Philosophy Now Forum

"a woman is a person who can give birth under certain circumstances".

What a strange definition. So if a person has had their uterus removed, or was born with various other fertility issues that would leave them unable to give birth. It just seems like that definition makes some people "not women" who just about everyone would agree should be considered women.

If there's no circumstance under which your grandmother can give birth, she's not a woman...?

So, well according to 'this one human being' anyway, a 'woman', is;

Some 'body' who can have a baby under certain circumstances.

A 'person' who is much smarter than a 'man', (who "donald trump" anyway), has ALWAYS found.

A 'person' who does not even give a 'man' a chance of success.

A 'person' who has been treated 'very badly'.

'Incredible'. And,

Do 'so much' for 'y/our country'.


------------------------------------

So, for the 'woman', here, does 'this' sound about 'right'?

Are you ALL able to have a baby, (under certain circumstances of course)?

Are you ALL 'much smarter' than ALL 'men', and ALWAYS?

Do you ALL NEVER even give 'men' a chance of success?

Have you ALL been treated 'very badly'?

Are you ALL 'incredible'?

Do you ALL do 'so much' for 'whatever country'? And,

Do you NEED 'men' like "donald trump" to 'take care' of 'you'?

It depends how you interpret what he said.

I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

Trump is intelligent and smart enough to understand that women are precious manifestations of nature, who are smart enough to show men the way to heaven on earth. Women are smarter because they know how to show the man heaven. All the man has to do is mutually align himself with her unconditional nurturing higher wisdom. And never see her as anything less than himself but see her as an equal to himself.

Truth is all women want is to be appreciated and respected by men. In return men who understand this will be shown the way to heaven. Heaven is there for every man, as and through the woman.

Men will miss out if they mistreat women. Women will simply turn away and go it alone, women don’t need inconsistency in men, it’s all or nothing for women.

Treat a woman well, with dignity and respect, honour and protect her always, and watch heaven be yours. That’s all women ever wanted from a man. Smart men know this.

Yes my friends, only women bleed.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:32 am "a woman is a person who can give birth under certain circumstances".

What a strange definition. So if a person has had their uterus removed, or was born with various other fertility issues that would leave them unable to give birth. It just seems like that definition makes some people "not women" who just about everyone would agree should be considered women.

ONCE AGAIN, 'we' INTERPRET 'things' COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:32 am If there's no circumstance under which your grandmother can give birth, she's not a woman...?

What i 'saw' was "donald trump" was 'GONG TO' SAY some thing like, a 'woman' is of 'that body', which is able to give birth, and then REALIZED that NOT ALL 'women' can give birth, which is WHY it added the, 'under certain circumstances', part.

Expressing and/or explaining that ABSOLUTE and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth, when you are put on 'the spot', as those types of people are, is NOT the easiest and simplest thing, to do.

But, to me, what "donald trump" was, essentially, 'TRYING TO' get to, was that an individual 'human body' with vaginas, wombs, ovaries, mammary glands, et cetera, which are for producing and sustaining young human lives is a 'woman', but realized through mid sentence that NOT ALL of 'those bodies' can give birth, so added the proviso 'under certain circumstances'. Which, as can be OBVIOUSLY CLEARLY SEEN, here, can be INTERPRETED in two COMPLETELY OPPOSING WAYS.

Which, by the way, can happen almost continuously throughout human beings' sentences, speeches, and writings.

By the way, 'all of this' leads INTO HOW FINDING, and RECOGNIZING, what the ACTUAL Truth of things is, EXACTLY, is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY. 'Which then LEADS INTO HOW the 'brain' ACTUALLY WORKS, EXACTLY, AS WELL.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am It depends how you interpret what he said.

I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

But if I insert my sperm into your grandmother, who is post menopausal no doubt, a baby won't come. So she's no woman according to what you just said. Your grandmother must be a man pretending to be a woman.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am It depends how you interpret what he said.

EXACTLY. 'It', literally, ALWAYS DEPENDS on HOW 'you', (ANY one), is INTERPRETING 'things'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

OUT OF three INTERPRETATIONS, 'we' HAVE 'three VERY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS, FROM the EXACT SAME 'video' and FROM the EXACT SAME words.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

Which, by the way, is WHY I HAVE QUESTIONED 'the people', here, ABOUT, 'Besides the sexual organs of the body what else is the word, 'woman', MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?'

To me, it IS SO OBVIOUS that BESIDES the 'organs of 'the human body' for procreating, producing, and sustaining further ones of the human species', there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE that 'DEFINES' A 'woman', and A 'man'. But, AS ALWAYS 'I' AM OPEN TO HEARING what 'others' have to or want to SAY, here.

So, besides the 'human organs', which produce and sustain more or further 'human life', how ELSE can 'women' and 'men' be DIFFERENTIATED and/or DEFINED, EXACTLY?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:21 am

All that yapping, yet it's still the case that there are people we should consider women, who can't give birth under any circumstance

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:31 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am It depends how you interpret what he said.

I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

But if I insert my sperm into your grandmother, who is post menopausal no doubt, a baby won't come. So she's no woman according to what you just said. Your grandmother must be a man pretending to be a woman.

That’s just a ridiculous argument. Grandmother’s are women, who have given birth at some time in the past.

Just because she’s not giving birth anymore doesn’t mean she’s no longer a woman.
What an absurd thing to say FJ

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:48 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:31 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am It depends how you interpret what he said.

I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

But if I insert my sperm into your grandmother, who is post menopausal no doubt, a baby won't come. So she's no woman according to what you just said. Your grandmother must be a man pretending to be a woman.

That’s just a ridiculous argument. Grandmother’s are women, who have given birth at some time in the past.

Just because she’s not giving birth anymore doesn’t mean she’s no longer a woman.
What an absurd thing to say FJ

It is absurd, but it's the consequence of the logic you yourself provided. The criteria you gave for what makes a woman a woman.

I totally agree that it's absurd, so your criteria must not be good enough.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Trump is intelligent and smart enough to understand that women are precious manifestations of nature, who are smart enough to show men the way to heaven on earth. Women are smarter because they know how to show the man heaven. All the man has to do is mutually align himself with her unconditional nurturing higher wisdom. And never see her as anything less than himself but see her as an equal to himself.

Are you AWARE that while you are TELLING 'men' that 'women' ARE 'smarter', and that 'men' just HAVE TO DO is align "themselves" WITH 'women', while also SAYING and CLAIMING that 'men' also NEVER see 'women' as ANY thing 'less' than 'men' but see 'women' as 'equal' to "themselves"?

Which, ultimately has 'me' WONDERING how can 'men' LOOK AT and/or SEE 'women' as equal as 'men' IF 'women' ARE 'SMARTER' than 'men'?

If 'women' ARE 'SMART' ENOUGH to SHOW 'men' 'the way' to 'heaven' AND TO 'unconditional nurturing higher wisdom', then;

1. How can 'men' EVER be AS 'equal' as 'women' ARE, who ARE 'SMARTER', who HAVE A 'HIGHER WISDOM', and who ALREADY KNOW 'the way'? And,

2. If 'women' are Truly 'SMARTER', then WHY have 'they', nor 'you', SHOWN 'the way' ALREADY, and thus CREATED 'life' ON earth, ALREADY, as 'it' IS IN 'heaven'?

Is it because 'men' are Truly just TOO STUPID?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Truth is all women want is to be appreciated and respected by men.

WHY do 'men' NOT WANT 'this' AS WELL?

And, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that 'women' do NOT WANT ABSOLUTELY ANY thing ELSE?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am In return men who understand this will be shown the way to heaven. Heaven is there for every man, as and through the woman.

I thought that it was THROUGH "jesus", which was 'The Truth, the light, and the way, and NOT THROUGH 'woman'.

By the way, and for those who are CURIOUS and INTERESTED what WILL BE and WAS DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED WITH 'the second coming', is that the word "jesus" MEANS and/or IS REFERRING TO "children". So, WHEN you adults human beings HAVE FAITH and BELIEF IN "your" 'children', then it IS 'they' who WILL, and DO, LEAD 'you' 'the way' TO 'HEAVEN' WITH 'the Light' and WITH 'the Truth'.

The 'second coming' IS JUST A REALIZATION, REVEALED, and NOT some "human body' COMING BACK or COMING FORTH, 'this time'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Men will miss out if they mistreat women.

Do 'men', or MORE IMPORTANTLY DO children, MISS OUT when 'women' MISTREAT 'men'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Women will simply turn away and go it alone, women don’t need inconsistency in men, it’s all or nothing for women.

REALLY?

HOW FAR can 'one', of 'the two', which are BOTH NEEDED FOR A species TO SURVIVE, and TO KEEP GOING, go 'it' ALONE, for, EXACTLY?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Treat a woman well, with dignity and respect, honour and protect her always, and watch heaven be yours.

Is 'this' what you REALLY BELIEVE IS TRUE?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am That’s all women ever wanted from a man.

And, what is 'it', EXACTLY, that ALL 'men' ever wanted from not just A 'woman' but ALL 'women'?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:02 am Smart men know this.

But, 'women' ARE 'SMARTER' than 'men', right?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:31 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 8:45 am It depends how you interpret what he said.

I interpreted the ‘certain circumstances’ point thus….

The certain circumstance needed for a woman to have a baby, is for a man to insert his sperm into her body. Until that circumstance happens, there’s no baby for the woman.

Could also extend to IVF practices, even sperm or egg donor practice.

The main issue here is that a woman is by nature the one who gives birth to babies. That’s what really defines a woman. So I agree with Trump on that one.

It’s not really a strange definition to be fair. It’s actually quite obvious and honest.

But if I insert my sperm into your grandmother, who is post menopausal no doubt, a baby won't come. So she's no woman according to what you just said.

I did NOT SEE, and INTERPRET, what you just SAW, INTERPRETED, and SAID.

To me, "fairy" did NOT just SAY that if "fairie's grandmother" can not and/or does not get pregnant, then 'that women' is NOT A 'woman', AT ALL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:31 am Your grandmother must be a man pretending to be a woman.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW QUICKLY, HOW SIMPLY, and HOW EASILY one's PRE-EXISTING BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS can Truly AFFECT 'them', and IN the MOST IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL WAYS, AS WELL.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:37 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Apr 02, 2025 9:21 am

All that yapping, yet it's still the case that there are people we should consider women, who can't give birth under any circumstance

WHY do you BELIEVE that there are 'people' that 'you' should consider 'women', but who can NOT give birth, under ANY circumstances?

Also, and OBVIOUSLY, there ARE some 'humans' who are OBVIOUSLY 'women', but who can NOT give birth, UNDER ABSOLUTELY ANY circumstances.