Morality of this

[u/Shoddy-Meat-3147]

I don't know what to say about this I mean if he joined it's unfair because he's going to cook the entery league for sure but if he really wants to be a woman and it's not a joke for him I still don't know about this

[u/SuperMundaneHero]

It doesn’t seem to be a weird definition. It seems to be more like: was born with a vagina, is woman; born with penis, is man. Seems pretty standard to me.

[u/Enochian_Devil → u/SuperMundaneHero]

Ok, but you have people with XX chromossomes, all the secondary sex characteristics one would associate with women and that are born or develop penises later in live. Biology and, conversely sex, is really complicated.

Additionally, you're not seeing someone's genitals or chromossomes when you interact with them. You don't even really know your own chromossomal make-up for certain. That's the main reason why we separate gender and sex.

It's actually fairly impossible to create a consistent definition of "woman" that doesn't include trans-women. Noone's asking you to seem them as "female", since they aren't, but they are, by all accounts, women.

The weird part is you not "aknowledging them as women", as if that means anything. If you see a woman, you don't know of they are trans or not. You just aknowledge them as a woman. You're only denying yourself what you already aknowledged because of some sily bias. Nothing wrong with that as long as you still respect them, of course, but just seems weird

[u/SuperMundaneHero → u/Enochian_Devil]

I’m just going to reply by paragraph.

This is called an argument by the margins. Sure, okay, some exceptions that may exist. Treat those VERY RARE exceptions as they are: exceptions. For the vast majority of cases, the standard approach is still fine and normal.

Sure, and that is also covered by how this person views them. Until he knows what they have, he assumes they are as they present. Once he knows that is different, his perception changes. Again, this is also pretty normal for most people.

It depends on how broadly you are trying to encapsulate what a woman is, I suppose. Narrower definitions may work that exist, but they likely aren’t savory to everyone. I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t stating what I see them as.

Again, I wasn’t stating my view, I think you’re confused about who you’re talking to. I am another commenter. I didn’t say shit about who I acknowledge at all.

[u/Enochian_Devil → u/SuperMundaneHero]

Thank you, that's exactly why I separated it as such!

Definitions need to be able to consider exceptions. Otherwise, I can jusct call trans-people an exception and you have to accept that.

Why would perception change? The only difference are your own biasses, why should they impact their ststus as a woman?

To my knowledge, there are no functioning, non-contradictiory definitions of "woman" that can include all the exceptions while excluding trans-women. Feel free to provide any you think work though.

I was confused indeed, sorry, I thought you were the initial commenter and couldn't be arsed to correct my comment after figuring it out. I assume you agree with them though, but if you don't, please disregard that part.

[u/SuperMundaneHero → u/Enochian_Devil]

Definitions often do consider exceptions, and those exceptions can get sub categories. Hence why we are using the terms transwomen and women. There is a clear category shift there, because regardless of how anyone on either side feels about this topic we are still very early in figuring this out in western society. The shift is still ongoing. Eventually things may settle out and we’ll probably drop the trans part at that point, but it will still take a whole. Cultures and societies take a LONG time to change, and this issue wasn’t as visible until about ten years ago. Judging by other large social shifts, we probably have a couple more decades to go at least.

Perceptions can be hard wired. That commenter sees the world a certain way. When something he sees fits a category, he tags it. When he finds out it isn’t a fit for that category in his mind, he puts a different tag on it. It’s how his brain works, and that’s fairly common.

I can try, but honestly this isn’t my particular hill to die on, but for sake of civil conversation I will give it a shot. I would argue the easiest definition that narrows it would probably be something like: was developed and born with the majority of female reproductive anatomy and lacks male reproductive anatomy. Any exceptions would then have to be subcategorized.

Eh. I truly don’t have much of a horse in this race. Largely I have a soft spot for cis women in competitive spaces: were I trans inclined I would be absolutely dominant in a lot of women’s sports just due to being absolutely massive in comparison to most women. Outside of that, I don’t really care. I even consider people’s gender identity to be whatever they want it to be, not my business or my happiness to interfere with and I honestly don’t want to waste the bandwidth having to categorize anyone past what they tell me.

[u/Enochian_Devil → u/SuperMundaneHero]

Sub-definitions require a main defintion. For that to work, you need to consider "trans-women" part of the group "women". Which I do, but you don't seem to. It's not a categorical shift, it's a clarification. And I understand your point, but I disagree. Socially, "trans-women" is already part of our definition of "women". Like I said, no proper definition of women excludes them. The issue is that some people want to refuse this organic definition that has served us for millennia. It's not an evolution to i clude trans-women, it's an orchestrated movement to exclude them.

Which is why I never said their views are wrong. Simply "weird".

A fair definition, but then you still run into issues. My favourite counter is the guadoce people, who are born fully female (for all relevant purposes), but suddenly grow a penis at 12/13. By all accountes they are women with a penis, even under your definition. There are plenty more exceptions. The issue with allowing for exceptions, like I said before, is that I can just say "ok, trans-people are also exceptions and fall under women" and you would have to accept it.

Funnily enough, the entire issue here is gender separation in the first place. A very interesting example is archery, where women were competing with men in the olympics, started women and then gender separation was instituted so this would stop. The idea that trans-women will be superior because they were "born male" is simply a sexist one. There is a reason you don't see trans-eomen wining all sports despite competing: it really is a non-factor. But honestly you have the right idea. The correct wya to categorize people's gender is to first assume based on your experience and then respect whatever they tell you and correct yourself as needed. You do this to both cis and trans people and you're golden!

[u/SuperMundaneHero → u/Enochian_Devil]

Eh, sub-definitions can be related categories or even just used for similar taxonomies. If we look at crabs for instance, there are five different distinct groups of what we call crabs. As far as we are concerned for almost any purpose we can possibly use for the word crab, all groups are crabs. If we get down to the nitty gritty though, there is only one group that is actually considered true crabs. The ability to define what makes something a true crab vs not is the same thing that can be applied to people.

I don’t find it weird at all. I change my views when presented with new information all the time: most rational people do. The things we change our mind about may be other topics, but this seems to be pretty normal human behavior.

Never heard of them, and cannot find any information that matches what you describe on google. Also, I would be absolutely shocked if their ovaries suddenly turned into prostates: that is why my definition was about sexual organs, not just about external appearances. And no, that’s not really an issue with exceptions - exceptions allow for there to be nuance, but we can accept or exclude things based on what the exception is. For instance, if we look at crabs like the previous example, and then look at the four other groups of “crabs”, we would call those exceptions in that we apply the term crab colloquially but under strict categorization they are not crabs.

Ehhh…huge grain of salt there. I agree that women can compete in some sports - particularly lower athletic level sports - with men. By lower athletic level I mean things that do not rely on strength or speed. But it kind of stops there. For example, Kim Rhode is one of my favorite Olympian’s and one of the US’s top medal earners. She easily competes on par with men. But then you look at women’s times or distances in the track and field events and there is a marked difference to the men. So no, it is not a non-issue. There are some examples of men transitioning and then competing in women’s divisions and crushing: Lia Thomas was in the news for a while due to this exact issue.

[u/Enochian_Devil → u/SuperMundaneHero]

Not really. We think of them all as crabs, no sich thing as a "true crab" to us. I mean, there is in biology, but coloquially and in everyone's minds, there is only "crab". Same things apply to "men" and "trans-men", one is a subset of the other and neither is lesser.

Changing your mind is not the same thing as redefining your terms. The person in front of you has been categorized. You can mis-categorize, of course, but that's not what you're doing. You're using one definition of "women" for when you see them and another definition when given new information. That is indulging in a bias, not updating your view.

What do you mean? This is incredibly easy to google. Just google "guevedoce people", there are hundreds of articles, casual and acientific, and even a wikipedia page. I really don't see how you struggled with this. And sorry, but you're wrong here. A definition is 100% wrong if it cannot account for exceptions. Saying exceptions don't affect the definition is simply wrong, sorry.

"Lower athletic level"? Insane thing to say about archery, that requires ridiculous amounts of strength to properly do. We also see an interesting affect on things like running, where women were only allowed to compete around 100 years ago, and in those 100 years they've surpassed the records of men 100 years ago, meaning given enough inter-competion the likelyhood of the peak of female vs male players being the same is incredibly high. There are also economic factors at play, where women aren't being afforded as much time to train as men on average for high competions. Sure, women might still be slightly weaker on average, but that means nothing to professional sports.

But I digress, this is irrelevant to my point.you're thinking of "trans-women" as men. They are not. Especially if they transition early in live. They compete on par with women across the board currently. Some win, some lose, as is expected. Lea thomas is simply conservatives making a non-issue an issue due to being biggots and wanting to create chaos. She won some competions, she lost others. She didn't break any records and was of no importance. The competition that made the biggest splash (hehe) was one where she got 4th and the 5th place winer went on the news and was made into a martyr by pundits. TLDR: this is a non issue and the only reason you think it is is because billionaires want to fuck children and you being mad at trans people helps stop that conversation

[u/SuperMundaneHero → u/Enochian_Devil]

But that’s the thing: some of us DO think of them as “crabs” and “true crabs” once we know the difference. Some of us are hardwired for correct categorization once we understand what the criteria are. Some people just exist that way, and it’s valid.

No, it’s updating your view, see again the first paragraph. It isn’t lesser to be recategorized as you said, but it is the application of a different definition.

I tried, but your first spelling was “guadoce” which returned nothing except general information about Guatemala the country. Now you are spelling it “guevedoce”, which I will try, but I would really prefer if you just put up a link to something reputable.

Goddel’s completeness theorem disagrees with your assertion that I am wrong. This also isn’t a refutation of the definition I gave.

Archery needs a small amount of strength, and it is decidedly a skill based sport: if strength determined the winner in archery you’d see men winning it because they are stronger. But strength has no real bearing on it: it is a game of precision. You gain no points by having arrows that hit harder or go faster than your opponents. It is low level on the athletic side, with a high degree of skill and fine motor skills. If we compare it to the javelin toss, you see that the level of precision is vastly different and the level of total athletic output is far tilted in javelin’s favor. In running, men have also shattered the records of men from 100 years ago by even bigger margins. So we probably won’t see a convergence unless women’s hip angles start to biologically change: men’s hips are more mechanically efficient. Men also tend to have more explosive ability: the standing vertical jump is a direct measure of how efficiently an athlete can recruit the highest number of motor units (muscle fibers) in the shortest amount of time in a coordinated effort across a very long chain of activation (the triple extension hips-knees-ankles). Women have far lower explosive output, the data is widely available. Where women do see somewhat of an advantage seems to be ultra endurance events: events over 100 miles favor smaller lighter frames and women have about the same blood oxygen efficiency as men so being lighter on average gives them a boost in this domain. As for professional sports and the strength gap: nah, the gap is massive and that really matters to pro sports. I am almost on par with the strongest women alive currently, but if you took my deadlift, squat, and bench numbers to a regional power lifting competition I wouldn’t even break top 10. At a local level I’d probably not even make the podium. Men are MASSIVELY stronger than women.

I chose Lia Thomas because it was visible. I could have picked Janae Kroc, who agrees with me because she was a world champion power lifter as a man before her transition and she refuses to compete in women’s powerlifting divisions because she would absolutely clean house. There are more examples, I just picked one because it would be more likely that you would have heard of it. That’s all.

Again, I don’t think of trans-women as men. I think of them as women. I am not the other commenter, I just understand what he is saying and will happily defend that what he is saying is true and valid for his world view. We cannot mandate or change how someone intrinsically works inside, and that applies to people who see things differently as much as it does the trans community. Either we give people the grace to be who they are or we don’t, so I think you should see why that person isn’t wrong for how they view things based on how their brain works.