What is a woman?

[concretevase]

I just wanted to clarify what everyone thought this meant given recent events at the olympics.

A person born with a uterus and vagina, raised female, with boobs and has periods and the ability to carry and birth a child is not a woman?

But Keating, remember someone who thinks that eggs are stored in the uterus feels justified to call those who don’t agree with them names and dehumanises them.

It is all rather incongruous.

Don’t forget the Spanish coach who discussed the boxing camp where Khelif injured two female well known Spanish boxers and each bout was immediately stopped. And then Khelif had a bout with males and that was ‘evenly matched’.

I am sure that that will be considered out that the Spanish women were just not good enough though.

Thank you, yes!

Growing up at high altitudes seems to give pro cyclists an advantage, e.g. the Colombian Nairo Quintana, 'The Condor of the Andes'. I suppose that's to do with improved lung capacity/oxygenation.
I don't think he can punch any harder than any other pro cyclist because of it, though, and I doubt if his female compatriots look like Imane Khelif because of it.

The Rachel Mckinnon i was referring to is the author of the graph. It says that name on it. To use any other name would be outing. Until the person who produced the graph changes the name on it to their new one it would be wrong of me to draw attention to the change. Try educating yourself.

I think that post is tongue in cheek @BaronessEllarawrosaurus

@Ereshkigalangcleg its that bad that I can't tell any more. Mind you I've done tongue in cheek posts that have totally been missed too so I know its easy to miss sometimes

Only posting this. A woman is the sex belonging to homo sapiens that produces large gametes (eggs). That's it.

Describing name changes as 'deadnaming' is such a male-focussed thing - like many of these verbal twitches, a real tell.

Until recently most women in 'western' culture changed their names on marriage (so a woman who remarried after divorce or bereavement changed yet again), but often continued to be known by their original name by people they grew up with. The idea that any of these names were 'deadnames' is beyond ridiculous - though rather revealing that a person wanting to deny responsibility for their own past actions might want to pretend their old self was in some way 'dead'.

Science 'moving on' in front of our eyes.

A great description from Dr Hilton

https://x.com/fondofbeetles/status/1823325132435210346?s=46&t=HTxp6zCd4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

There is a massive sticking point with understandings of DSDs and it’s this.

When a person carries a mutation in a gene that is needed for, say, eye development, they may be born with an eye that is small, has structural defects, and/or doesn’t work properly.

They don’t grow an ear in its place.

When a male carries a mutation in a gene that is needed for penis growth, he may well grow a penis that is small, has structural defects and/or doesn’t work properly.

But the nature of genital development in the embryo means that sometimes, he can grow something else instead. And it’s something that we consider a perfectly regular anatomical part of another group of people.

So people, unconsciously perhaps, flip their frameworks. No longer is this is a male who carries a mutation that means his penis didn’t grow properly, this is, in fact, a female, and it’s everything else about that body - all the other stuff that is routinely and boringly male - that must be considered the “mutation”. The Y chromosome is a mutation? Testes development is an anomaly? The prostate and the seminal glands are anomalies? Being able to father children with sperm is some kind of mad, freaky physical process?

This makes no sense. This is how we get “female testes”. And possibly an eye-ear spectrum of sensory organs 😂

And further, nobody would argue against anyone saying, “OK, it’s an ear, but there should have been an eye there.” We all know that humans don’t grow ears where their eyes are supposed to be.

Some thoughts.

Shouldn't the question be 'Who is a woman?'? As a pronoun 'What' is used for objects whereas 'who' is used for people.

Short of women all living on mountains to gain male pubertal advantages, this is all that is left it seems:

‘Who is a woman?’, would require a list of names in response. Which would currently be controversial 🤣

What is a woman queries the essence of womanliness or, well, a definition.

Whomst is a man't?

I disagree, you can respond with 'whoever has xx chromosomes.'

Further to this post @concretevase , maybe this clip will help explain this more.

https://x.com/FrancisAaronUK/status/1417195355951845376

A man who believes he is a bat is just that, a man who believes he is a bat. He is not a bat. It doesn't matter how much fucking harder he tries to be a bat than a bat, he can never be a bat!

Based on posts from another thread where a poster assured us that cis women are what we should be talking about when referring to two male boxers who competed in the female category of boxing in the Paris Olympics, I decided that we need as many women who read these threads to understand just what that term means.

The term 'cis' is now meaningless because it also now includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes, ie. a male person with a difference of sex development that have testes or testes tissue. Such as Caster Semenya.

Therefore, female people have no unique words that describe just those female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

Because 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.

2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women: Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:

Cis = 1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **

and 3 Any person who has a female body^^

Trans = 2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Visualise as per this image.

Do you see the issue here? There is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is now shown to be meaningless. Yet we still get posters telling us we need to use it out of respect? Respect for which people? Because to me that demand looks like misogyny to me.

By the way, since there are plenty of transwomen who also identify as 'girls' don't forget that age and maturity of the body is also now a meaningless categorisation under those who come into the 'trans' category.

I hope that the graphic helps people to understand just what 'cis' actually means.

To be fair, 'cis' always was meaningless (and unnecessary in any world where honesty and accuracy have any value). Quite good really that the language-colonists have gone full grabber.

Do you think if biological women (the type without penises) started to call ourselves something else for identification purposes that men who identify as not men would stop calling their selves women and want to use our new name?

Oh yes. I agree.

I hope that the graphic helps people to understand just what 'cis' actually means.

Thank you for illustrating the absurdity of it!

Do you think if biological women (the type without penises) started to call ourselves something else for identification purposes that men who identify as not men would stop calling their selves women and want to use our new name?

Yes, without a doubt.

I’ve only just opened this thread and I can’t stop laughing at the thought of an eggy uterus. 😆😆😆

Yes.

If the term "cis woman" ever becomes commonly used by the general population, trans women will start identifying as cis women.

That's why I've hardened my position about the word "woman", pronouns, all of it. There's no point conceding on anything because whatever we call ourselves they will start identifying as that, so we might as well go back to the start and just say "no" to everything.

Definitely. It's already happened with "female".

I agree. And I also think we should call these men men as that's what they are. I'm quite hardline on this issue so I'm aware not everyone will agree.