do I understand the definition of a woman?

[Marcus]

Well what you are denying, avoiding, or just ignorant of, is that there is a real tangible biological difference between a man and woman. And God or nature, or both…whatever you choose to believe, I will use “nature” moving forward, designed them that way, and if it was not for these differences, mankind would not exist. We have to assign words to everything in life or we would just grunt, moan and point….and not grow much as a society and in all honesty might not even exist today, who knows? Context is critical to all words, and ignoring the context is critical to your narrative. And words do change and evolve…which is what you are trying to do in order to fit this into your political narrative…lets be honest here.

In “context” to these two tangible biological beings, mankind has assigned man and women to be the name for adult male and female Human beings which singularly are biologically different, yet combined, allow the existence of mankind to exist. People that have diseases like PAIS or CAIS, or mutations, or people that change sex and gender by surgery or by hormone therapy, cannot reproduce. So there is a difference here…it might not be fair, and it might not be an easy road for these folks , but it is a reality…and pretending there is not a difference is just ignoring reality….

So, the people who “cannot reproduce” are not true women and men who can be called “adult male and female human beings,” according to your description?

So the entities with low sperm count can’t be defined as men. Being overweight can cause male infertility so the hefty entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to properly as “men.” Diabetes can cause male infertility, so diabetic entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to as “adult males” or “men.” And just to be fair about this, post-menopausal entities, by your description, no longer are “women,” because they don’t qualify as “adult females,” by your definition. The list goes on and on. And ON.

Let me ask you this, why do you want to change the meaning of the name woman to include folks that aren’t really biologically female as designed by nature? There is no right or wrong answer, just your opinion?

“As designed by nature” falls apart when you consider that low sperm count, diabetes and menopause, etc. etc. ETC., were also “designed by nature.”

The extremes aren't the main issues, though. Rather, it's the numerous instances of gender identity coming into conflict with societal norms that are the real, and more important point for consideration. The extremes just make the non-binary nature of the issues obvious.

… you seem to imagine it's all a ploy by peole whose games of dress up weren't extreme enough. That's just ignorance on display.

Exactly my point.

[Markk]

Well what you are denying, avoiding, or just ignorant of, is that there is a real tangible biological difference between a man and woman. And God or nature, or both…whatever you choose to believe, I will use “nature” moving forward, designed them that way, and if it was not for these differences, mankind would not exist. We have to assign words to everything in life or we would just grunt, moan and point….and not grow much as a society and in all honesty might not even exist today, who knows? Context is critical to all words, and ignoring the context is critical to your narrative. And words do change and evolve…which is what you are trying to do in order to fit this into your political narrative…lets be honest here.

In “context” to these two tangible biological beings, mankind has assigned man and women to be the name for adult male and female Human beings which singularly are biologically different, yet combined, allow the existence of mankind to exist. People that have diseases like PAIS or CAIS, or mutations, or people that change sex and gender by surgery or by hormone therapy, cannot reproduce. So there is a difference here…it might not be fair, and it might not be an easy road for these folks , but it is a reality…and pretending there is not a difference is just ignoring reality….

So, the people who “cannot reproduce” are not true women and men who can be called “adult male and female human beings,” according to your description?

So the entities with low sperm count can’t be defined as men. Being overweight can cause male infertility so the hefty entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to properly as “men.” Diabetes can cause male infertility, so diabetic entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to as “adult males” or “men.” And just to be fair about this, post-menopausal entities, by your description, no longer are “women,” because they don’t qualify as “adult females,” by your definition. The list goes on and on. And ON.

Let me ask you this, why do you want to change the meaning of the name woman to include folks that aren’t really biologically female as designed by nature? There is no right or wrong answer, just your opinion?

“As designed by nature” falls apart when you consider that low sperm count, diabetes and menopause, etc. etc. ETC., were also “designed by nature.”

The extremes aren't the main issues, though. Rather, it's the numerous instances of gender identity coming into conflict with societal norms that are the real, and more important point for consideration. The extremes just make the non-binary nature of the issues obvious.

… you seem to imagine it's all a ploy by peole whose games of dress up weren't extreme enough. That's just ignorance on display.

Exactly my point.

LOL…No, I have stated biological men, are not true biological women, because a true biological woman is a biological adult female human being, as most any reputable dictionary defines, including standard dictionaries, legal dictionaries, biological dictionaries and past and present dictionaries. Do you think biological men are true women? You set up a straw-man based on something I never said, created a scenario or plot I never stated or asserted or would agree with then act like you joined the conversation.

I don’t recall you ever answering one of my questions but I will give you a chance here…again, “is a biological man a biological woman?” If so, give me a reference and I will look at it.

Thanks for finally attempting to join the conversation

[Markk]

LOL…you are trying to assert that biological males with a rare disease that prohibits the growth of the genitals are some how biological women.

LOL, no he's not. You just can't see what he's saying because your brain can't handle reality where a person being raised their whole life as a girl and later as a woman, recognized as a woman and describe as being her parents daughter medically, and has no reason to see themselves as man could also be a genetic male but not a man...because sex isn't the same as gender.

It's illuminating how your sincere and adamantine ignorance manifests the power of misinformation.

LOL…so then you agree they are not a biological woman, they just believed they were, thank you? I understand that because of this disease, which you or DT refuse to acknowledge , let alone a rare disease, they believe they are women…but found out they were biologically a man. Being recognized as something that one is not does not make you what you are wrongly recognized as.

You take this rare disease. A sad and horrible disease in my opinion, especially emotionally. That affects very few males percentage wise in the world and try to justify that one can’t define what a true biological woman is because of this . That is the argument. You are just adjusting and spinning words to fit the narrative you now have to accept because of your commitment to a far left narrative. You are not protecting these people with CAIS…you are using them…to promote a left wing agenda that allows anyone to identify as anything they want, and change 5000 years of history and understanding while throwing biological woman under the bus.

For th e record, are your a biological man?

[Jersey Girl]

Hey Markk!

What's the difference between one's sex and one's gender?

[honorentheos]

LOL, no he's not. You just can't see what he's saying because your brain can't handle reality where a person being raised their whole life as a girl and later as a woman, recognized as a woman and describe as being her parents daughter medically, and has no reason to see themselves as man could also be a genetic male but not a man...because sex isn't the same as gender.

It's illuminating how your sincere and adamantine ignorance manifests the power of misinformation.

LOL…so then you agree they are not a biological woman, they just believed they were, thank you?

Amazing you can carry on this way. So when they are 1 year old, lack a penis, and their parents call her their daughter, what is that to you?

[Marcus]

So, the people who “cannot reproduce” are not true women and men who can be called “adult male and female human beings,” according to your description?

So the entities with low sperm count can’t be defined as men. Being overweight can cause male infertility so the hefty entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to properly as “men.” Diabetes can cause male infertility, so diabetic entities who can’t reproduce can’t be referred to as “adult males” or “men.” And just to be fair about this, post-menopausal entities, by your description, no longer are “women,” because they don’t qualify as “adult females,” by your definition. The list goes on and on. And ON.


“As designed by nature” falls apart when you consider that low sperm count, diabetes and menopause, etc. etc. ETC., were also “designed by nature.”


Exactly my point.

…You set up a straw-man based on something I never said, created a scenario or plot I never stated or asserted or would agree with…

In “context” to these two tangible biological beings, mankind has assigned man and wom[a]n to be the name for adult male and female Human beings which singularly are biologically different, yet combined, allow the existence of mankind to exist. People that have diseases like PAIS or CAIS, or mutations, or people that change sex and gender by surgery or by hormone therapy, cannot reproduce. So there is a difference here…

Also, you continue to make honor’s point that the terms man and woman are social constructs, when you say these terms are “assigned” and that people with “mutations” don’t qualify.

[Markk]

LOL…so then you agree they are not a biological woman, they just believed they were, thank you?

Amazing you can carry on this way. So when they are 1 year old, lack a penis, and their parents call her their daughter, what is that to you?

A terrible disease and having two healthy children a unimaginable reality, and as a Christian something I can not understand or comprehend, or pretend too. But the reality is that they area biological male with undeveloped genitals. That is just a fact Honor. And trying take it something it is not is just dishonest too me.

[doubtingthomas]

that prohibits the growth of the genitals

It is not an underdeveloped penis that looks like a vagina, it is a vagina. What part of "women with androgen insensitivity have normal external genitalia, namely, a lower vagina, labia, clitoris, and urethra... normal breast development" is not clear?

You quoted yourself, "have external genitals that are female". That part doesn't say "appear to be female genitals".

But okay. Whatever, I don't care. You can call them men. But call them men with vaginas and boobs. Can we agree on that?

LOL…and you are…you are trying to assert that biological males with a rare disease that prohibits the growth of the genitals are some how biological women. Why isn’t that person menstruating?

So according to you, a woman is a person who menstruates?

How would you explain women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser?

Affected women usually do not have menstrual periods due to the absent uterus. Often, the first noticeable sign of MRKH syndrome is that menstruation does not begin by age 16 (primary amenorrhea). Women with MRKH syndrome have a female chromosome pattern (46,XX)

You are an idiot.

[doubtingthomas]

But okay. Whatever, I don't care. You can call them men. But call them men with vaginas and boobs. Can we agree on that?

It is what it is, right Markk?

And the great creator (GOD) is the greatest troll.

What is a woman?

[honorentheos]

Amazing you can carry on this way. So when they are 1 year old, lack a penis, and their parents call her their daughter, what is that to you?

A terrible disease and having two healthy children a unimaginable reality, and as a Christian something I can not understand or comprehend, or pretend too. But the reality is that they area biological male with undeveloped genitals. That is just a fact Honor. And trying take it something it is not is just dishonest too me.

Can you find a medical journal or legitimate publication that shares your emotive response and damning language? I mean, you really seem to be invested in this false binary to the point you want anything that undermines it to crawl off and hide away until the end of their miserable, non-binary lives.

Sounds like conservative think in action, though. Conform or die. But LIBERALS HATE FREEDOM AND WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO GO EXTINCT BECAUSE THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT A WOMAN IS ANYMORE!!!!

I have to wonder how many calories maintaining this level of ignorance burns. It seems like a lot of work.

Markk, they're girls that mature into women. They may be biologically male, but they are absolutely girls and women. You don't like the implications of that, but that's you clinging to a false view of the world.