#i am being 100% genuine btw the questions arent meant to 'trick' anybody theyre designed to explain the point

[swaggedup247]

under a cut as to not spam (hopefully this shortens the post in notifications bars. if it doesn't... sorry...)

what makes one definition more valid than the other (out of the two shown in this thread)? why is the identity definition more valid than the biological one? is it because its more inclusive? if so, WHY is being more inclusive better for what is, by design, an exclusive word? WHY should be go by feeling and identity?

is it because the sex-based definition is "impossible to define"? if so, how do you know whos a cis woman and whos a trans woman? whats the difference? how do you know if someone has a DSD ("intersex")?how do we tell the difference between a hen and a rooster? in strictly biological terms. even though some women cannot bear children (and childrearing shouldn't be a female person's only purpose), they are still cis women, not trans. how do we know this? some hens cant lay eggs, but that doesn't make them roosters.

if a definition is defined exclusively by opting in, it's going to be nonsensical since there's no MEAT there. i could say "a canadian is anyone who identifies as one", but then would a russian whos only ever lived in russia their enitire life be able to call themselves canadian? can they get canadian citizenship on that metric alone? were they born with a canadian birth certificate? what if they never got a russian birth certificate despite being born in moscow. can they then say they were born in canada, since you can't prove they were born elsewhere? what if the political border changes and suddenly moscow is technically in finland? are they canadian now? (i understand that immigration is a thing, but i'm talking about someone who was born in one place and only ever lived there. the comparison is imperfect, but it doesn't have to be perfect since i'm just trying to make you understand my point. i can identify as being 6 feet tall, but that doesn't change the fact that i am 5'5". even if i wear platform shoes to be taller that is still my height. i don't have any "woman feeling", but i think that even you would agree that i am a cis woman by your own definition, since i do not identify as trans).

furthermore, i disagree with the definition you posted. what if i dont identify with the "cultural roles and expectations" of woman, but i also dont identify as a man or agender? in fact, i find the cultural roles of both sexes to be regressive and misogynistic. you could argue that the identity is opt-in (which is probably what you're thinking right now after reading this paragraph, because that is what *I* would have also thought a few years ago), but i've already explained why i don't like opt-in definitions. hopefully my comparison was understandable to you but i can try rewording if it was not.

i don't understand why someone would support a definition that involves people identifying INTO sexist, regressive gender roles by necessity of being born in a sexed body. i would much rather say "i am a woman not because society has decided that i must be nurturing, rear children and be meek and submissive, but because i am a female human being. i am a woman as much as a female horse is a mare, or a female chicken is a hen." I too used to see gender the exact same way you do (I have read your posts. we were the exact same) but I simply found the sex-based definition to make more sense, and frankly it's more progressive to me than insisting upon defining gender by sexism (which is what that definition you gave does, at its core). And I understand I’m using the same arguments you are- opinion based rather than factual! But again, this is why I think one definition is superior over the other, which is something that i haven’t seen you demonrate. I would rather reject that dichotomy entirely, but still acknowledge what i go through in a female body in a sexist society. Other definitions are either nonsensical, cannot actually define a term accurately, or are based in regressive stereotypes that i cannot support identifying into (or out of, since that's pretty much impossible to truly do in our current society even if you "pass" perfectly). This is why I cannot support them.

I understand that language exists to communicate (which is what i assume you meant by the "imagery" comment?), which is actually the main reason why i can't be 100% on this myself (arguing under your terms, at least). However... again, what makes up that imagery? And why does that necessitate identity-based (opt-in) definition? is it right to say that someone who looks like a female person is a woman? what about a very feminine male who looks like a woman, but who doesn't identify as a trans woman or nonbinary? can we call him a woman since words are used for the imagery they invite? i hope i understood your point correctly here lol.

you express that you care about defining cis vs trans differently, showing that you DO actually care about accuracy, which is why i'm using accuracy-based arguments for the most part. i just don't think it is concise or helpful for any reason other than to be inclusive, which it doesn't HAVE to be. i just do not find it helpful even if people are pushing for one definition over the other (which is what i'd say that cultural definition is). I understand that you think that a trans woman is a woman who is trans. I agree that they are trans by their own definition (since it’s relevant to their identity), but i just don’t think that calling them a woman like a cis woman is is helpful. If a man took hormones, looked identical to a trans woman in every way, but still identified as a cis man, i don’t think you would argue that he must be a trans woman, would you (and if we can't accurately identify this gender feeling, what makes it bad to question someones trans status? if someone says "im fine" but are actually angry, does that suddenly mean they truly ARE fine because emotions cant *really* be defined and their identity matters more?)? It’s impossible to clearly define this outside of feelings and identity, and i hope my very long winded post has at least explained why i don’t like those definitions, even if you personally disagree.

I'm not interesting in arguing the specifics of the definitions (like you said yourself, language is complicated, im sure you could pick apart literally any word and i've already gone into way more detail than i probably should have for easy readability), but presenting one definition without explaining why it's superior to the other isn't really helpful when the entire point of the original post was "you call us terfs when we don't identify as one, but you object to calling someone a man/woman when they don't identify as one. this is hypocritical" if you disagree that it's hypocritical, *why*? why does your definition matter more? why is it more helpful to society? WHY does it matter more? you seem to believe that the definition of woman is special somehow, and different from other definitions since it's a cultural role. i technically agree that it is a cultural role, however... i just do not think it can exist as an opt-in definition. why does someone identify as a woman, something that used to refer to female humans? why have that feeling to begin with? i know you argue that you can't explain a feeling, but i honestly think this is a cop-out that doesn't really address the point you're responding to. how can *I* know it even exists, since as i've previously stated i do NOT experience this feeling? i do not believe in souls, or that someone can have a gendered essence in a body of the opposite sex. and furthermore, why does feeling like a woman make you one? if someone feels like a woman but still has a male body, why is it wrong to call them a man? what gives someone the right to control other people's perceptions of them? where does that woman feeling come from? if it's cultural, then i'd say that gender roles are stupid and i choose to not acknowledge them. if it's innate, then it must be related to sex. if it's sex dysphoria, then again, why does that MAKE somebody a different gender?

i understand it's nice to not make someone feel bad by misgendering them (i typically try to use the pronouns people ask me to even if i think it's silly) but that feeling isn't an argument in itself. and again, it doesn't address the original point about hypocrisy unless your argument is "well that definition is different from this definition because i said so".

furthermore, even if you (hypothetically, general "you") agree that it's not helpful to society but still think it's objectively correct because we aren't "above language", WHY? that definition you posted was made up at some point. it was at one point understood that "woman" meant "adult human female" (even if people may not have used that exact wording, we as a species that reproduces knows how to identify males vs females. it's not our only purpose but it IS where those words came from), but it was changed to an identity definition. so i fail to see why that can't come into question (perhaps i'm getting ahead of myself, but i've seen a lot of these arguments that go nowhere so i'm just trying to explain my entire point right off the bat). if the sex-based definition can come into question, then the identity-based definition can too. language can evolve, but what if that evolution is harmful? i would argue that it is, as i've previously explained. i know you must agree with me that this is something that CAN be questioned and contested, since you wouldn't be arguing about definition at all if you weren't (since again, the identity definition hasn't existed for all of time). so- when can one definition override an another? what makes one superior? i think that exclusivity at the cost of murky definitions and supporting regressive gender roles is not worth it.

I say this mainly because I do not think anybody replying to you is actually making their point clear. I don’t even like arguing, it’s just frustrating. I agree with the people arguing with you at their core, to be clear, but they're not actually making a point based off of what was actually said (only implied community "truths"). I doubt I will change your mind and we will probably continue to disagree but I hope I explained the point a little better, since I want everyone to actually understand each "side" no matter where they stand, even if they choose to reject it (which is your right). If I didn't actually explain it well, sorry for making you read this. Even if nobody actually reads this since it's a wall of text, lol. I just want to be clear as to not drag on an endless, unproductive thread (which is basically what this is).

So... You do realize you are by definition a terf, right?

are you sure you want to start talking about definitions