Debunking: you are a woman if you identity as such

Merely defining womanhood as something you identity as is obviously circular and doesn't make sense.

You are X if you identify as X
You are X if you identify as (if you identify as X)
You are X if you identify as (if you identify as (if you identify as X))

As we see, this doesn't work.

Sex as a bimodal distribution:

The most accurate model that includes all of humanity is to look at overall sex-characteristics, then for most cases it will be fairly obvious who belong in the male category and who belongs in the female category

The issue here is going from an accurate bimodal system to a binary categorization. You will always end up with cases where which of these categories they belong to.

The solution is to give up the idea of having some universal binary classification and instead have different rules depending on the situation. For example the rules for sports does not have to be the same as the rules for legal sex.

vintologi.com/threads/about-the-gender-binary.846/

Social sex vs biological sex:

For social interactions what matters is your presentation and this can obviously be changed. At least social transition is very much possible with regard to typical social interactions.

Whether or not transition changes your sex to actually go from biological male to biological female will depend on the exact definition, when you start and which medical treatments you get. This however is not very relevant for social interactions.

Things like womb transplants for trans females would be great in any case.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/live-birth-dead-donor-definition-motherhood-transplants-pregnancy

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933979/I-born-no-womb-ve-given-birth-twins-says-mother-feared-no-man-want-me.html

pinknews.co.uk/2022/05/11/trans-uterus-transplant-pregnancy/

Ovaries for trans females allowing for pregnancy and eliminating the need to take HRT would also be a good thing.

Attached: bimodal.png (795x558, 12.01K)

defining womanhood by chromosomes is circular definition
>women have xx chromosomes
>why
>because women have xx chromosomes

Nothing about chromosomes was mention in the original post.

>Ovaries for trans females allowing for pregnancy and eliminating the need to take HRT would also be a good thing.
Just no. Not everyone wants to have periods and be at risk of needing to put in insane amounts of effort to get an abortion. I'm glad to be infertile, and if I were cis, I'd go out of my way to get my ovaries and womb yeeted.

X := identify as X

1) X = X = X = X = ...
2) (identify as X) = (identify as X) = ...
3) X = (identify as X) = X = (identify as X) = ...

If X := (identify as X) then this being circular is not an issue it is just the identity relation. It is the same as saying:

1 := unit

1) 1 = 1 = 1 = ...
2) unit = unit = unit = ...
3) 1 = unit = 1 = unit = ...

If X truly is identifying as X then identifying as X is just X. Of course X is X. This is not faulty logic and just because you can do this to infinity does not mean it does not make sense.

>99.99% of women are XX
>hmm I think its safe to assume women are XX

HUHHHHHH BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS SUPER RARE 0,001% CASE WHICH IS OBIOUSLY A MUTATION?

is that rare case still a woman despite not having xx chromosomes?

intersex are more common than red haired people

im not reading that essay, go do something productive you retard

Attached: 1652810320241.jpg (650x663, 63.92K)

The issue is that it doesn't actually define X.

>something is uncommon, so it shouldn't be accounted for
lol ok

woman is somebody who has the secondary and/or primary sex characteristics typical of the human female.

obviously we should stop considering red haired people as humans because there’s so little of them that they don’t matter.
since I am replying anyway and this is the 5th thread like this in the span of an hour, pretty obviously, you’re what you’re being precieved as, I doubt anyone takes chromosomal tests of every single person they interact with. calling someone with pronouns that don’t match their looks just makes you look like a creep.
/thread

Holy autism
Please be dumb and not just baiting

So, you're saying uncommon shit (like being trans) isn't accounted for by your "definition"?
Funny

yea, rare things kinda break the definition. you can't go all philosophical about what a woman is then cope that it falls apart under moderate scrutiny
it's like having a strict definition for what a chair is and when you come across a chair that doesn't fit that definition you just get lazy and excuse it even though your definition literally became invalid.

in some ways it's almost like scientific theories. like an older model might be useful generally, but you'd be retarded to say that it is 100% the truth of the universe, especially when you notice a contradiction.

Daily schizo thread

Its super hard to define one thing as 100% true unless you are talking about math or physics

The fact that 0,001% of women might not be XX doesnt mean that women arent defined as being XX or X0.Those 0,001% are exceptions caused by genetic mutations(they might as well be X0 women do all practical purposes)

Intersex is always brought up, but what does intersex have to do with the concept of an ordinary male being a woman because of their self-identity?

>they might as well be women in all practical purposes
Yeah, transwomen are women
Thanks for agreeing

Attached: previewimage-gTapJl.jpg (1200x630, 468.12K)

Is self-identification alone enough to make somebody a woman?

Because it shows an irrational bias in polys, they choose to ignore one minority while obsessively focusing on another minority soley based on autism and prolly dislike