• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Opinion Transgender Megathread V1.

Are trans-women women?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No.

A man who has his sex organs removed becomes a eunuch, not a woman. I feel great sympathy for anyone who is confused enough to try to do this in order for them to try to become their “authentic self”.
 
I don’t buy into the social construct theory. Thinking of being something else doesn’t make it real.

If Michael wants to be called Tanya I’ll play along, but that doesn’t make him a woman.
 
When they can give birth to keep the human race from going extinct i will consider them women.
81fR+0a4MfL._SX342_.jpg
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...es-burn-pits-legislation-after-days-pressure/

If they did, it was part of the same BS cover story that EVERYBODY saw through and they got killed on it, so they tucked tail and voted for it, just like they were going to before using soldiers in a proxy war against Democrats for something else. You don't do that to wounded veterans.

They had to vote on it or else nothing go through. I dont see any proof that what I said isn't true.
 
I'm 1 against 18 in the polls. These fucking echo chamber pussies need to stop worrying so much about secret dick because the women the normally fuck are so ugly they are at real risk of surprise sausage.

You could poll the general population and the results would be similar.

The overwhelming majority of people do not believe that a trans-woman is actually a woman. They might believe that you should call them that though. And they might claim otherwise publicly.
 
You're curious about the split on here? New to the forum?

I think transwomen are that, transwoman. By that account they should be treated more or less on par with biological women. Same with transmen, which no one cares about apparently. So, while they are not biologically that sex, I have no issue de facto categorizing them as such.
 
Last edited:
An adult human female.

And this is where it gets dicey - and, just to be clear, I have counterarguments to the case I'm about to make... But what things like this do is make it a discussion and not a simple "here is the fact" because there are all sorts of anomalies which muddy the waters on the clarity/primacy of that fact.

Ever heard of trisomy? It's where a person has three X chromosomes and not two. You know how, in the post above the one I'm responding to, you ask "Can an XY become an XX?" You seem to be leaning towards a biological basis for what you consider a woman/female to be, where a man has XY chromosomes and a woman has XX. Well, XXX isn't XX. Is a person who is XXX not a woman? Most will go through their whole lives being, functionally woman in every sense of the word but that bit of genetic coding. There is a good chance you have known an XXX person and thought "that's a woman" and you may have actually seen one with their baby hanging off their boob getting milk. Some info on it:

Triple X syndrome - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

Why this complicates things is because it makes a totally clear cut biological definition tough to pin down. Is it chromosomes? XX only? Well, if you just say that XXX people aren't women, then you commit to a position where a person who has given birth to a baby that they breastfed and hasn't ever had a lick of trouble "passing" as a woman isn't a woman. Is it tied to the ability to bear children? Breastfeeding? Having a womb? PMS'ing? You can niggle and find exceptions on any one of these points, and each and every one can be made to seem counterintuitive when someone say "Ah, but see this person here (who is clearly a woman) that shows your whole position to be inconsistent."

Personally, I recognize that there is a societal discourse on what a woman is. I draw a line at the point where people start to insist the term means something that just confuses the fuck out of the whole issue, where the discursive landscape tends to understand it quite well without the addition. People, right now, are just fucking things up.
 
Sure. Like sea horses are horses, guinea pigs are pigs and other things that are named after things they resemble but are not their namesakes.

That's why there's a qualifier preceding the descriptor. It's pure dishonesty to to use one without the other.

So they're trans women.
 
And this is where it gets dicey - and, just to be clear, I have counterarguments to the case I'm about to make... But what things like this do is make it a discussion and not a simple "here is the fact" because there are all sorts of anomalies which muddy the waters on the clarity/primacy of that fact.

Ever heard of trisomy? It's where a person has three X chromosomes and not two. You know how, in the post above the one I'm responding to, you ask "Can an XY become an XX?" You seem to be leaning towards a biological basis for what you consider a woman/female to be, where a man has XY chromosomes and a woman has XX. Well, XXX isn't XX. Is a person who is XXX not a woman? Most will go through their whole lives being, functionally woman in every sense of the word but that bit of genetic coding. There is a good chance you have known an XXX person and thought "that's a woman" and you may have actually seen one with their baby hanging off their boob getting milk. Some info on it:

Triple X syndrome - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic

Why this complicates things is because it makes a totally clear cut biological definition tough to pin down. Is it chromosomes? XX only? Well, if you just say that XXX people aren't women, then you commit to a position where a person who has given birth to a baby that they breastfed and hasn't ever had a lick of trouble "passing" as a woman isn't a woman. Is it tied to the ability to bear children? Breastfeeding? Having a womb? PMS'ing? You can niggle and find exceptions on any one of these points, and each and every one can be made to seem counterintuitive when someone say "Ah, but see this person here (who is clearly a woman) that shows your whole position to be inconsistent."

Personally, I recognize that there is a societal discourse on what a woman is. I draw a line at the point where people start to insist the term means something that just confuses the fuck out of the whole issue, where the discursive landscape tends to understand it quite well without the addition. People, right now, are just fucking things up.
I'm going off of the majority which is XX/XY.

Yes there are chromosomal abnormalities but the % is quite low and really isn't part of the what is a woman debate, which is can men (XY) become women (XX) and actually be a real woman.

To which the answer is no.
 
You could poll the general population and the results would be similar.

The overwhelming majority of people do not believe that a trans-woman is actually a woman. They might believe that you should call them that though. And they might claim otherwise publicly.

I don't see myself relying on the feelings of the unwashed masses for my opinion on how to categorize phenomenon.
 
We already have a T(ranny)DS thread. <45>
 
I play along with them to not hurt their feelings, but in my heart they're not women.
 
How many do you know that actually impact your life in anyway? And if you do know any, how do they impact your life? Such a fascination about a small minority and their sexuality to some on this board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top