Why would any good faith actor deny transgender women are women?

Why would any good faith actor deny transgender women are women?

Attached: 1432724756686.jpg (250x241, 7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

xy, originally

Yes, any man of good faith would. Be

If they're women, why do you need to mention that they're transgender?

Attached: hotdog.jpg (783x666, 506K)

They deserve extra sympathy and were born with a disability just like a guy in a wheelchair is.

Being a man is a disability?

Attached: image_0.jpg (500x383, 35K)

Being a woman in a man's body is.

What makes them a woman?

Attached: 1534958100303.jpg (960x720, 89K)

What makes a schizophrenic a schizophrenic?

I'm not sure it's fully understood yet. But we don't placate the delusions of schizophrenics.

Well we strive to do what's best for them. Their caretakers frequently indulge them to the level they can. Clinical psychologists have determined the best course of action for transgenders is to use medicine and sometimes surgery in conjuction and give them the very harmless thing they desire.

>We don't enable delusions
>but caretakers do
Which one is it, fagbrain?

Because, biologically, they aren't.
We can treat them as women for most things, but to deny a biological reality for the sake of politically correct is retarded.

Caretakers shouldn't indulge in their delusion, when you take care of a schizo the first thing they tell you is to not indulge in their delusions ever.

I guess to be edgy? Or cool? I don't understand it either.

So caretakers do what is not recommended. So why bring it up? Why bring up enablers in the context of combating drug overdose? Enabling delusions is not the right thing to do.

Anyway, you've stated that the reason transgenders are women is that they have delusions like schizophrenics think they are the center of a CIA COINTELPRO program. Great argument

You just fucking admitted you don't know if they're actually delusions lmao

>let me just call every disabled person I come across disabled as much as possible because biologically it doesn't make sense to be missing a leg or two

dunce

I'm not OP, just someone who took some psychology classes in college.

I was just pointing out that what OP was saying was incorrect in the case of schizos. With transgender people, there's a rather large part of the medical community who is dubious about the results of transitioning because the results aren't that amazing for many people and it doesn't help with depression, suicide and such all that much.
I know of some major clinics in the US who have stopped giving transition surgeries.

If you lack functional reproductive organ, you are not a sexual creature.
>duurrr so infertile/barren people have no sex?
Yes, they are neither men nor women.

Did you reply to the right post there, friendo?

>admitting no gender is a thing

whoa you dipshits are progressing. so gender is.. a social construct then? what about humans born with both sets of genitals?

Biologically they are men.
We can treat them as women for the sake of their every day life (for example, I don't care if a trans woman goes into a women's bathroom, and if someone tells me they want to be addressed as "she" I have no problems with it) but they aren't biologically female and we shouldn't treat them as normal women when their biology comes into account.
It makes no sense to deny a biological reality.

Physical disabilities are not the same thing as mental disabilities.
Weak argument

>Yes, they are neither men nor women.
That's stupid. They're men and women, they're just unable to reproduce.
Your mother doesn't stop being a woman when she gets into menopause.

>they're not the exact same fucking thing

they're both disabilities. they are both widely recognized and catered towards in society. your attitude towards people who suffer from them is the thing in question here. and you're picking and choosing because you're looking for a reason to be a dipshit

People with disability don't have the same functions as people without them.
A person without legs isn't the same as a person with legs, a trans woman isn't the same as a woman.

No shit. But do you go up to a person without legs and say you refuse to acknowledge their lack of legs or challenge them to a running contest? That's at the core of the argument here. Why are you being an asshole to someone for no reason?

On the contrary. I acknowledge they're disabled.
Same way with trans women. I acknowledge they're trans women. Which means that they're not biologically women, even if they identify as such, and I respect their desire to do so. They're mentally ill and I'm happy they find a way to cope with it, if they do.
I think it's retarded to think that they're 100% just like biological women, just like it is retarded to think that disabled people are 100% just like normal people.

It's a biological construct. Sex that is, gender was invented by a jew in the 60s or something, it isn't real

She literally does. If you lack the biological tool, you are not a sexual creature. You can say she is of the genus of woman or something maybe.

A woman is an with two X chromosomes and/or a vagina. Trans women aren't women because they don't meet the definition. In fact the vast majority of them meet all the biological criteria for being men.

Sex has nothing to do with your ability to reproduce, just with the genetic make up that causes you to develop certain sexual characteristics.
You can be either genetically male, genetically female or in some rare cases have a biological condition that makes you intersex.

>a trans woman isn't the same as a woman.
Not that user, but a trans woman is a woman. They're not the same as a biological woman. Similarly, women who are intersex or have sex chromosome aneuploidies are still women even though they do not meet the strict biological definition of a female.

>good faith actor

what the fuck does that even mean?

Attached: 1545630963804.png (512x468, 170K)

>Trans women aren't women because they don't meet the definition.
What, pray tell, is this definition?
XX chromosomes? Nope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
A vagina? Nope: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Women are women because they fill a certain social and aesthetic role. Neither the traditional behavior of a woman nor their traditional appearance is determined by biology.

>a trans woman is a woman
She is a trans woman. We can treat her as woman for most things, refer to her as a woman, but she isn't biologically a woman and to expect her to be treated just the same as a woman in each and every way is stupid. We aren't acknowledging the fact that she is, indeed, trans.
When biology comes into account (for example, in any sort of sport competition, or during a physical examination, or during a medical examination) we shouldn't treat her as a woman because she isn't biologically one.
I have no problem calling a trans woman "she", I do have problems with trans women competing in female sports because we divide women and men based on their biological differences and trans women don't belong with women biologically.

>What, pray tell, is this definition?

not being a dick wielding subhuman faggot lol

>What, pray tell, is this definition?
Biologically: lack of Y chromosomes, female sexual characteristics.

How do you tell the difference between a transgender and a schizophrenic who thinks they are female?

So a woman with XY chromosomes and a vagina as a result of complete androgen insensitivity is not a woman to you? What is she then?

Trans people have observable differences in brain structure.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Someone who's just acting like they're in good faith but aren't

your mom has observable differences in brain structure

Uhm... maybe because they are literally men?

She is a woman because she has female sexual characteristics.
We're talking about extremely rare conditions and it's insulting to them to group them with transgender people to win a stupid internet argument, to be fair.

A trans woman is biologically a man (with XY chromosomes and male sexual characteristics) that decides to change that to conform his body to the way he wants to present himself to others. Biologically, they're male. They choose to present themselves as female.

The fact remains that sex and gender are not the same thing. If someone identifies as a woman, has a female brain structure like describes, wears female clothing, has breasts, is taking female hormones, and goes by female pronouns, why should they not be known as a woman?
Obviously their medical care and risks would differ, but what sense is there in not treating them as a woman in 99.9% of situations?

They can be known as a woman, I never argued against that. I don't give a shit if a biological male wants to wear a dress and get called Cindy. Good for him.

When biology comes into account, they shouldn't be treated as women. For example, trans women shouldn't compete with women in sports, they should stick to standards required for men, they should have male medical care, they shouldn't get the same benefits as women when it comes to reproductive rights, etc.
And I also think that sex reassigning surgeries shouldn't have any special funding.

Because only females are women and gender identity is a bogus concept clung to by pseuds and mentally ill.

because a woman is an adult human female