Donald Trump

[Gary Childress]

Imagine this, imagine accelefine had some terrible autoimmune condition meaning that her body would reject, within a month, any baby she might be pregnant with.

Well, if "can give birth" is a requirement for being a woman, does that mean you want to force accelefine to pee in the men's toilets?

You say it's not difficult, but it seems like it's difficult to me. It seems difficult to me to say to someone like accelefine, sorry babe, due to your condition you're not really a woman, you're going to have to stand up to pee like the rest of the boys.

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

A woman who can't give birth isn't a male. She's a woman who can't give birth. What's next, war is peace, freedom is slavery?

[Fairy]

Imagine this, imagine accelefine had some terrible autoimmune condition meaning that her body would reject, within a month, any baby she might be pregnant with.

Well, if "can give birth" is a requirement for being a woman, does that mean you want to force accelefine to pee in the men's toilets?

You say it's not difficult, but it seems like it's difficult to me. It seems difficult to me to say to someone like accelefine, sorry babe, due to your condition you're not really a woman, you're going to have to stand up to pee like the rest of the boys.

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

It was just one on the fly definition of a woman, which was anatomically correct. This question wasn’t supposed to evoke a Spanish Inquisition kind of scenario.

[FlashDangerpants]

Women who can't give birth have "disorders". "Disorders" don't make people less human. However, they aren't considered as "healthy".

Dude, I thought you said you went to university to study philosophy? Did you not do the simple definition problems like justified true belief and so on? Surely even in America they cover the difficulty of adequately defining things in year one?

I did go to a university and study philosophy. Didn't you? What's your problem with what I said? Did I say something incorrect?

Was the question unclear? Surely you covered the inherent difficulties of rigid definitions up front and all the points that FJ is raising remind you of stuff you would have covered in the first few weeks of study.

[FlashDangerpants]

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

It was just one on the fly definition of a woman, which was anatomically correct. This question wasn’t supposed to evoke a Spanish Inquisition kind of scenario.

You didn't want anybody doing philosophy at you huh?

[Gary Childress]

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

It was just one on the fly definition of a woman, which was anatomically correct. This question wasn’t supposed to evoke a Spanish Inquisition kind of scenario.

You didn't want anybody doing philosophy at you huh?

Right back at you.

[Flannel Jesus]

It’s good enough. The chromosomes say so.

The argument for and against what is a woman is just a stupid game of unreasonable irrational mental semantics. Typical of male behaviour and is why women will always be smarter than the male.

So why did trump bother trying to define it then?

This is actually a relatively important problem for anyone who wants to take a strong stance on the culture war of gender. People on the right make fun of people on the left because they "can't define woman". Which honestly makes sense, I think it's funny too.

But if those same people themselves can't define woman, it's... obviously hypocritical. Trump defined woman here, but he defined it in a way that nobody is clearly prepared to stand by. Because of course they can't stand by it, because of course not all women can give birth.

You're the one who linked to the video of a man defining "woman", but you're talking about the conversations about the definition as if it's entirely unreasonable. Nobody made you link that video. You chose to do that, and that choice now means that the conversation about the definition of a woman is on the table.

So did he define "woman" correctly or not?

[Flannel Jesus]

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

A woman who can't give birth isn't a male. She's a woman who can't give birth. What's next, war is peace, freedom is slavery?

You're telling the wrong person brother. Tell that to all the people in this thread who agree with trump's definition, particularly Fairy.

I don't define a woman as "a person who can give birth" so I'm okay on that front.

[FlashDangerpants]

It was just one on the fly definition of a woman, which was anatomically correct. This question wasn’t supposed to evoke a Spanish Inquisition kind of scenario.

You didn't want anybody doing philosophy at you huh?

Right back at you.

Oh please brother, we both know you don't have the chops to level that sort of accusation at me and that you will end up doing your self-pity dance if you go that route.

[Gary Childress]

You didn't want anybody doing philosophy at you huh?

Right back at you.

Oh please brother, we both know you don't have the chops to level that sort of accusation at me and that you will end up doing your self-pity dance if you go that route.

I learned what nihilism and relativism are and was taught that they are untenable positions. Is that not correct?

[Fairy]

The question wasn’t about what requirement was needed to be a woman.

Obviously if a woman can’t give birth for whatever reason, that doesn’t take away the fact that she’s still a woman.

Why do you keep changing the narrative?

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

A woman who can't give birth isn't a male. She's a woman who can't give birth. What's next, war is peace, freedom is slavery?

Exactly my point.

Honestly Gary, you are highly intelligent, I think that’s why mental illness is so common and prevalent in highly intelligent aware people because they are driven to wonder and question their own sanity, against the 99% of dumb unaware one born every minute idiots.

The patients are running the asylum on planet earth. You Gary, are the sane one.

[Flannel Jesus]

I learned what nihilism and relativism are and was taught that they are untenable positions. Is that not correct?

Obviously nihilists and relativists don't think they're untenable. Your professor thinks that. Maybe your professor is correct, maybe he's not. Someone just telling you that's the case doesn't make it the case.

[FlashDangerpants]

Right back at you.

Oh please brother, we both know you don't have the chops to level that sort of accusation at me and that you will end up doing your self-pity dance if you go that route.

I learned what nihilism and relativism are and was taught that they are untenable positions. Is that not correct?

I thnk it's a bit flat to suggest that they are automatically untenable. What are the arguments for gender nihilism and why are they untenable?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't understand why you think I'm "changing the narrative". Someone gave a definition of a woman. A definition is 100% about requirements to be a woman. If the definition of a woman is "a person who can give birth", then people who can't give birth aren't women, by defintion. Right? That's what a definition... is...

That's not me changing the narrative, that's the narrative.

A woman who can't give birth isn't a male. She's a woman who can't give birth. What's next, war is peace, freedom is slavery?

Exactly my point.

If that were xactly your point, you should be quite happy to admit that "a woman is a person who can give birth" is not an adequate definition. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either that's the definition of a woman, or it isn't.

[Fairy]

I don't define a woman as "a person who can give birth" so I'm okay on that front.

Good for you, but this isn’t about you, it’s about Trump’s definition which was answered correctly. Anatomically so.

[Gary Childress]

Oh please brother, we both know you don't have the chops to level that sort of accusation at me and that you will end up doing your self-pity dance if you go that route.

I learned what nihilism and relativism are and was taught that they are untenable positions. Is that not correct?

I thnk it's a bit flat to suggest that they are automatically untenable. What are the arguments for gender nihilism and why are they untenable?

By "gender nihilism" are you suggesting that anyone can be any gender?