Pliticklee loaded
What oh what is a woman? It’s such a deep question. Philosophers (the male ones) have been puzzling over it for years, possibly as many as ten. Is it someone who talks in a high squeaky voice? Is it someone you [presumed guy] want to fuck? Is it someone who smells like fish?
It’s almost as difficult as who is a baseball.
Functionally? Men don’t function as women and it can’t be made otherwise. The trans cult’s entire collection of arguments rest on the denial of this basic fact.
The fundamental error, that I see repeatedly, is to begin with the view that woman is something any person can *do* or *look like* or even *be perceived as* but those concepts will never describe what a female human *is*. As though it’s something like citizenship, that you could study for, move somewhere, pass a test and get a certificate. As if, if someone went and womanned enough, eventually they’d qualify.
They’ve failed to grasp that it’s a word that describes a natural phenomenon, not a learned behaviour or cultural idea.
Well said, Arcadia. They are narcissistic post-modernists, who have spent their entire lives entirely divorced from nature and who believe that everything – not just constructs such as citizenship, politics, law, religion and the like – is a product of human imagination. They believe that with a little bit of language-tweaking they can bring about a utopia where they can have everything they want just by wishing hard enough, and everyone else is a mere drone who thinks exactly the same way they do and lets them have whatever they want, whenever they want it.
Once again, using the same word to mean different things (i.e. the use homonyms) is not in itself a problem. Words don’t mean anything in themselves but get their meanings from us. If someone wants to use the word “fish” to refer to what the rest of us call “bird”, they are free to do so. But then it is either disingenuous, or stupid, or both, to go on talking and acting as if everyone else were using these words the same way, pretend we’re still all talking about the same things, and demand to have it both ways (e.g. insisting that “birds” can still fly). Unfortunately the TRA redefinition of “woman” is very much of this latter kind. If the word “woman” is henceforth going to apply to people like Wu, there is no longer any justification for saying that it applies to biological females. It trans women are women, they are the only “women”. If trans men are men, then I’m not.
But as I keep saying the whole justification for “including” trans “women” in the same toilets / showers / locker rooms / hospital wards/ / domestic abuse and rape shelters / crime statistics / sporting events / jobs / lists of inspiring “women” etc. as the biological females in the first place was that both groups are the same in something more than name only. It’s rather like redefining “fish” to mean “bird” while continuing to include haddocks and halibuts among the “fish”. It’s bad puns all the way down.
It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of biology. Men cannot become women. It’s simply not within the realm of possibilities. Calling it a belief undermines the reality. Maybe it’s a justified true belief based in fact, but the reality doesn’t change no matter what we believe about it. Rabbits multiply without having any concept of male, female, gender roles, or “performativity.” They just multiply because their biological makeup compels them to. This doesn’t mean that we humans can be reduced to biological functions, but to ignore the reality of the basic things studied in the natural sciences is as ignorant as it gets.
What gets me is that some of these so called “scientists” and “philosophers” are intentionally ignorant, and not worthy of their phony titles and labels.