> It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct.

And the Democratic Party still wonders why they lost. I’m saying this as not an American. The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.

▲

mock-possum 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

No, the question is “is Pluto a planet” and the answer is complicated, but if you take the time to read up on how the scientific community reached consensus, then chances are you’ll end up better understanding the nuance - and why the answer is simply “No.”

Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB. Do you understand how we arrive at that answer though?

▲

cderg 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Define “woman?” It’s easy - it’s the traditional gender role for people AFAB.

This redefinition of "woman" comes from a fundamentally sexist and conservative perspective.

	▲	bccdee 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you actually knew any gender-non-conformant butch women, you'd know they are overwhelmingly trans allies.

▲

Izikiel43 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand now all the complaints from regular people about how the democrats and colleges are out of touch with reality, it’s like another universe or twilight zone.

▲

peterashford 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, I'm also not an American and I thought their answer was insightful and yours was dumb. We can all play this game.

Alternatively you could actual engage with the substance of the argument?

▲

Izikiel43 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

That anything can be whatever we want because everything is defined by society/culture?

It’s clear to me that these people lack real problems and are creating their own.

▲

peterashford 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you ask a biologist, you will find that categories like "woman" are not clearly defined. Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated. If you want to pretend that this stuff is all black and white, that's up to you but its not a scientifically literate perspective.

That's not the same as saying that "everything is defined by society/culture?" That's a strawman - no-one was claiming that.

▲

Izikiel43 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Even the concept of biological sex is really complicated.

In some insect, reptile or fish, like the clown fish, sure.

In mammals? It’s not. And to be more specific, in primates, it’s not.

	▲	peterashford a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, it really is. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-s...

▲

bccdee 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ironically, "trans women think they're women but I think they're wrong!!" is by far the least real problem being discussed here. Nobody's forcing you to have a nuanced discussion about gender. You asked how we define "woman"; this the answer.

	▲	Izikiel43 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn’t ask, just that it’s up for discussion is ridiculous to me, but well, some people don’t have enough issues in life it seems.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

thephyber 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

miltonlost 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

bccdee 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The question is what’s 2+2 and the answer being it’s a social construct.

Brother, you'll never guess what type of construct numbers are.

If American voters prefer simple, incorrect answers over complex truths, that's a problem with their education system, not with trans rights.

▲

account42 5 days ago | parent [-]

You're proving his point. Discussion of Peano axioms or however you want to construct natural numbers is irrelevant to the question what's two plus two, which has a straightforward answer to anyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse.

	▲	bccdee 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		A better point of comparison would not be a question like "what is 2+2," but "what is 4?" There's a superficial, circular answer ("What is 4? It's 2+2"), and there's a more complex and rigorous answer which doesn't look good on camera ("What is 4? Well, numbers are a social construct used to communicate and analyze etc etc, Peano arithmetic blah blah"). These questions also admit "straightforward" answers ("what's 4?" raises 4 fingers "this many") ("what's a woman?" points to a woman "one of those"), but these don't really answer the deeper question being asked. They gesture at a preexisting category and demand that it be recognized without actually explaining the nature of that category or its boundaries.