That sentiment reminds me of KC's debate with (the horse-loving) Vaush. Vaush said something to the effect of "Trans women are women because it does the most social good." Well it might do me the most good to be addressed as "the handsome, wonderful ______" every time someone uses my name, but it doesn't make it *true*.

It's 100% misogyny and I'm getting sick of it

​@@dante6985also the idea that 0.1% of males get to overrule the definition of woman for 100% of females is somehow socially best is absurd- unless you consider women to not be people.

@@lovelight2577 exactly. In the argument he's unilaterally deciding it's doing the *most* social good and that's impossible to measure. (And I feel like that's being generous.)

They don't even think that themselves because that conclusion undermines their whole ideology. If they really think woman doesn't mean anything at all, then the whole trans ideology is about literally nothing. Transition to what? To nothing? So why even bother?

They also don't seem to do this for any other animal despite humans being primates. We know what a female monkey is, so why don't we know what a female human is?

Lmao exactly!! 😂

It's a cult-like set of beliefs. Heaven's gate was pretty absurd as well.

I thought the exact same thing. Makes no sense to say a cat is anyone who identifies as such 😂

When people start "defining animals", usually that means some very sick fetish is involved. Instead of looking at them trying to "philosophize" about things, just see what they want to achieve by their new "definitions". It usually is a fetish they are trying hard to justify.

The problem I see with TRAs is not that they can’t define “woman” but that they don’t know what it means. They try to be all philosophical by pointing out how definitions change based on what we intuitively count as a given thing and in response to counterevidence, like how Plato’s definition of human as “featherless biped” was invalidated by Diogenes, so they just added the clause “with broad flat nails”. But everyone knows what a human is in the conceptual sense, that is why we can even speak of there being competing and contradictory definitions of it, as opposed to there being different definitions for a series of unrelated things, all of which happen to be referred to as “human”. If there isn’t that conceptual unity, then we aren’t talking about the same thing. But TRAs don’t just say that the definition, that is, what gets counted as a “woman” and what doesn’t is malleable, rather, *they say that the MEANING of the IDEA of a woman is malleable* . How can anyone “affirm” a TIM’s gender identity if when people use the word “woman” they don’t have the same definitions, nor the same conceptual meaning? What if my “understanding” of what a woman is features me imagining a buff muscular male? Would that be “affirming”? After all, there is no conceptual unity for the IDEA of a woman so who’s to say that my idea can’t be that?

​@@computergamescritical6917 I came up with a thought exercise to challenge trans activists: On one hand there's person A: an adult male. On the other hand there's person B: a trans-man. These two people live in an alternative universe that's almost identical to ours BUT the words man, woman, boy, girl and gender haven't been invented. Adult males are just called adult males. How would you describe person B? - response here - Now let's say the folks at Oxford come up with a word for adult male, that becomes official and popular language: "man". What reason, if any, is there to apply this word to person B? Can't we just come up with a different mouth noise to assign to person B? Cause person A and B are fundamentally different, might as well call them different words right?

@@JonathanJimbo That's a pretty good answer. I realize gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that perhaps needs to be socially accommodated with a moderate degree of suspension of disbelief. For now at least. I do agree with Dev (goes by Short Fat Otaku, cringe name, smart guy) that in the future if gender dysphoria could be fixed with a simple pill, which cures those harmful dissociations with their sexes without altering their personalities, then all the hormone treatments and sex reassignment surgeries would be rendered immoral. What I've started to notice is activists now claim that man and woman don't mean adult male and adult female at all. Not that those mouth noises "have to" mean those things, but the fact is, the only reason trans people care about having membership in the categories of man and woman is precisely because they refer to the sexes, not despite of it. If cis-people started exclusively using the words male and female whenever they refer to a cis-person's sex, and only called trans-women women and trans-men men, the whole debate would start all over again.

Maybe he's gotten used to it, since they're all that way.

Is a neanderthal human? no? How come we can breed with them then? Hmm. biology is complex.

​@@user-pb1cf4lr2s Whether Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo Sapiens or their own species is still subject for debate, but other way we both belong to the same genus Homo, and inter-species hybridisation is neither rare nor necessarily leading to infertile offspring 🤷

@@Alina-dw3ct that was the point. You missed it.

Behold, a man 🐔

​@@user-pb1cf4lr2s yes, we're cousins

But if they're not prescriptive, by what justification do you refuse to refer to trans-women as women?

@@Celestina0 because they're not women, they're men

@@Celestina0 no need for justification, it's because they're men

​The same reason we don't refer to seahorses as horses. Seahorses and horses are two completely different concepts even if they have the same word within them.​@@Celestina0

@@Celestina0 the fact that trans women are men

And it’s mostly a lie. In most cultures, women are the designated caregivers in some way. If by “means”, she’s talking about what women wear or how they style their hair, then sure. She could have a point. But the social roles associated with womanhood have often been illuminated by the biological reality of motherhood and the traditions of marriage (‘Woman’s Old English Origin=Wife Of Man). Back then, the word ‘wife’ was used for all women, married or single. But it doesn’t have very fluid origins. Historically, there were probably far more gender non-conforming males than females. Those people were always called something else and given their own social category. Providing those people with a status didn’t really involve re-defining womanhood.

The entire reason they give these evasive, circular, nonsense answers is to avoid saying the blatant sexism out loud.

That's what cuts to one of the troubling implications of transgenderism: that people without such a label of "non-binary" or "trans-femme genderfluid" or "aporagender" or "agender" are innately less interesting than those with such labels.

Ironically it's actually the opposite, if a woman is an adult human female then that means the only thing all women have in common is that they are female.

Both good points. The concept of having a personality which isn't based on one's belonging to these categories and subcategories is just incomprehensible to these people. Their entire lives revolve around this baseless sense of identity.

In that same vein they’re confusing pronouns with names. We all have names. They’re not quite unique, but we generally don’t know more than one or two other people with our given names. They want neopronouns to play that same role, for some reason. Just let people have sexes, personalities and names.

@@abcdeshole Part of what's been frustrating to me - as someone who's been empathetic to trans / gender nonconforming people for decades - is just how much of 'trans linguistics' kind of falls apart. Like they need to restructure the terminology from the ground up (again). A lot of it seems pretty arbitrary. Example: Deadnames - considered deeply offensive, thoroughly taboo. Never to be uttered. That person is now always the new name and history is to be rewritten as if the 'old gendered' person never existed. Trans widow/er - based off deadnames: stemming from the fact that a person was married to someone who now goes by a new gender identity (and their old name, the name the person was married to, is now 'dead' and is written out of history.) Also considered deeply offensive and trans-misogynistic, never to be uttered.

it is for people who have only recently decided to "try it on". The rest of us just get to sit back and watch how brave they are for being us ("us" being: pink and in a dress with long long hair and a nasally voice, of course).

@@aprilmeowmeowgirl what!! I’m telling you!! They have lost their minds👏🏾 👏🏾 👏🏾

When they say 'Diverse' they mean not white, was the same with black panther.

@@Wolf-zp5iw Bahahaha at least with BP they had whites, blacks from the UK (Letitia Wright), and a strong supporting cast of women you don't usually see. With Parasite it was "South Korean actors and actresses".

@@dante6985 Sounds like 100% diversity to me.

​@@Wolf-zp5iw see where I said whites? And blacks from the UK? There's more ways one can be diverse than race.

Dude so true it’s like if tv static was words

That's what makes it so hysterical that they're always calling everybody fascists

yeah, or which people identify to go through the female genital mutilation or get drafted...strange, huh...

No-one denies that people can agree on who is male and female most of the time

Or as KJK put it, “I’m not a vet but I still know a dog when I see one.”

I am a Schlurg. I know this because I am one. If you are not a Schlurg then you don't know what it means to be one and you cannot tell me that I am not one.

(1) One part of anti-aging is telomeres lengthening (2) I will assume if we start turning back the clock literally we will start questioning age (3) Trans people can take medication (4) That medication can change the output of DNA (5) That can replicate the desired sex to a large degree... (6) Scientifically it's not 100% transition because of the lower components (7) The problem apparently if we lengthen telomeres can lead to cancer (8) Cells get damaged over time (9) They are supposed to died (10) The best we can do is replace them with stem cells... appearently.

@@caffeinatedhuman4035 Trans people can take hormones and have surgeries. Those things never, ever make them produce gametes that are opposite of whatever their bodies formed to facilitate the production of. What they are changing is secondary sex characteristics (which are never absolute - overweight males can have gynecomastia, some females remain flat-chested after puberty, etc). They are never, ever changing their actual sex. Sex is defined by gamete production. An infertile female is one whose body had developed to produce the larger gamete, but fails to do so (either through disorder, age, surgery, whatever). An infertile male is one whose body had developed to produce the smaller gamete, but fails to do so (for whatever reason). Transwomen who take hormones and have had surgeries to superficially appear female have removed their testes but do not have ovaries. Therefore, they have failed to become female but simply rendered themselves infertile males.

@@ir8octopus (1) No body is saying that the DNA changes completely (2) But the output does (3) I think there's a bit more to it than gynaecomastia (4) Go look up androgen insensitivity syndrome (5) Hormones are a powerful thing.

@@caffeinatedhuman4035 DNA doesn't just not change completely, it doesn't change at all. But that doesn't matter anyway, because DNA is not how sex is defined. It's by having larger or smaller gametes (or having developed in that direction as a fetus, even if incompletely). A single flower can have male and female parts. Biologists label them that way because one part has small gametes, the other has larger gametes. It has nothing to do with the DNA of the flower - both of these parts on the flower presumably have the same DNA. There are some animals who have temperature-determined sex determination (if a turtle's eggs incubate at a certain temperature, it results in one sex, a different range results in the other sex). We can identify what sex the turtles are by what size of gametes the turtle developed towards producing, even though that turtle's DNA could easily have resulted in the opposite sex had it incubated at a different temperature. Not sure why you're obsessed with DNA. It's about the gametes, and no transwomen have spontaneously developed their own ovaries from hormones, so none of them are female, period. Of course hormones are powerful! But tattooing stripes on myself and getting a tail implant wouldn't make me any bit more a zebra, and what transwomen do doesn't make them any bit more female. Sex is not a spectrum of superficial traits - it's a binary about gamete size. What you're talking about are called secondary sex characteristics, which are strongly bimodal (though not binary), but are not sex (at all).

@@ir8octopus (1) Look I 100% get it (2) There are plenty of trans who are non passable at this point (3) Alot of them look like they spent $2 worth of money and 5 minutes of time. (4) I'm not talking about those ones... (5) To me they are more like prototypes (6) I understand why it would freak a person out seeing people act like that. (7) They look like their half baked and need to get back in the oven. (8) But there are a few that I can not tell the difference. (9) Humans in general are not just biology but psychology (10) Most of us know one language (11) But if you took us as children and placed us elsewhere... (12) We would speak a different language. (13) I speak English because I was brought up around english people (14) I would be speak a different language brought up in a different country. (15) There are males who get brought up in predominantly female environments (16) I'm not going to tell you they have a real uterus (17) If that's what you wish to hear. (18) It will make you happy to hear that alot of them call themselves trans women. (19) We live in 2024 not the year 3000 (20) I do not think this mindset is ever going to go away...like you want. (21) I think that over a course of time there will be more biological change. (22) Wait until we start redefining humans with crispr.

And instead of just owning himself and accepting himself for who he is, he takes the pathetic cowardly way out by bastardizing the class of people who usually tend to be more accepting of us gender nonconforming men. Lovely.

There does seem to be far less flexibility and willingness to expand male roles to match the reality of the diverse ways men actually are. Hence the appropriation of the opppsite sex.

@@Gingerblaze Supposedly overwhelmingly more young females are identifying as trans than males but it seems like all the ones making a fuss and taking up all the cultural space are males and it seems like trans rights means men's rights to women's privileges.

Just identify as another race and watch their heads explode from the cognitive dissonance, because race is more of a social construct than sex.

How transphobic of you! Lol, kidding.

So a 13 year old child that has started puberty and thus able to become pregnant is a woman to you

Maria McLachlan`s version is also good „There is only one way to become a woman. You just have to be born female, make it through puberty and grow into adulthood. And Bob is your uncle…not your aunt.“

Its all sophistry

I never heard that term before. Is that like, how Eucharist for Catholics believe in transubstantiation, transignification is the word for how Protestant Communion is symbolic ritual "Do this in remembrance of me?" I think I follow your point.

@@theresas740 Transignifcation doesn’t refer to how Protestants view Communion, it instead refers only to a very fringe theology within the Catholic Church created by Edward Schillebeeckx. Protestants have their own views on the Eucharist or Communion, but it’s not transignification 👍

It's frustrating being left and fighting trans ideology. Because I think there are people like Matt Walsh who don't seem to care about gender nonconforming lives. And there are people on the left saying... "I sympathize with the plight but the language you're choosing doesn't really make sense."

I wasn't even aware of that! I'll check it out!

Sure, I'd like to see KC talk about that debate. To be honest, though, there is almost nothing in that video that's not already addressed in this one...

@@KC_Streams , RR's statements are so confused that I think it would be a tedious analytic exercise to make any sense of them. He doesn't even know what he thinks. I think it would be nearly impossible to respond to any individual statement he makes in isolation. He's the classic undergrad who takes one philosophy course and thinks he's a philosopher.

Yes, I’m seeing lots of parallels between that debate and this video in particular. Would love to hear KC’s take on it!

@StormBringer5 Now that I thought about it some more, I agree. Even though I think Colin did a great job both trying to clarify and refuting most of Stephens points, there are some topics that I would love to see addressed. (1) That platypus thing - it seems to me that RR here is confusing definition and description. How could adding the word "typical" to a DEFINITION make any sense? Then everything - even a penguin - can be a mammal, just a less "typical" one? There must be some other defining feature that made necessary to add the platypus to the mammals and therefore change the DESCRIPTION? (2) What's a social construct - according to RR, even things that are just fuzzy concepts (castles) are "social constructs". (But even so, how do you get from "social construct" to "I can freely declare the group I belong to".) (3) It seems to me that RR not only thinks that "man" and "woman" are in some relevant sense social constructs, but that people are INTENTIONALLY referring to those social constructs when they use those words. I think, however, that those words were always INTENDED to primarily refer to the sexes (and, as Colin points out, they are actually very very good at that), just that cultures put more or less baggage - "gender" - on top.

Please will you consider responding to my question I have asked you in your last video?..

The delivery is a little ... I'm still glad you uploaded it and thanks for explaining. I was a little confused about your hair at first.

Re-post with your question, so he doesn't have to go looking for it. GL.@@blackrainbow6126

I like your monotony lol. Sometimes it's good to have a calmer voice, even when women's identities are being erased by the delusional.

Don’t worry about the monotony or try to “perform.” As long as it’s on topic, we like it.

you'll believe it too or it's off to room 101!

Yes O' Brien!@@alasshewasthehighwaywoman8886

You can define anything quite easily. 'A woman is a three foot tall tree'. That's easy. What's hard is defining something in a way that includes all the things you want to call women, and excludes all that you don't. Which is, i think, impossible.

@@Celestina0 Woman - adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. Man - adult human male, with "male" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of impregnating females. These would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. can't actually fulfill their respective reproductive role (e.g., so-called "intersex" people). But those who argue that gender is somehow different from sex typically end up giving definitions that are unworkable with the rest of their worldview (usually by confusing gender itself with gender roles and norms).

Adult human female 🥱 and we're not things.

You are confusing 'defining' with 'saying' and not for the first time, young man.

@@Celestina0 Wow, my reply was deleted. Figures. Anyway, a woman is an adult human female, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. If my comment stays put, we can talk more about it. We'll see.

Yeah, and none of them were confused about the difference between men and women. People like Alexandre love to bring up these spurious accounts of how non-Europeans were all totally pro-trans.

@@patavinity1262Because having examples of non-white people that agree with you is the ultimate trump card

@@soph1e That's true, but it also goes deeper than that. They want desperately to believe in a worldview that makes all social evils the fault of Europeans, and suggest that non-Europeans (especially colonized peoples) had a deeper, truer almost mystical sense of understanding that whites wish to eradicate for reasons of racial intolerance. It's essentially a modern version of the 'noble savage' concept. Any inconvenient evidence that suggests tribes in Africa or the Americas haven't had and don't have impeccably politically correct views on everything is either ignored, or it's all blamed on European colonialism.

I would simply say that while a woman is an adult human female, a cis woman is an adult human female who does not suffer from gender dysphoria. And by that logic we can further extrapolate that a trans woman is an adult human male who suffers from gender dysphoria.

Type transalpine gaul into google. Type cisalpine gaul into google.

I'd love to hear it!

There’s an alliance?

All of Magdalen Berns’ youtube videos are favorites of mine.

@@goobydoot thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out!

I personally haven't read that book. I've read a few books about trans ID, but yeah not that one. I'm happy to hear my videos have been useful for you in looking into this topic!

@@KC_Streams just though I'd ask! Great video by the way and thanks for the response!

This trash is believed by well over 0.2% of the population. It's mainstream. Try refering to a man in a dress as "he" and see how much time passes before you're called a bigot.

*he

Wouldn't it be funny if I actually was rapidly growing and cutting my hair!

Gross lmao

Its hypnotic for a reason

Oh yeah, I love that vocal fry and pretentious affectation

i am of the opinion that adoption is human trafficking, and you would be surprised at how loosely that word is bandied about....when i truthfully state that only women who have given birth are mothers, and that they are only mothers to the children they themselves birthed, people get...pretty irrational.

​@@alasshewasthehighwaywoman8886 That's a perspicacious response, but it doesn't tell me what @King Critical thinks. I do appreciate your stating your ideology, and it is important, because, unlike many, you freely admit your view is ideological and do not gaslight by pretending it is about science or linguistics. I consider this honest, and if honesty were the norm, I do not believe that the overwhelming majority of arguments over trans would be necessary or would even be likely. The entire mess is contaminated with extremely bad terms, including _gender_ and _cis,_ which I avoid whenever possible. I am not here to discuss, let alone argue about ideologies, however. I am here as a cognitive linguist.

@@deadman746 ...i think you'll find it is the scientific view, to be fair.

@@deadman746 and *noticing and correctly identifying that adoption is human trafficking* is actually not an ideology. so no, i do not freely admit anything like that.

@@deadman746 i'm really not sure you understood anything i said to be honest, but just as with trans, the nitty gritty has to do with vaginas. cherche la femme eh

Isn't that how it is used though? Women describes a physical naturally occuring phenomena, not an identity or a social construction. "A women is someone who identifies as a women" is a circular definition. The reason the definition is valuable is because it denotes a particular group, which is important because sex matters in some circumstances.

How can anyone reconcile identifying as something while at the same time arguing that it isn’t actually a thing that exists or is definable.

How you use the word woman is wrong. It's innacurate, regressive, sexist and misogynistic. So we're not going to use it your way.

Only genderists such as yourself use the term woman in terms of sex stereotypes, which is obviously regressive and sexist.The rest of us use the term accurately, ie. a woman is a female human.

just stay out of our spaces sir!

Well... How would you define female such as to include trans women?

@@KC_Streams I don't understand what you're asking for. If you asking for necessary and sufficient conditions, I don't think definitions provide that except in the case of abstract objects like shapes and numbers etc. If I were to take your definition of "female" for example: "an organism whose phenotype is organized around facilitating the function of large gametes in sexual reproduction" There are questions as to why this excludes some or any males. Let's go in order: I don't know what it means for something to be "organized around" unless it's teleological. As an analogy, the solar system isn't "organized" around supporting life. It's just in the conditions under which life can occur. Likewise, under some conditions, "facilitating the function of large gametes in sexual reproduction" isn't what the body is "organized around" unless that simply means under certain biological conditions, such events *can* occur i.e. it's biologically possible. The problem then becomes that it's unclear that not everyone is female. Certainly there exist some biologically possible conditions in which any person's phenotype "facilitates the function of large gametes in sexual production". Let's give a few examples to illustrate this point. With this presupposition that we've removed teleology as an unscientific notion, under your definition, it's presumably biologically impossible to take a woman's ovaries and have her phenotype "facilitate the function of large gametes in sexual reproduction." That is to say, as long as she's in this condition, her body can do no such thing and it is therefore no longer "organized around" such "facilitation". As such, this person is no longer a woman. Of course we can add specific conditions *ad hoc,* but then what's different in principle about this definition and any arbitrarily inclusive trans definition? Assuming we don't add conditions *ad hoc* and allow the full gambit of biological possibility to determine the conditions under which someone counts as a woman, you'd have to show that it's biologically impossible for what you're calling a "male" to have functioning ovaries or a uterus implanted. It might even call into question why phenotype is relevant to the definition. But as it stands, to answer your question with these philosophical assumptions in mind, *your* definition of female seems perfectly trans-inclusive.

@@TheRealisticNihilist OK some quick points: firstly, let's be clear about the fact that my definition works perfectly for the vast vast vast majority of people who clearly have a biology that functions to facilitate the role of a given gamete in sexual reproduciton, or where anybody acting in good faith should be able to agree that this would be the function if it was functioning properly (most infertile people it is obvious what gamete they would be facilitating the function of in reproduction if they weren't infertile). So these nitpicks apply to a tiny tiny fraction of a percent of edge cases. Again, most differences of sexual development don't create a situation where we can't clearly recognise that this is a biological female with a difference of sexual development that gives them certain male attributes or vice versa. With that said, my definition is hardly trans-inclusive if it could include only a very very tiny percentage of trans-identified males, since at best only a tiny proportion of such people would fall into any such possible edge cases you're hinting at here. But the bigger issue, is that it's hard to say how it could be trans-inclusive at all when in order for somebody to be a trans woman they would firstly have to be obviously male, which would necessarily place them outside of this edge place complexity My position therefore is that the definition of biological male and biological female is simple enough most of the time, and the small amount of times when it isn't aren't really worth getting into, and they're necessarily irrelevant to trans identity since trans identity implies that somebody is clearly the opposite sex

they are males.

@@KC_Streams You thinking I'm appealing to edge cases shows that you've completely misunderstood what I'm saying unless you think the overwhelming majority of humans are females. I'm pointing out the conceptual implications of your definitions on the proviso of the philosophical assumptions I've explicated. That definition in concert with those assumptions makes it overwhelming clear that most people are in fact both male and female, that the categories are about as mutually inclusive as categories can be save charitable edge cases that I only include as epistemic humility given that I can concede it's possible that for some small subset of individuals, it's conceptually possible that given some facts about biology they simply aren't included as a member of your definition under all biologically possible scenarios. When you say, "my definition is hardly trans inclusive," this is the very statement under contention and it shows that you're either ignorant of the implications of your definition and misunderstand my objection, or your definition is unclear, or you're committed to the inverse philosophical assumptions I explicated that I roundly reject and should hope you do as well viz. science isn't teleological and you're not arbitrarily restricting descriptive conditions. Because it doesn't seem like you've understood or at least are not engaging in what I've said, I'm going to enumerate the points and let you take umbrage with them in turn: 1. There is no teleology in science. Therefore, "organized around" in your definition has to refer to descriptive facts. 2. "Organized around" has to be partly constituted counter factually. i.e. missing ovaries doesn't imply someone is not a woman or _if_ she had working ovaries _then_ she's a woman 3. Non arbitrary restrictions of the biological modal space makes it likely that all "males" satisfy this "organized around" condition and are therefore female.

There aren't any exceptions to the claim that female is ordered towards large gamete facilitation. There is however complexity as to what exactly that means

Definitions explain words with other words. Words are mouth noises that we assign to things for faster communication. It's really not that complicated. I certainly don't need to read a book about metaphysics to understand those concepts. You could actually say what you mean instead of just recommending a book. People would rather read a lengthy comment from you. If you presented any kind of argument of your own, people might have some interest in reading that book.

@@kwk111yeah but dictionary definitions are colloquial. Typically you can define something in different ways based on utility. The utility of “adult human female” is simply to be trans exclusive, it isn’t actually useful as a specific lens to understand and look at something specific

@@ellewilliams5162 If the words man and woman didn't refer to the sex categories male and female, trans people wouldn't care about those words. When most people say woman, they mean female. If the word 'woman' didn't exist and people simply said 'female' when they mean female, then trans-women would call themselves trans-females.

@@ellewilliams5162 The utility of 'human female' as the definition of girls and women is to acknowledge, recognize and articulate the existence of over half the human population, who've been oppressed precisely on the basis of our sex since time began. To think that this definition exists solely to exclude 'transwomen' is incredibly myopic and narccicistic. 'Transwomen' are by definition excluded from girlhood and womanhood because they're male, hence men. They're a category of humans distinct from female humans. That's life. Get over it.

yes it is! google what the definition of female is then get back to me, hint... it does NOT include men who "identify as women".

@@nataliekhanyola5669 lol? Adult human female IS the dictionary definition. You ask me to Google the definition, but I already wrote it. Note that nobody said anything about men. We're talking about women. Which includes cis women and trans women. And btw, I happen to have a vagina and I'm a trans woman. I never had my chromosomes tested, but I had another friend named Karen with clinefelters configuration. She had two X chromosomes and was saving up to get get rid of her penis when I knew her. We both are adult humans with that gender simply called female.

@@Susanmugen No! i asked you to google the definition of FEMALE! By including trans "women" in the definition of woman, you are including men!

@@nataliekhanyola5669 oh sorry, now I understand. You think woman/she/her to be gendered terms but sexually dimorphic. I understand m. It's definitely the gender of the same name being referred in that definition, not gamete size. But so you know, both me and Karen have the same size gametes as a cisgender woman that had a hysterectomy from cancer. Zero size. Not all women have gametes. Post op trans women have none. Not that it matters me and a bunch of cis women have the same, it's gendered.

@@Susanmugen removing/damaging your gametes doesn't mean you didn't biologically develop any, eunuchs don't become female because they removed their male genitals. And a woman doesn't become a man because she had a hysterectomy. Trans "women" are men/male. The only thing that determines what a man or woman is, is their SEX!!

why would a man being stupid and wrong discredit feminism?

Which feminists and which feminism does it disqualify. They aren't all the same.

@@ribbonsofnight Distinction without a difference. Cancer, in all it's forms, is bad - there are no good cancers.

@@OrwellsHousecat Was the feminism 100-140 years ago which advocated for the right to vote for women a cancer?

@@OrwellsHousecat feminism isn't cancer though, it's based

Yes, but what has female androgen insensitivity got top do with trans identified men? all trans "women" are typical males, no chromosomal variations present, like with 99% of the population. A woman is an ADULT HUMAN FEMALE! What is wrong with this definition? It's the best one we have. -it denotes AGE, Women are human females that have reached maturation. -SPECIES, Women are the female sex of the human species. -And SEX, women are FEMALE! A definition being exclusionary doesn't make it either wrong or problematic. ALL definitions are exclusionary, name me one that is not?

The idea that sex and 'gender' 'correlate' is literal sex stereotyping, which is sexism. That's why your definition doesn't work and is unnacceptable. I don't know where you got the idea that women 'identify' with the very sex stereotypes and roles we've been fighting against for hundreds of years.

@@Mel-wn9gbyou don’t know what a stereotype is. There is usually difference between that and our social understanding And also this isn’t a trans only thing, we all have a gender identity that is formed incredibly early in childhood based on these “stereotypes” Gender is a tool humans use, you need to accept that. There are things that are harmful and not accurate and we can always challenge those, but you can get rid of gender it’s often highly subconscious

@@ellewilliams5162 A sex stereotype is when you impose particular traits, characteristics, behaviours, roles, appearances, capabilities etc. onto people just because of their sex. I'm not sure what you mean by "there's a difference between that and our social understanding". Our social understanding of what specifically? It's true that sex stereotyping and socialization into sex roles begins at or even before birth. Children internalize these sex stereotypes and roles, which is what it means when ideolgues say that they develop a supposed 'gender identity' by age 3-5. Luckily for us, we continue to grow, mature and develop the life experiences and critical thinking skills neccesary to challenge such narrow, limiting sex stereotyping and develop into full human beings in all our uniqueness, complexity and diversity. You need to accept that girls, women, boys and men are not a set of walking sex stereotypes, roles and cliches that you can 'identify' with, but female and male humans.

Can you give any example of when the pro-trans side has defined woman?

@@KC_Streams you could look at people like savy writes books or jovan bradley. savy has a whole video on ‘what is a woman’. jovan is someone i’d love to see you talk to. he has live debates you can call in

​@@babs_babs Surely you should be able to write down these definitions you heard hundred of times. Right?

@@gonstasp3081 yeah.

@@babs_babs I can check out this content at some point but yeah it might behoove you to present the definitions

You're going to have to list those "social relations". Let's hear em.

@@xWriterclarenocturnexx Notice how you didn't deal with the point? I did.

@@nineteenfortyeight6762 As you well know, women's social relations vary from culture to culture, and age to age. Short skirts are men's wear on pacific islands. Teachers were all men n the west in the 19th centuries, and then it became women's work. Nurses used to all be women, now they're not. Cope, and learn dialectics.

That's circular trash. "A ghyhj is someone that identifies as a ghyhj." Do you have any idea now how to describe a ghyhj character writing a story now? What is the difference between men and women?

​@@antediluvianatheist5262well I'm not a teacher and I'm a woman. Now what?