What do you think, Any Forums? Can transgender ideology be logically justified? I don't think it can...

What do you think, Any Forums? Can transgender ideology be logically justified? I don't think it can, at least not in its current incarnation.

Attached: Screenshot_214.png (3839x1460, 312.21K)

This is B8 bit obviously the answer is no. Never.

>can be proven by opening a dictionary
stopped there
that’s not what proof means, that’s not all that a definition is, anyone who operates on this level of logic can’t write anything convincing

tey again after graduation, user
have you applied to any community colleges yet?

It's not bait in the traditional le epic troll sense, but I would like some thoughtful responses, yeah. The way I see it, you can prove transgender ideology wrong, and doing so at a legislative level would put the issue to rest for good.

Trying to claim that you can peacock your superior intellect around but choosing not to doesn't make anyone respect you or your ideals, and it doesn't take away from the legitimacy of anything I said there either. Just in case you didn't know, big boy.

there is no legitimacy to what you said

here let me show you
what determines biological sex

Attached: Screenshot_215.png (1532x129, 38.3K)

im gonna ask a clarifying question because i dont want to strawman

your answer is “sexual organs determine sex”? reproductive functions meaning one has the sperm (and sperm delivery device) and the other has the egg (and egg carrying device)

That is one characteristic of biological sex that, at this point in time, can't be reproduced and flipped in either sex. I would consider that and one's chromosomes to be the most determining qualities of one's sex.

If you want to be technical and exact, you'd also include things such as bone structure, hormone and chemical proportions in the brain (which can be altered through HRT with some degree of success, though it certainly tends to vary and is rarely "sufficient), chromosomes, and the like. Things such as genitalia are also included by many, but I personally believe that there's an argument to be made otherwise for that.

what is the female bone structure
what is the female hormone level
what are the female chromosomes

what, exactly, is a female
considering “adult human female” is your definition of a woman, it seems important to know what makes a female

and yes, i am a student of socrates, before you ask

>at least not in its current incarnation.
It never will be. Just like they’re never gonna be women.

what is a woman?

what do you call a human being born with eggs or ovaries

Woman
>Womb + Human
They never had and can never have a Womb so there for they are not a women

sorry, WITHOUT eggs or ovaries

is anyone born without a wing or ovaries not a woman? even if they have tits and a vagina and no dick and ask to be called a woman?

The true answer to all of those questions would be to take the average measurements of each element being measured, since averages become infinitely close approximations the larger the sample size. I think a sample size in the billions would probably give you a rough idea of where we stand for each of those distinctions.

As for what those exact numbers and measurements are, I 'unno. I know that all of those things can be empirically measured and that concrete standards can (and should, imo) be set based on the averages, though. I'll agree that I would like a more clear precedent to be set. Otherwise, we're just going on legal definitions, which aren't exactly infallible.

I would personally argue that two standard deviations from the average measurements in either direction would encompass most every typical variation of your traditional woman from most every background and culture, about 95% of all women. Beyond that, I can see room for ambiguity, and argument that people who fall out of that range may not actually "be" the sex they may or may not appear to be.

That's as specific an answer as I can give to your questions.

Transgendering has no logic. That's why it is ridiculous.

so there’s no actual concrete answer, there’s just a spectrum based on how widely diverse the actual human population is

it ain’t so easy to define what a woman is huh

also, just to dig a little deeper, you say
>standards should be set
why?

There is a concrete answer, that was the point of my post. The problem is, a precedent hasn't been made out of that answer, but the answers to all of those questions very much exist.

Until we precisely hone in on those exact numbers and measurements tho, humans will continue to go by close-yet-imperfect approximations that more often than not have a tendency to hit the mark. Sometimes they're wrong, yes. But that's not a good enough case to disregard the entire notion of sex, when it *is* something that has observable correlations and *does* have those exact numbers. Even if we don't use them yet. They're there.

So the transgender issue can finally be settled, one way or another.

We classofy every other species within gendered parameters and there are clear morphological differences. To take small outliers like "well 0.0000001 percent of the female population are born without a uterus, breasts or a vaginal canel checkmate chud" aren't reasonable to count. This isn't even getting started on how they can't even define gender or point out a single identifier of it other than abstracts like "identity". You need concrete concept to even identify with. Troon logic isbbullshit

Attached: 1653245055063.png (768x474, 232.19K)