But what would be the zero point in this instance? The metaphor of number line for womanness seems to break down here. There is no zero point that is neither woman nor non-woman.
OK, so you're saying that before sex differentiation, the embryo is neither woman nor non-woman. Although one could still argue that because it is not woman, it is therefore non-woman (even though it might become a woman).
Although, given that a woman is an adult human female, a child human female also is a non-woman, who might become a woman by virtue of living long enough to reach adulthood.
Yes girls have developed trait femaleness and the GC/terf position is that only girls can go on to develop into women regardless of what is done to the girl or how the girl feels.
Prior to a certain degree of development an embryo cannot be considered to be an individual as it could still split or merge with another embryo perhaps with a distinct karyotype. People have very different opinions and there are significant implications of putting the zero point at conception versus later in embryonic development, and in rooting sex in genetics versus development. But one thing I believe every reasonable person can agree on is that there's a rubicon in development after which you are an individual with a species, a sex, and an age. The argument on where the zero point is, is it at conception (genetics), is it later in development, is it such that you can round up or down to this or that sex regardless of when the sex traits developed on a timeline, is at the heart of discussions of which sex this or that disorder of sexual development is.
Is this related to the argument about CAIS, where you argue that individuals with CAIS (at least XY individuals with CAIS) are male, and many others on the internet argue that they are female?
Yes, it relates to that. Interestingly, the big players in that argument, such as Claire Graham, generally agree that male people with CAIS are male. She said so in an interview with Women's Place UK in 2019.
Although it's inexplicably considered to only be an 46XY condition, there's no scientific reason you can't have a 46XX with CAIS, and such a person would have ovaries, whereas 46XY would have testicles. We have a word for the distinction between a person with ovaries and a person with testicles. The people who argued against me took the position that 46XY CAIS were male women, and therefore that male women exist. The logic was that they have a 'female phenotype' despite being 'genetic males.' My response to that was that a testicle is a phenotype, not a genotype.
It is worth noting that there's no logical reason an individual could not be simultaneously male and female. But a woman is an adult female human. A male-female adult human would be something else. They don't want to be something else. They do not want to respect the boundaries of the category woman, because of misogyny. In my opinion if you've developed trait maleness, and have male genetics (necessary in humans to develop trait maleness), you should be considered a male, and your disability ought to then be accommodated as a male when necessary. Others obviously disagree. I refuse to pretend I've changed my views just so people will stop crossing my boundaries and attempting to force me to submit, though. I reserve the right to change my mind in response to rational arguments.
i think we're just talking about the category 'female,' not 'woman.' in english, 'woman' connotes adult, a sliding cultural category. but the T claim is that even small children can have a 'gender' different from their sex--a bio-boy child can have'woman gender' or 'girl gender'. what's important is biological sex.
It seems we are becoming more narrow. By that, I mean that if a male (XY chromosome) likes dolls, likes dresses,--but also likes guns and rough housing. Then he might get encouraged to become a girl. Previously, before surgery/hormones were so advanced, we would just accept this boy as a male--despite a few "feminine" traits. And vice versa. I was born in 1942. My father bought me boxing gloves, a football and played (boxed, threw football) with me at age 5. I enjoyed this play. I did not consider myself a boy. I just thought I was having a good time with my father. I like tossing things back and forth. It's cooperative and friendly. I laughed when we tapped our boxing gloves together and when he pretended to miss the football. My mother didn't know or care that we were playing this way. My father or mother didn't make any comments about my gender. (Although 2 years later my mother told me they were divorcing because he wanted a boy--not a girl. This came as a shock.) But our housekeepers certainly disapproved. Girls should NOT have boxing gloves. They tied the boxing gloves on my hands to prevent me from sucking my thumb thus punishing me in two ways for sexual deviation: No thumb sucking No ability to use hands (and also feeling shame) Also feeling their anger and disgust. I struggled to control my thumb sucking in vain. I have a childhood picture of me at that time in a dress with my hair curled looking all feminine and adorable, grinning happily and clutching a tennis ball. (I do love sports). If I had been born 12 or 13 years ago I might now be on puberty blockers. So lucky I escaped this.
R is the real numbers, R1 is the number line which is continuous and 0 is identity for {R,+-}. By definition of numbers, no number can ever be another number. It wouldn't matter if you had a discrete set Z/2={0,1} or Z/3={0,1,2} or a continuous number line because these numbers are never each other. If 1 is woman, 0 is automatically non woman. If 0 is man, 1 is automatically non man. They are discrete categories that do not touch, it doesn't require an inflection point, it only requires that thing A is not thing B because otherwise A = B.
The Abolition of Sex is the goal of this religion; I suppose Nonbinary would be the zero point ( or maybe eunich?). Either way, completely a denial of reality and a removal of the unique and different qualities of each sex category. No good will come from this for humanity.
I don't believe in a sexless individual., but ultimately my cocncern is for women and girls., and protecting our rights as such. If a person is outside that category, whether through maleness or some other avenue of lack of femaleness, best of luck to them, but that should not limit our rights as females.
I have a graduate degree in sociology so I want to think about societal factors that influence these beliefs: men can be women. It used to be that physical strength was necessary to hunt large animals or to handle large livestock (on farm). But a male and a female (even a child for that matter) can do computer work, or sewing, or any of the technological jobs performed in large urban cities. Males/Females--there really is no difference. And recent improvements in drugs, surgery, etc. also makes it profitable and possible to surgically transform bodies to become an approximation of the opposite sex. Also growth of the internet and ability to segregate ourselves into separate bubbles makes it likely that we will remain in our own bubbles. And community seems to break down in modern urban society. We have many individuals living in single apartments. If you are all by yourself, you can call yourself male, female--anything. And big Pharma and surgical departments will definitely support you. Because you aren't going to get pregnant or impregnate anyone by yourself. You CAN pee standing up though. HELL. They make funnels so females can also pee standing up outside if they don't want to urinate on themselves and can enjoy trying to write their names in the snow.. Medical technology and computer technology promises us the ability to remake our bodies and control/cure all infections/diseases/conditions. I have never been to a funeral. Until recently I never saw anything dead (except pigeons that were run over.). So far as I know, nobody dies. They just get translated to heaven or wherever they go and disappear.
Plenty of women have handled large livestock on a farm. My horse weighed 1700 pounds and I could harness or saddle him, pick up his feet to clean them (his legs probably weighed 70 to 80 pounds each), etc.
They have found archaeological evidence that women hunted alongside men; there was evidence on their bones that they threw spears, and of course they dressed out game just like men did.
Doctor Brenda on the veterinarian show "The Incredible Dr. Pol" skillfully handles large cows with twisted stomachs. But she needs a crew of men to help her. Dr. Pol can do it alone with his son as assistant. But he doesn't seem THAT much stronger than Dr. Brenda (note the sexism all the female vets go by their first names). Dr. Brenda semi retired due to knee injury. She is quite overweight so that didn't help her knees, for sure.
I have heard that now it is believed that all those wonderful cave paintings in France were painted by females (because of the small size of the hand prints)
Maybe the men brought home the game and let the females dress it.
I have a friend who went to Australia and spent time with the aborigines where he learned to do their kangaroo dance. I bet they wouldn't let me do it since I'm female.
I always played sports with boys/men. In my 20's my boyfriend (6 feet tall 235 lb) would hoist himself on my hip, and I would do a one legged deep knee bend (wearing clogs--great balance)
How are you at pulling calves and pulling foals/colts out of horses? I could easily lift an 80 lb barbell by myself over my head when I was in my 20's. But I've seen even the men unable to exert enough force to pull a baby horse or cow out of the uterus. Although Dr. Pol very much prefers female vets (because of their tiny hands) for delivering goat and dog and cat babies. He boasts of his "monkey arms," though. He can reach into the cow's uterus to feel the calf and adjust it. I think he means that his arms are very very long. That can be helpful. I used to be almost 5 foot 7 inches--but I can't each as high as my friends who are 3 or 4 inches shorter. Big advantage in weight lifting though because an overhead press really doesn't need to go very high since my arms are very short.
Nice to think of our glory days--isn't it? I routinely could control my younger brother and used to feel unafraid of physical contests with most men--especially men unused to sports competition and who couldn't tolerate pain. I believe now that I was wrong to think that men were not much stronger. I now believe most men are stronger. Witness the success of transwomen in olympic sports.
I do love a good shoving match, though. My husband and I used to wrestle around a lot to our mutual delight.
Thanks for correcting me for down valuing women's strength. Wonder how Neanderthal women compared to their men? Female gorillas are DEFINITELY smaller than male gorillas. Did I post about a woman wrestler who was able to defeat most men in the 1930's. She had big guns. She had moderate sized breasts. And I think she was physically attractive. However, now that I'm 80, nearly all young people look attractive to me.
I think we need to deny reality. Death. Illness. So painful. Many psychoanalysts say that humans don't like having to be a specific sex. We want to be anything. We also don't want to die. Transhumanism promises us immortality or total control over our bodies with genetic modification, implants, surgeries. We can endlessly improve. We don't need to face or accept any limitations.
"we dpn't need to face or accept any limitations"....until you die. And every single human being who ever existed is dead, except for the ones alive right at the moment of writing this and they will ALL BE DEAD in 100 years from now,
Transhumanism is the new snake oil offering not life after death, but the hope of never having to die at all.
This is only possible in a culture in which we tie ourselves in knots to avoid reality. I have no issue with death -- the big sleep sounds like I'll finally get a chance to relax! I like the old lady a local minister told me about; she told him she was simply returning to where she had been before she was born. What a sad species we are, terrified of death but perfectly content to murder people en masse all over the globe.
I think its the perfect rounding off of living a good life to come to terms with personal mortality. Not with resignation, defeat or fear but in the sense of having to all muster all the courage and wisdom we've worked to gain over a life span to accept to accept the inevitability with equanimity and graciousness.
Yes. I agree with you. And we are tying ourselves in knots because computers, AI, machines have enabled us to be pretty much divorced from physical reality. You sound like someone I'd like to get to know. What are your favorite sports? I like tennis a lot. Pearl Red Moon sounds good, too. I'm not so afraid of death. I am afraid of dementia, disability, loss of independence. I try to accept these. I once saw a Japanese short film about a gardener who was responsible for maintaining large parks and estates. Later, as he aged, he could no longer handle the physical work. He gradually began to retire. Eventually he only worked on his own garden. Finally before he died, he tended a single small potted plant because he was bedridden. But he knew his life's work. My husband was like that. We did enjoy tennis together. He loved to run. He loved to move. Finally the day before he died he pointed to the window from his bed where there was a recliner. "I have a plan," he said. "You are going to help me move to that recliner so I can enjoy looking out of the window." I told his friend NO. Dick was incontinent and the idea of moving him back without any help and shit everywhere was quite demoralizing to me. That's reality. Accept our limitations. But keep doing whatever we can do and rely on our loved ones to help us.
Oh, Diana, I so identify with your comment! I too am concerned about dementia and I truly believe that using your brain is the best medicine. And I am severely disabled and dependent upon my partner for heavy physical work; he destroyed his brain connections through eating junk and is dependent upon me for negotiating the world.
That's funny about tennis, about the only sport I will watch on TV. I used to play but now I just dream of being able to walk freely again. I was a hiker, a swimmer, a horseback rider, loved to canoe and kayak. I try to accept my limitations, but sometimes I growl and think what I would like to do to the surgeon who butchered me! My email is womanwontwheest@gmail.com if you'd like to chat.
I looked cis up on Google just now: What does cis mean? Cis is short for cisgender, which refers to when a person's gender identity corresponds to their sex as assigned at birth. Cisgender is the opposite of transgender.
I did not know this. I thought it meant that I was attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since I'm female, and attracted to males that means I'm cisgender. Check out this hilarious video about "grooming" kids to believe males can be females. The title is 2+2=5.
2+2=5 if that doesn’t add up you’re homophobic!!! That was hilarious- I maintain that I’m not cis anything and furthermore, my own son likes many things that our culture would deem feminine but he’s still a boy! Yes, I have a vagina and I have never been called a man but what about the girls that have short hair and hate dresses? It’s all such bullshit! These ridiculous stereotypes- now that’s really homophobic!
YES YES II have been addressed as "Sir" when I wear my husband's bulky down jacket and the sales person doesn't see my face or hear my voice. (I'm 5 foot 7 inches which is almost tall enough to pass. No surgery or hormones needed. YAY) 'm so grateful to be female without surgery. I figure I'm saving a million dollars over the course of a life time. My husband saves even more. Especially since he didn't need any phalloplasties. My heart is good, too. And I don't have cancer. Ooooh the money I'm saving is increasing by the minute.
Another quote from the rapper
Trust the WHO and CDC
None of our politicians work for the CCP
White kids are born racist if you disagree
That makes you a damn racist study CRT
In today's lesson men can get pregnant
Put your hands down, no more questions
Don't say pedophiles, just say ALA
Adults that like adolescents
If you want freedom we'll encourage to do the opposite
It's toxic masculinity if a man is too confident
Excuse me, what's a woman, well, I am not a biologist
Common sense is really not common when you're a communist
Parents that care about their kids let's call them terrorists
It's cool to be a feminist and an environmentalist
Don't have children, if you do then abort them
If your neighbors don't comply with the government then report them
If you have independent thoughts then just ignore them
Communism's the way democracy is too boring
Bring your kids to a drag show
Give them a couple dollars to put right up in their asshole
I just saw this Dilbert cartoon (from 1991!!) Dilbert is on a blind date. His date is a dog in a dress which shows female breasts. Dilbert speaks to her, "To be fair Judy I wouldn't have agreed to this date if I had known you were a woman trapped in a dog's body." She replies (sarcastically?) "Oh right, and this is the part where you say, 'Let's be friends, but maybe I could pet you sometimes.'"
Every human has evolved instincts to know, and want, sex difference. We also have heuristics of fairness -- when we see a man wearing lipstick and playing rugby against women, deep evolutionary instinct tells us that it is unfair. What sort of social movement demands that we suppress evolved instincts? Not a liberatory one, that's for sure. "Gender" is an esoteric cult.
“They call us ‘cis women’ for a reason. They say I can’t be a trans woman for a reason. They acknowledge we belong to a category to which they do not belong and into which they cannot enter. So instead, they attempt to create a node whereby adult human females and adult human males can participate in a supracategory called ‘woman,’ and relabeled the actual categories that biologically exist in such a way that males and females are no longer recognized as categorically distinct.”
@Exulansic - this is the clearest articulation I’ve heard yet of how gender ideology has redefined “women.” This perverse redefinition results in a situation where the ONLY group that can be called “women” without qualification are trans women. The group of folks who get pregnant? Nope, we can’t call this group “women” according to the gender ideologues because the group includes an occasional trans man. The mantra “trans women are women”, is actually an understatement; trans women are the ONLY group we can refer to as women according to this ideology.
I have to disagree, in part. Natural language categories aren't spectral, but they are vague. "Adult" and "non-adult" may be given sharp cut-off points by legislation, but our intuitions do not behave like that. Similarly, our intuitive concepts of "male" and "female" aren't based on biological laws about gamete production, but on phenotypes—possession of these or those organs and of these or those physical traits, and these do not always line up. There is an ancient source that tells the story of an individual who was born and married as a girl (this was when girls were married at 12 or so), and then became a man at puberty and went on to father children. We can see that this individual will have been biologically male all along, a fact that became evident to observers only when his testes began to develop. Yet in intuitive terms it did make sense to say the person was once a girl and became male, because maleness and femaleness were being assessed observationally, by a combination of body type, genitals, and sexual function.
The problem is that TRAs behave as if biological definitions were fluid in the way that intuitive concepts are. They claim that the minuscule proportion of the population in which chromosomes and primary and secondary sex characteristics fail to align is somehow evidence that biological sex is multiple and/or that there are sexless individuals, and further that these "facts" have something to do with individuals being trans, even the ones who do not suffer from DSDs. Rather, it is our intuitive categories of male and female that are fuzzy round the edges—yet there are still very few cases where our intuitive concepts break down, because there just are very few cases where phenotypes and sexual functions do not align. Even if there were cases of true human hermaphroditism (to use the old-fashioned terminology), there would still be just the two gametes. No third sex. And this has nothing to do with gender anyway.
Another objection I have is that while the law of identity applies to objects, the laws of non-contradiction, ¬(A & ¬A), and excluded middle, (A v ¬A), do not: they apply to propositions. [I give the meta-logical formulations.] I think you have to reformulate your ideas taking this into account—although come to think of it you need to do it in terms of predicate logic, because we're interested in the logical properties and relations of e.g. (Jo is a man) and (Jo is not a man), which cannot obtain at the same time because the same predicate cannot both belong and not belong to the same object (ceteris paribus)—provided, as noted, the content of "man" is static and sharp (which isn't the case with natural-language concepts). Baldness is the standard example of this (cf. the Bald Man puzzle, also the Sorites for heaps). But while there's no non-arbitrary way of determining baldness, and no scientific criteria thereof that might replace our intuitions in certain contexts (although there are logics that accommodate fuzzy/vague concepts), scientific criteria for biological sex do exist that are precise and exhaustive of possibilities at species-level.
But what would be the zero point in this instance? The metaphor of number line for womanness seems to break down here. There is no zero point that is neither woman nor non-woman.
zero is a place holder with no content.
Mathematically it's an identity lol.
There's a few places you could root it for a human individual:
1. Conception, but the issue I have with this is that the concepticus could still split into two individuals or merge with other embryos.
2. Developmental sex determination, which happens around week 6.
OK, so you're saying that before sex differentiation, the embryo is neither woman nor non-woman. Although one could still argue that because it is not woman, it is therefore non-woman (even though it might become a woman).
Although, given that a woman is an adult human female, a child human female also is a non-woman, who might become a woman by virtue of living long enough to reach adulthood.
Yes girls have developed trait femaleness and the GC/terf position is that only girls can go on to develop into women regardless of what is done to the girl or how the girl feels.
It seems like ages ago when you explained CAIS XX to me. I knew that's where this was headed. This is a good analogy.
Prior to a certain degree of development an embryo cannot be considered to be an individual as it could still split or merge with another embryo perhaps with a distinct karyotype. People have very different opinions and there are significant implications of putting the zero point at conception versus later in embryonic development, and in rooting sex in genetics versus development. But one thing I believe every reasonable person can agree on is that there's a rubicon in development after which you are an individual with a species, a sex, and an age. The argument on where the zero point is, is it at conception (genetics), is it later in development, is it such that you can round up or down to this or that sex regardless of when the sex traits developed on a timeline, is at the heart of discussions of which sex this or that disorder of sexual development is.
Is this related to the argument about CAIS, where you argue that individuals with CAIS (at least XY individuals with CAIS) are male, and many others on the internet argue that they are female?
Yes, it relates to that. Interestingly, the big players in that argument, such as Claire Graham, generally agree that male people with CAIS are male. She said so in an interview with Women's Place UK in 2019.
Although it's inexplicably considered to only be an 46XY condition, there's no scientific reason you can't have a 46XX with CAIS, and such a person would have ovaries, whereas 46XY would have testicles. We have a word for the distinction between a person with ovaries and a person with testicles. The people who argued against me took the position that 46XY CAIS were male women, and therefore that male women exist. The logic was that they have a 'female phenotype' despite being 'genetic males.' My response to that was that a testicle is a phenotype, not a genotype.
OK, I'm going to need to look up a lot of things to understand that.
46XX = two X chromosomes in each cell, but an external appearance that resembles males?
46XY = swyer syndrome = X and Y chromosome in each cell, but external appearance that resembles females, but nonfunctional reproductive system?
"Big players in that argument" = big enemies of yours? Or = experts?
It is worth noting that there's no logical reason an individual could not be simultaneously male and female. But a woman is an adult female human. A male-female adult human would be something else. They don't want to be something else. They do not want to respect the boundaries of the category woman, because of misogyny. In my opinion if you've developed trait maleness, and have male genetics (necessary in humans to develop trait maleness), you should be considered a male, and your disability ought to then be accommodated as a male when necessary. Others obviously disagree. I refuse to pretend I've changed my views just so people will stop crossing my boundaries and attempting to force me to submit, though. I reserve the right to change my mind in response to rational arguments.
What would that mean, a person simultaneously being male and female? That's not like a number being simultaneously negative and positive?
i think we're just talking about the category 'female,' not 'woman.' in english, 'woman' connotes adult, a sliding cultural category. but the T claim is that even small children can have a 'gender' different from their sex--a bio-boy child can have'woman gender' or 'girl gender'. what's important is biological sex.
It seems we are becoming more narrow. By that, I mean that if a male (XY chromosome) likes dolls, likes dresses,--but also likes guns and rough housing. Then he might get encouraged to become a girl. Previously, before surgery/hormones were so advanced, we would just accept this boy as a male--despite a few "feminine" traits. And vice versa. I was born in 1942. My father bought me boxing gloves, a football and played (boxed, threw football) with me at age 5. I enjoyed this play. I did not consider myself a boy. I just thought I was having a good time with my father. I like tossing things back and forth. It's cooperative and friendly. I laughed when we tapped our boxing gloves together and when he pretended to miss the football. My mother didn't know or care that we were playing this way. My father or mother didn't make any comments about my gender. (Although 2 years later my mother told me they were divorcing because he wanted a boy--not a girl. This came as a shock.) But our housekeepers certainly disapproved. Girls should NOT have boxing gloves. They tied the boxing gloves on my hands to prevent me from sucking my thumb thus punishing me in two ways for sexual deviation: No thumb sucking No ability to use hands (and also feeling shame) Also feeling their anger and disgust. I struggled to control my thumb sucking in vain. I have a childhood picture of me at that time in a dress with my hair curled looking all feminine and adorable, grinning happily and clutching a tennis ball. (I do love sports). If I had been born 12 or 13 years ago I might now be on puberty blockers. So lucky I escaped this.
R is the real numbers, R1 is the number line which is continuous and 0 is identity for {R,+-}. By definition of numbers, no number can ever be another number. It wouldn't matter if you had a discrete set Z/2={0,1} or Z/3={0,1,2} or a continuous number line because these numbers are never each other. If 1 is woman, 0 is automatically non woman. If 0 is man, 1 is automatically non man. They are discrete categories that do not touch, it doesn't require an inflection point, it only requires that thing A is not thing B because otherwise A = B.
The Abolition of Sex is the goal of this religion; I suppose Nonbinary would be the zero point ( or maybe eunich?). Either way, completely a denial of reality and a removal of the unique and different qualities of each sex category. No good will come from this for humanity.
I don't believe in a sexless individual., but ultimately my cocncern is for women and girls., and protecting our rights as such. If a person is outside that category, whether through maleness or some other avenue of lack of femaleness, best of luck to them, but that should not limit our rights as females.
I have a graduate degree in sociology so I want to think about societal factors that influence these beliefs: men can be women. It used to be that physical strength was necessary to hunt large animals or to handle large livestock (on farm). But a male and a female (even a child for that matter) can do computer work, or sewing, or any of the technological jobs performed in large urban cities. Males/Females--there really is no difference. And recent improvements in drugs, surgery, etc. also makes it profitable and possible to surgically transform bodies to become an approximation of the opposite sex. Also growth of the internet and ability to segregate ourselves into separate bubbles makes it likely that we will remain in our own bubbles. And community seems to break down in modern urban society. We have many individuals living in single apartments. If you are all by yourself, you can call yourself male, female--anything. And big Pharma and surgical departments will definitely support you. Because you aren't going to get pregnant or impregnate anyone by yourself. You CAN pee standing up though. HELL. They make funnels so females can also pee standing up outside if they don't want to urinate on themselves and can enjoy trying to write their names in the snow.. Medical technology and computer technology promises us the ability to remake our bodies and control/cure all infections/diseases/conditions. I have never been to a funeral. Until recently I never saw anything dead (except pigeons that were run over.). So far as I know, nobody dies. They just get translated to heaven or wherever they go and disappear.
Plenty of women have handled large livestock on a farm. My horse weighed 1700 pounds and I could harness or saddle him, pick up his feet to clean them (his legs probably weighed 70 to 80 pounds each), etc.
They have found archaeological evidence that women hunted alongside men; there was evidence on their bones that they threw spears, and of course they dressed out game just like men did.
Doctor Brenda on the veterinarian show "The Incredible Dr. Pol" skillfully handles large cows with twisted stomachs. But she needs a crew of men to help her. Dr. Pol can do it alone with his son as assistant. But he doesn't seem THAT much stronger than Dr. Brenda (note the sexism all the female vets go by their first names). Dr. Brenda semi retired due to knee injury. She is quite overweight so that didn't help her knees, for sure.
I have heard that now it is believed that all those wonderful cave paintings in France were painted by females (because of the small size of the hand prints)
Maybe the men brought home the game and let the females dress it.
I have a friend who went to Australia and spent time with the aborigines where he learned to do their kangaroo dance. I bet they wouldn't let me do it since I'm female.
I always played sports with boys/men. In my 20's my boyfriend (6 feet tall 235 lb) would hoist himself on my hip, and I would do a one legged deep knee bend (wearing clogs--great balance)
How are you at pulling calves and pulling foals/colts out of horses? I could easily lift an 80 lb barbell by myself over my head when I was in my 20's. But I've seen even the men unable to exert enough force to pull a baby horse or cow out of the uterus. Although Dr. Pol very much prefers female vets (because of their tiny hands) for delivering goat and dog and cat babies. He boasts of his "monkey arms," though. He can reach into the cow's uterus to feel the calf and adjust it. I think he means that his arms are very very long. That can be helpful. I used to be almost 5 foot 7 inches--but I can't each as high as my friends who are 3 or 4 inches shorter. Big advantage in weight lifting though because an overhead press really doesn't need to go very high since my arms are very short.
Nice to think of our glory days--isn't it? I routinely could control my younger brother and used to feel unafraid of physical contests with most men--especially men unused to sports competition and who couldn't tolerate pain. I believe now that I was wrong to think that men were not much stronger. I now believe most men are stronger. Witness the success of transwomen in olympic sports.
I do love a good shoving match, though. My husband and I used to wrestle around a lot to our mutual delight.
Thanks for correcting me for down valuing women's strength. Wonder how Neanderthal women compared to their men? Female gorillas are DEFINITELY smaller than male gorillas. Did I post about a woman wrestler who was able to defeat most men in the 1930's. She had big guns. She had moderate sized breasts. And I think she was physically attractive. However, now that I'm 80, nearly all young people look attractive to me.
The women who herd reindeer are definitely strong & skilled enough for that job!
https://ethnobiology.org/forage/blog/s-mi-women-reindeer-herding-families-identity-tied-recognition-work-status
I think we need to deny reality. Death. Illness. So painful. Many psychoanalysts say that humans don't like having to be a specific sex. We want to be anything. We also don't want to die. Transhumanism promises us immortality or total control over our bodies with genetic modification, implants, surgeries. We can endlessly improve. We don't need to face or accept any limitations.
"we dpn't need to face or accept any limitations"....until you die. And every single human being who ever existed is dead, except for the ones alive right at the moment of writing this and they will ALL BE DEAD in 100 years from now,
Transhumanism is the new snake oil offering not life after death, but the hope of never having to die at all.
This is only possible in a culture in which we tie ourselves in knots to avoid reality. I have no issue with death -- the big sleep sounds like I'll finally get a chance to relax! I like the old lady a local minister told me about; she told him she was simply returning to where she had been before she was born. What a sad species we are, terrified of death but perfectly content to murder people en masse all over the globe.
I think its the perfect rounding off of living a good life to come to terms with personal mortality. Not with resignation, defeat or fear but in the sense of having to all muster all the courage and wisdom we've worked to gain over a life span to accept to accept the inevitability with equanimity and graciousness.
Yes. I agree with you. And we are tying ourselves in knots because computers, AI, machines have enabled us to be pretty much divorced from physical reality. You sound like someone I'd like to get to know. What are your favorite sports? I like tennis a lot. Pearl Red Moon sounds good, too. I'm not so afraid of death. I am afraid of dementia, disability, loss of independence. I try to accept these. I once saw a Japanese short film about a gardener who was responsible for maintaining large parks and estates. Later, as he aged, he could no longer handle the physical work. He gradually began to retire. Eventually he only worked on his own garden. Finally before he died, he tended a single small potted plant because he was bedridden. But he knew his life's work. My husband was like that. We did enjoy tennis together. He loved to run. He loved to move. Finally the day before he died he pointed to the window from his bed where there was a recliner. "I have a plan," he said. "You are going to help me move to that recliner so I can enjoy looking out of the window." I told his friend NO. Dick was incontinent and the idea of moving him back without any help and shit everywhere was quite demoralizing to me. That's reality. Accept our limitations. But keep doing whatever we can do and rely on our loved ones to help us.
Oh, Diana, I so identify with your comment! I too am concerned about dementia and I truly believe that using your brain is the best medicine. And I am severely disabled and dependent upon my partner for heavy physical work; he destroyed his brain connections through eating junk and is dependent upon me for negotiating the world.
That's funny about tennis, about the only sport I will watch on TV. I used to play but now I just dream of being able to walk freely again. I was a hiker, a swimmer, a horseback rider, loved to canoe and kayak. I try to accept my limitations, but sometimes I growl and think what I would like to do to the surgeon who butchered me! My email is womanwontwheest@gmail.com if you'd like to chat.
I’m not cis anything- I am a WOMAN.
I looked cis up on Google just now: What does cis mean? Cis is short for cisgender, which refers to when a person's gender identity corresponds to their sex as assigned at birth. Cisgender is the opposite of transgender.
I did not know this. I thought it meant that I was attracted to members of the opposite sex. Since I'm female, and attracted to males that means I'm cisgender. Check out this hilarious video about "grooming" kids to believe males can be females. The title is 2+2=5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_tXQo1yz0o
2+2=5 if that doesn’t add up you’re homophobic!!! That was hilarious- I maintain that I’m not cis anything and furthermore, my own son likes many things that our culture would deem feminine but he’s still a boy! Yes, I have a vagina and I have never been called a man but what about the girls that have short hair and hate dresses? It’s all such bullshit! These ridiculous stereotypes- now that’s really homophobic!
YES YES II have been addressed as "Sir" when I wear my husband's bulky down jacket and the sales person doesn't see my face or hear my voice. (I'm 5 foot 7 inches which is almost tall enough to pass. No surgery or hormones needed. YAY) 'm so grateful to be female without surgery. I figure I'm saving a million dollars over the course of a life time. My husband saves even more. Especially since he didn't need any phalloplasties. My heart is good, too. And I don't have cancer. Ooooh the money I'm saving is increasing by the minute.
Another quote from the rapper
Trust the WHO and CDC
None of our politicians work for the CCP
White kids are born racist if you disagree
That makes you a damn racist study CRT
In today's lesson men can get pregnant
Put your hands down, no more questions
Don't say pedophiles, just say ALA
Adults that like adolescents
If you want freedom we'll encourage to do the opposite
It's toxic masculinity if a man is too confident
Excuse me, what's a woman, well, I am not a biologist
Common sense is really not common when you're a communist
Parents that care about their kids let's call them terrorists
It's cool to be a feminist and an environmentalist
Don't have children, if you do then abort them
If your neighbors don't comply with the government then report them
If you have independent thoughts then just ignore them
Communism's the way democracy is too boring
Bring your kids to a drag show
Give them a couple dollars to put right up in their asshole
😂😂😂
I just saw this Dilbert cartoon (from 1991!!) Dilbert is on a blind date. His date is a dog in a dress which shows female breasts. Dilbert speaks to her, "To be fair Judy I wouldn't have agreed to this date if I had known you were a woman trapped in a dog's body." She replies (sarcastically?) "Oh right, and this is the part where you say, 'Let's be friends, but maybe I could pet you sometimes.'"
Every human has evolved instincts to know, and want, sex difference. We also have heuristics of fairness -- when we see a man wearing lipstick and playing rugby against women, deep evolutionary instinct tells us that it is unfair. What sort of social movement demands that we suppress evolved instincts? Not a liberatory one, that's for sure. "Gender" is an esoteric cult.
“They call us ‘cis women’ for a reason. They say I can’t be a trans woman for a reason. They acknowledge we belong to a category to which they do not belong and into which they cannot enter. So instead, they attempt to create a node whereby adult human females and adult human males can participate in a supracategory called ‘woman,’ and relabeled the actual categories that biologically exist in such a way that males and females are no longer recognized as categorically distinct.”
@Exulansic - this is the clearest articulation I’ve heard yet of how gender ideology has redefined “women.” This perverse redefinition results in a situation where the ONLY group that can be called “women” without qualification are trans women. The group of folks who get pregnant? Nope, we can’t call this group “women” according to the gender ideologues because the group includes an occasional trans man. The mantra “trans women are women”, is actually an understatement; trans women are the ONLY group we can refer to as women according to this ideology.
and heres another inconsistency in the logic - a trans woman can never become a cis woman.
https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/when-nouns-do-the-work-of-adjectives?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=841475&post_id=97929625&isFreemail=false&utm_campaign=929412&utm_medium=email
We need a terfislogic response to Katy Montgomerie’s interview/debate on BBC radio, ughh 😓
logic made its way to the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/us/gender-identity-students-parents.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
reading the comments is giving me a peace i have not felt in years
Like being slightly pregnant. There’s no such thing. You either are or you aren’t.
I have to disagree, in part. Natural language categories aren't spectral, but they are vague. "Adult" and "non-adult" may be given sharp cut-off points by legislation, but our intuitions do not behave like that. Similarly, our intuitive concepts of "male" and "female" aren't based on biological laws about gamete production, but on phenotypes—possession of these or those organs and of these or those physical traits, and these do not always line up. There is an ancient source that tells the story of an individual who was born and married as a girl (this was when girls were married at 12 or so), and then became a man at puberty and went on to father children. We can see that this individual will have been biologically male all along, a fact that became evident to observers only when his testes began to develop. Yet in intuitive terms it did make sense to say the person was once a girl and became male, because maleness and femaleness were being assessed observationally, by a combination of body type, genitals, and sexual function.
The problem is that TRAs behave as if biological definitions were fluid in the way that intuitive concepts are. They claim that the minuscule proportion of the population in which chromosomes and primary and secondary sex characteristics fail to align is somehow evidence that biological sex is multiple and/or that there are sexless individuals, and further that these "facts" have something to do with individuals being trans, even the ones who do not suffer from DSDs. Rather, it is our intuitive categories of male and female that are fuzzy round the edges—yet there are still very few cases where our intuitive concepts break down, because there just are very few cases where phenotypes and sexual functions do not align. Even if there were cases of true human hermaphroditism (to use the old-fashioned terminology), there would still be just the two gametes. No third sex. And this has nothing to do with gender anyway.
Another objection I have is that while the law of identity applies to objects, the laws of non-contradiction, ¬(A & ¬A), and excluded middle, (A v ¬A), do not: they apply to propositions. [I give the meta-logical formulations.] I think you have to reformulate your ideas taking this into account—although come to think of it you need to do it in terms of predicate logic, because we're interested in the logical properties and relations of e.g. (Jo is a man) and (Jo is not a man), which cannot obtain at the same time because the same predicate cannot both belong and not belong to the same object (ceteris paribus)—provided, as noted, the content of "man" is static and sharp (which isn't the case with natural-language concepts). Baldness is the standard example of this (cf. the Bald Man puzzle, also the Sorites for heaps). But while there's no non-arbitrary way of determining baldness, and no scientific criteria thereof that might replace our intuitions in certain contexts (although there are logics that accommodate fuzzy/vague concepts), scientific criteria for biological sex do exist that are precise and exhaustive of possibilities at species-level.