I am S p a r t a c u s

[PermissionToSpeakSir]

I am a woman.

I was a girl.

I am an adult human female.

Something a man can never be.

I am a woman.

People refer to me has her and she.

Sometimes said with deep contempt and misogyny.

I am a woman.

Something a male will never be.

I have a vagina and uterus.

I menstruate and have given birth.

I am a mother.

Something a male will never be.

I have been insulted, assaulted, belittled, dismissed, held back, intimidated, stereotyped, terrorised, mocked, shamed, humiliated because I am a woman.

Something a male can never be.

I feel insulted, appropriated, offended, anxious, tense, depressed, hurt and under siege, when a male claims to be a woman or anyone says a male can be female.

It is not civil or respectful to treat me this way.

I am a woman.

I am Spartacus.

Hi @Pratchett

Your main logical fallacy is Tu quoque. You tried to avoid criticism by trying to put it back on the one criticising you.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Your second logical fallacy is ad homiem. You attempted to attack someone's character or personal traits in order to undermine my arguement.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Your third logical fallacy is No true scottsman (or women) since I need to start listening to 'true women' according to your last sentence.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Your second last logical fallacy is an appeal to emotion. You tried to undermine a logical arguement by appealing to emotion.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Your final logical fallacy is false attribution. I've never claimed 'women don't understand logical arguement or have that misconception. After all, I am one.

www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/92/False-Attribution

Phew, for someone who claims they understand you made a few mistakes there...

for your sorrows Smirch and for having them APPROPRIATED by people without sensitivity or understanding.

As defined by Pratchett once again you disenfranchise women who are infertile and I've yet to see one that doesn't include this.

Nope. They are still of the sex class with the reproductive role of conceiving and gestating young from ova. Not the one with the reproductive role of producing sperm and impregnating a female person.

As pp said but you seem unable to grasp, sex is about reproductive role not reproductive ability.

Unless you think all infertile people are a third sex?

"Disenfranchise" seems an odd choice of word.

None of those apply orcrelatd to anything I said. You just copied them out for a way to respond.

We need Lang (if indeed it is Lang)

It is me! Two Weetabix, one mushed banana, hot milk.

I don't care who I traumatise - this is a lovely breakfast!

Lang that needs a trigger warning.

For the uninitiated, 'I'm Spartacus' was a MN movement in which many, many MNetters stood up to say "a man cannot become or be a woman" after a MNetter was banned for saying such.

'I'm Spartacus' means "I will post the factual truth that a man cannot become a woman, and human beings cannot change sex - and I will say this even if MN bans me for saying it."

Are you sure you can stand up and say 'I'm Spartacus' GhostTess?

A Weetabix Horror is an Adult Human Breakfast. And if anybody disagrees, I will start copy pasting irrelevant logical fallacies to prove them wrong. And if that doesn't work, I will throw a Weetabix-flavoured Narcissistic Rage.

BE. WARNED.

Hi @Ereshkigal

If it's not about reproductive ability and only role, then I can be a mother through adoption and then the female definition is correct and inclusion of trans women and so can literally anyone.

If however sex is defined by sex characteristics, once again this would disenfranchise women who are unable to have those. So I'll choose to believe you include me in female.

Thank you for including me.

Thanks pratchet

'I'm Spartacus" does not mean "I'm a woman". It means I will stand with a MNetter who spoke the truth, and I will repeat that truth even if I am banned from MN.

I'm Spartacus. A man cannot become a woman. Transwomen are not women.

Hi @Pratchett

Yes those are what you said and anyone who reads our comments and has a reasonable level of reading comprehension will determine my statement as correct

Would you stop @ing me please? It's rude. You've been asked by others to refrain from doing this.

Two sexes. Female and male. Woman - adult human female. Man - adult human male.

Sex class - reproductive role involving production of either small or large gametes, not defined by the ability to fulfil that sex role and produce said gametes.

Sex not being defined by reproductive ability has no bearing on whether anyone of either sex can adopt. That's a big derail.

Sex being defined by sex characteristics has no bearing on individual reproductive ability, and vice versa. People who are of the sex that produces motile gametes are male, and the adults are men. It makes no difference whether an individual can: what matters is that he is of the sex that can.

Are you getting anywhere near understanding this.

it's not about reproductive ability and only role, then I can be a mother through adoption

I don't think you know what reproduction is.

If it's not about reproductive ability and only role, then I can be a mother through adoption and then the female definition is correct and inclusion of trans women and so can literally anyone.

You can only be a mother if you are of the sex class which has the biological role of producing large gametes. So nope.

A straw man cannot become a straw woman. Not even by removal of his Tessticles.

Hi @CertainHalfDressedStreets

Once again, if being female is not about reproductive ability, then anyone can be in that role.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.

Please explain your precise definition of woman?

Uh huh

Once again, saying Spartacus isn't saying we are women

HTH

Goodness this is dull.

Do you know the difference between reproductive role and reproductive ability?

Hi @Ereshkigal

Sex class is determined by physical characteristics. If a woman is born with no uterus or ovaries she would lack some of those characteristics as defined by you. And hence by your definition would not be a woman.

Going to bore us into submission with poor arguments.

I think it might help to go back to basics. Some people genuinely don't get it.