The scientific definition of a woman is a human born with tits, a vag and XX chromosomes.
The conservative definition is in agreement with the scientific.
Under this definition, women are women and transwomen are men.
Now progressives acknowledge that about half of people are born with tits, a vag and XX chromosomes, and the other half with penises and XY chromosomes, but for them, sex organs and chromosomes don’t define humans as men and women, so what does?
What is, or are the progressive definition(s) of a woman?
Is the progressive definition of a woman: a human with more female physical secondary sex characteristics (shallow voice, hour glass figure, etcetera) than male?
If that’s the case, under this definition, (virtually) all women are women, and (virtually) all transwomen are men, for virtually all physical secondary sex characteristics align with primary sex characteristics (sex organs and chromosomes) for (virtually) all people.
And that’s not what progressives are looking for, is it?
They want 100% of transwomen to be 100% woman.
Is the progressive definition of a woman: a human with a female brain?
If that’s the case, under this definition, and according to the latest neuroscience, most if not all women are women, because at best women have female brains, and at worst women have androgynous brains, and most if not all transwomen are men, because at best transwomen have androgynous brains, and at worst transwomen have male brains.
Brain and mind are really just two ways of perceptualizing and conceptualizing the same thing, unless you’re say a Cartesian dualist that is (we won’t go there), so if you have a fully male or androgynous brain you have a wholly male or androgynous mind.
So in other words, the scientific/conservative definition of sex isn’t just biologically meaningful, it’s socially meaningful (brain = mind = behavior + biology is socially relevant in and of itself, I mean we interact with men and women differently because of their different primary, and physical secondary sex characteristics).
Is the progressive definition of sex biologically or socially meaningful?
Let’s first ascertain what it is:
If you believe you are or feel like a woman for any reason, or no reason at all, you’re a woman.
So you see, it doesn’t even matter how well you can pass as a woman.
If say Brock Lesnar wakes up one morning and says he believes he’s a woman, he’s a woman, even if he keeps on being the same ole hyper-masculine Brock Lesnar, he doesn’t have to so much as wear eyeliner or put on a dress, let alone tone down his extremely choleric, type A personality.
He doesn’t have to have his brain/mind examined by a neuropsychologist either, to see if they can find anything scientific.
So for the progressive, Brock Lesnar is every bit as feminine as say Katy Perry, Rihanna and Taylor Swift, if he says he is, and conversely, Katy Perry, Rihanna and Taylor Swift are every bit as masculine as Brock Lesnar, if the say they are.
So in other words, the progressive definition of sex is both biologically, and socially meaningless.
Now why should we turn meaningful words into meaningless ones?
Are beliefs/feelings as good as reality…are beliefs/feelings reality?
What else works like this?
Is the most extroverted person an introvert simply because they believe they are?
Is the most idiotic person intelligent because they believe they are?
Sure, maybe people are entitled to their delusions.
We may even go so far to say that is their reality for them, but is it our reality for us?
Masculinity and femininity aren’t just sounds, they’re suppose to refer to something we’re all able to experience.
If your words are 100% personal and unverifiable, they’re not really words or a form of communication, they’re noise, nonsense.
You may as well say you’re an alien from planet X.
Interesting perhaps, but we have no rational grounds for believing either way, in fact we have rational grounds for believing the contrary, so we don’t owe you our assent.
Now ask yourselves, why, why are the social engineers trying to subjectify sexuality into oblivion in particular, why not go after all or other aspects of reality?
Is there an agenda behind it, or is it just a kind of mass neurosis, virtue signaling gone off the deep end?
I remember Carleas brought up in a thread of mine that for him, someone is a Christian just because they say they are, even if they know absolutely nothing about Jesus or the NT, so long as their belief seems sincere, whatever sincerity would mean in this context.
Now I disagree with Carleas about this analogy, I mean Christians are excommunicated, and even punks and goths are disparaged as poseurs if they can’t live up to the norms of their subculture, but even if religion and subcultures worked this way, why should we make sexuality work this way too when most language and thought doesn’t?