I'm trying to get past all these tedious arguments about the definition of 'woman' and what makes someone 'really' a woman. People can have their own positions on this. What is important is letting them do so.
Really?! The radfems say a woman is an adult female human and base this on reproductive systems. The social conservatives are very similar. The trans activists say woman is a self-identification,
-
-
The radfems say the trans activists are delusional because they think someone with a penis can be a woman and the trans activists say the radfems are misogynistic because they don't accept trans women. Neither of them recognise each other's definitions.
-
They don't find it tedious. They go on and one for ever about it. Many of the rest of us find it tedious and wish they'd shut up. Meanwhile science finds a number of differences differentiate the sexes and that trans people often have ones more like the other sex to their gonads
-
1/ In the meantime I was in a plane - not the best place to tweet :) what you say is exactly why I do not think science will be of great help (although it will certainly bring interesting findings). We will learn for sure, but there is also the whole lot of what we know.
-
2/ and this includes that fact: trans people have plenty of fundamental characteristics of their «genital» sex. Hence they will never be fully their perceived sex. Even though we find that they also share some of its characteristics. They are ... trans. Somewhere in between.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I did not express my point correctly. I never found a trans activist that could provide me with a coherent definition of what «being a woman» means.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.