point of even having the words man, woman, girl, and boy? Everyone would just be male or female humans and trans women would still be separated from females because they are male- we wouldn’t even really need the term trans wo/man. I’m not trying to be nasty I just don’t get what the point would be? There’s no use for the word “woman” if we are referring to people by their sex and species for clarity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (51 children)

It’s relevant and needed for treatment in our society. Society needs a way to address for instance mysogyny targeted at natal women and (some) trans women but not by (some) trans men.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (50 children)

So we need a word to group a random cluster of people of both sexes who may possibly be a victim of “misogyny” from a different random cluster of people of both sexes? Because females can be misogynistic as well.

You also said that transmen aren’t women, so you’re now kind of saying that we need a word to describe misogyny- which is hatred towards women (girls can experience misogyny as well), but you’re including people you consider men as victims of misogyny? But males can also be boxed in or somewhat victimized by the ideals held by misogynists, so we kind of still wouldn’t need a word to lump TW, women, girls, and TM together- because all of those types of people can be victims of misogyny (according to you)- but so can people who don’t fall into that category. And all of those people can be misogynistic themselves.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (49 children)

Mysogyny was just one example. The point is woman (or at least some. A theory including natal women and trans women plus some intersex people) is a necessary category based on how our society functions and is structured.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

And you don’t think it’s necessary for adult female humans to be defined separately from any other type of human based on how society functions and is structured?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (35 children)

Sure. There are some things where trans men and natal women should be grouped, but those areas are more narrow than how they need to be separated.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

And I’d say there’s infinite reasons that female adult humans need to be separated from all males. The reasons to combine TW and women are more narrow that the reasons to keep us separated.

[–]emptiedriver 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

and WHY is it structured or does it function that way. What differences were there between groups that led to one set holding power over the other, who were at risk of being "barefoot and pregnant"...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Cis men were physically stronger than natal women early in society and were able to over time erect structures to put men into positions of social power once more complex societies in evolved. Cis men hate women, that’s the reason for gendered society.

[–]emptiedriver 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

it's not "cis men". It's males and females. Females have female reproductive systems that can get pregnant, males have male reproductive systems that produce semen and testosterone, become more muscular, can overpower women and in the most stripped down sense, can rape and impregnate them.

Women are more vulnerable due to being the ones who produce babies, so the reproductive differences are key to distinguishing the sexes. There is no meaning to "woman" that is not based on sex, that's the point.

[–]fuckupaddams 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Women, obviously

[–]catoborosnonbinary 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is 99.5% correct. Trans people are that tail that should not wag the dog.

[–]fuckupaddams 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]SnowAssMan[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (82 children)

'Female sex' as an ad hoc term I'm using for the practical purposes of this question. It's by no means familiar, or in widespread use. Are you saying it ought to be? What happened to "cisgendered"?Additionally, it's not particularly versatile.

Is there an answer to the first question? Because if not then 'woman' can just continue being used to refer to the female sex, like it has been ever since the word was invented. At least that way it'll have a meaning, instead of having no meaning.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (81 children)

Cisgender means not trans.

So cis woman doesn’t cover female humans because trans men are female but not cis women.

Women constitutes trans women and (natal/cis) women.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (80 children)

What is a woman though?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (79 children)

A (non-trans) woman, trans woman, or intersex person who identifies as a woman.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

If I were to ask you what a marsupial was, would you just list a bunch of marsupials & pretend you answered the question, or would you just answer the question?

If men can be male or female & women can be male or female, then there is no reason to even use either label. It also means there is no reason to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men. Ironically advocating that trans-womxyn are women just ends up making them men again, because the sexes still exist.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (45 children)

If I were to ask you what a marsupial was, would you just list a bunch of marsupials & pretend you answered the question, or would you just answer the question?

No, but not all definitions need to be set based.

If men can be male or female & women can be male or female, then there is no reason to even use either label. It also means there is no reason to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men. Ironically advocating that trans-womxyn are women just ends up making them men again, because the sexes still exist.

Literally none of that logically follows.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

but not all definitions need to be set based

What definition? Where?

'Woman' is meaningless if it has no definition, meaning that any sentiment that includes the word is also meaningless. If the argument is: 'trans-womxyn are not men, but women', but neither 'man' nor 'woman' has a definition, then it's as if nothing was said at all & we are just left with the sexes again; we're left with distinguishing between the sexes & grouping people based on sex.

Saying "trans-womxyn are women" is just as accurate/inaccurate as saying that they are men. What's the difference between men & women? Why on earth should anyone distinguish between them?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (43 children)

A set based definition is still a definition. You are welcome to disagree but neither of us is going to move.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

What is a “set based” definition? I googled it and nothing came up.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

That’s not an answer to the question you were asked. If you say a woman is a ___ woman, nobody knows what a woman is to begin with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

You’ve made clear that you don’t approve of my use of set based definitions. The horse is dead.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

It’s not about approving or disapproving- it’s just an unavoidable truth that you can’t define a word with itself. I don’t know why you take it to what I personally approve of, it’s just fact that your “definition” doesn’t define anything. It’s unclear. It’s not an opinion. You’re literally saying “woman: one of various types of a woman”. That tells us nothing.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

It is a set based definition. If you separately define (natal) woman, trans woman, and intersex person, it isn’t self referential. You are stuck on the idea that woman = natal woman and not properly looking at the definition. But we are never going to agree on semantics.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

So then we still need a clear separate definition of “natal” women, and it would have to be something that a male can fit into, right?

You can’t say a woman is an adult female human, and then say that a TW is a woman who (we’d need your definition to go here so I can’t even offer anything)- because the word female is not defined by identity or appearance. It’s defined by reproductive class and typical function.

So what’s a natal woman, and how do we then take that definition and tie it together to make a category that includes both natal and trans women, while excluding trans men?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

so you're using the term to define the term and you're using cirular logic, and your'e doing it all to avoid the well established definition for woman: Adult human female. The term as defined there works fine.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

No it’s not using the term to define the term because the term refers to the male or intersex person, is identity component itself also wouldn’t be self referential even if it was the object because x is anything who thinks itself c wouldn’t be circular because the focus of definition on the thing and presence of belief not what x is within that belief.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

you are actually using the term in the definition, so yeah you are using the term to define itself. It's a shame you pretend that isn't obvious. You literally use the term "woman" in your fake definition of woman that that erases women. "Woman" is not an identity, it is one of the two sexes of humans. What is an identity? Can you answer that?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That definition isn’t self referential. Women isn’t the same as “ natal women” nor “ identifies as a woman.

For instance one might posit a definition that a geek is anyone who considers themself a geek. That isn’t self referential because the object of the definition is “anyone” not “geek” and geek isn’t the same as “considers themselves a geek”.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you still aren't defining woman, and you certainly aren't giving any reason for anyone to use a definition you might provide if you could provide one that does not fail due to circular logic.

Even in your own example of "geek", you don't actually define it. In both cases you are pretending there is a word that serves as a label but you can't even pin down WHAT that label describes, because you want to deny the existence of WOMEN: adult human females.

Application of the words women or woman do not require anyone to "identify as" anything because it describes a physical and objectively-observable reality. You want the word to mean nothing, and you deny the physical objectively-observable reality the word describes.

Even your phrase "identify as" means nothing other than "am lying that I am or am being overly verbose and confusing for no reason about my being": "I 'identify as an attack-helicopter' (a favorite among Trans activists for some reason) = "I am lying that I am or am being overly verbose and confusing for no reason about my being an attack-helicopter".

A "woman" can not mean anyone who Identifies as a woman because that would make a self-described "transwoman" into something they are not when they are men pretending to be women. Even if they live the lie as fully as possible, it only ends up being a self-delusion the the only solution appears to be to accept actual reality or crash the world in a mass-delusion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (26 children)

Sex spectra coordinates, in the same way that colors can be described by coordinates and not names

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

So if I lose my boobs to cancer I’m less woman? More male? Extremely offensive.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

No, the terms Male and female aren’t a part of the model. It would be more/less virilized/feminized

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

But either way, in this scenario you’d call me less of a woman. Humans develop to produce one of two possible gametes. Male or female. The spectrum is unnecessary, and overly complicated a very simple system for no purpose other than appeasing some hurt feelings.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

I can’t call you a woman at all, if the category doesn’t exist.

Humans don’t develop to produce gametes as that implies an intent that is absent in nature. Humans simply develop and some but not all develop gametes.

The spectrum exists because the Binary model breaks down in some cases and thus doesn’t accurately reflect reality

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Nah, I’m a woman. I expect to be called such. So humans, unlike every other species that reproduces, don’t have discrete sex groups? What is the third gamete? Do humans reproduce via sperm meeting egg or not?

Bearded women are still females, men with tits are still males. They don’t develop the potential to produce another gamete. You are straight up wrong about sex. You never respond to half of what’s asked you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Nope because again sex isn’t based on gametes or else people who can’t produce gametes don’t have a sex. In every species sex is a spectrum. Also even you would admit not every species that reproduces has discrete sex groups.

Nope male and female don’t objectively exist. Also that’s because half the stuff you say is stuff I’ve already answered but you refuse to accept.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Mkay. Stay wrong.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I honestly can’t believe what I just read (the whole thread).

Just... wow.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I weep for the state of people’s education.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Bless your heart

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Nope because again sex isn’t based on gametes or else people who can’t produce gametes don’t have a sex. In every species sex is a spectrum. Also even you would admit not every species that reproduces has discrete sex groups.

Nope male and female don’t objectively exist. Also that’s because half the stuff you say is stuff I’ve already answered but you refuse to accept.

What is this tosh? Sex isn't "a spectrum in every species" as you state. No one is saying that discrete sex occurs in every known species that reproduces. We're saying it exists in species that reproduce sexually.

Nor is anyone saying that "people who can't produce gametes don't have a sex." Prior to puberty, neither male or female humans can produce or mature and release viable gametes. After menopause, female humans don't have viable gametes. Males with infertility or who've lost their testes can't produce viable gametes. None of this changes our sex - which is defined as developing in utero to have the capacity at some point in time to produce either ova or sperm.

You say

male and female don’t objectively exist.

Wonder what your mum and dad and grandparents would say about this.

Hundreds of millions of women now on earth who've been pregnant, had abortions and miscarriages, carried pregnancies to term given birth, breastfed no longer have viable gametes. Yet by your definition we/they are not women.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You don’t know about plant speggs? Or echidna oovatazoa? So many more options than male and female hahahaha

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, not women

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Males and females are very good groups to separate, because males and females have different between groups but same withing their group a lot of things: skeletal structure, reproduction system, bone structure and density, lungs size (with same weigth and height), heart size, metabolism, oxigenization, reaction to pills, reaction to diseases, unique diseases affecting only one of sexes, muscle structure, ability to produce or sustain one kind of gametrs somewhere in life, ability to gave birth, and so on. All those things are very distinctly and strongly different between male and female groups, and at same time similar between all males and simikar between all females. And if we add social aspect - then added social ezperience is very different, like 200 millions of girls are killed in first few days or aborted in many parts of the world, as parents want boy, while transwomen are boys in womb - so not experjencing this. 98-100% of rapists are males, 85% of rape victims are females. And so on. In medicine, society, statistics and safeguarding it is very important to have this two very distinctly different groups. And it have no sense to grouop differently, as different kind of groups would not have so much in common within group and so much different between groups.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sexism plain and simple

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, SEXism.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

people who can’t produce gametes

Which people are these?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Just what it says. People who are sterile

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"sterile" meaning what exactly? Normally a man can be pronounced infertile even though he produces gametes. It's just that his sperm is "low quality". Are there men who don't produce gametes?

[–]SilverSlippers 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Humans don’t develop to produce gametes as that implies an intent that is absent in nature.

Actually in a purely biological/evolutionary sense we do exist to produce gametes. The sole evolutionary purpose of any feature is to increase the changes of successful reproduction. Making babies the the only intent in nature.

The 'binary model breaking down' is actually variety of mechanisms that cause embryos to fail to develop properly, not new sexes or in-between sexes or whatever you think exists. People with intersex conditions are 100% worthy human beings who deserve all the same rights as anyone else. However, from a biological perspective, they are evolutionary dead ends.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I’ll have to call up all the philosophers and tell them we’ve found objective meaning in the universe and it’s to produce gametes! /s

[–]SilverSlippers 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wasn't talking about 'meaning in the universe' or any of that philosophical nonsense. I was talking about the point of life from a biological perspective; which is evolution. Our bodies, our brains, everything about us and every other organism on this planet evolved to be good a making copies of themselves. The universe is meaningless, just following the laws of physics. Living things are the only matter in the universe that have any sense of purpose - which is to copy themselves.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, all living things have as their paramount purpose the perpetuation and preservation of their own species. Evolutionary theorists clarified the mechanisms and reasons for this, but the fact that it's a basic drive/instinct has been articulated since humans started composing oral and written narratives. From tribal genealogies going back centuries to the Biblical dictate to "go forth and multiply."

And the aim of sexual reproduction isn't just for organisms to "make copies of themselves," it's to exchange genetic material with another being of the same species but somewhat different DNA so that the offspring and ensuing generation(s) might have slight genetic alterations that improve the chance of individuals and the entire species surviving.

[–]SilverSlippers 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. This is a better way of putting what I was trying to get at.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, sex characteristics are different to gender identity. Likewise, most castrated males are men. A small number are trans, including some trans women, some nonbinary people, and eunuchs.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Eh, according to the poster, it means less female. Gender didn’t even come into it.

[–]catoborosnonbinary 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Female" and "Male" seem to be quite accurate terminology when used to describe sex. The problem is the creeping use of these terms to refer to gender.