Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
394
debates
43.65%
won
Topic
#5438
Trans women are not colloquially women.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1514
rating
6
debates
58.33%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
One rule: All questions must be answered directly, not with irrelevant matter and applicable yes or no answers to clear yes or no questions followed up with elaboration if desired.
Round 1
Thanks to the opposing side for participating.
To briefly describe this topic I stated the following:
A woman is a woman. Just simply that. A trans woman is a man turned woman . There is no parallel connotation.
In everyday conversation (colloquial dialogue) , the use of the term woman is commonly received with the implication that natural females from birth are being referred to .
This has been the custom and traditional speaking of females known as women.
A female according to a search on Google:
"of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
First question of the debate. Can a transgender woman do this?
Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the two colloquially.
Colloquial according to a search on Google:
"used in ordinary or familiar conversation"
Used in everyday conversation and throughout history, when the term woman is used, when you think of a woman, it is exactly that.
A transgender woman is not exactly that. There is more that has to be unpacked there in a denotation.
A transgender woman is a man turned woman.
This is why this is a big deal concerning sexuality. The sexual involvement of a trans woman with a cis man will prior to engagement announce or disclose gender identity.
Why?
It's because not all cis men will get involved with a transgender woman.
When they think of women, they don't think of transgender women because that's what cis women are referred to as, women.
So colloquially that's what cis women are called and thought of as with use of the term. Trans women are not parallel to this because a distinction has to be there .
Traditionally and customarily we've never had to make a distinction with the term cis woman. A man such as this looking for a date with a woman is looking for a cis woman or natural woman but will colloquially refer to her just as woman .
A trans woman is not the same as a natural woman, can't be thought of the same and to avoid confusion,will not have the colloquial connotation.
A trans woman mistaken for a woman will be identified as such by mistake. But then for clarification, the trans woman will eventually have to indicate "No I'm not a natural woman . I was a man or I'm a transgender woman. Don't categorize me with natural women under a colloquial label that does not apply to me in the traditional connotation ."
If trans women are colloquially women, these people wouldn't have to make the distinction in what they are because they're colloquially the same as any other natural woman.
A woman is a woman. A transgender woman is a man turned woman.
I'm going to review this message from the opposing side . I've expounded on my message sent to this individual.
The following was the message from the Con side:
4/21/2024, 10:32:30 AM
"I do not agree every trans woman is colloquially a woman due to a distinction needed to be made since traditionally woman is conceived of as a female. In fact, I would reject that idea. When most people say woman they are referring to a collection of cultural attitudes, appearance. feelings, and behaviors associated with the female sex and sometimes a collection of biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones.
The reason why trans woman disclosing their past and present gender identity is important in some situations is because most people have a strong genital preference. It is conceivable for a cis woman to get bottom surgery then to get sexually involved (without disclosing their surgery), and that would be bad for the exact same reason for when a trans woman who has not gotten bottom surgery to get sexually involved without disclosing their past and present gender identity. In fact, I guarantee that if the former was as of a widespread phenomena these two people would have the exact same obligation disclose certain thing - not because of their sex - but their gender is associated with a sex."
The reason why trans woman disclosing their past and present gender identity is important in some situations is because most people have a strong genital preference. It is conceivable for a cis woman to get bottom surgery then to get sexually involved (without disclosing their surgery), and that would be bad for the exact same reason for when a trans woman who has not gotten bottom surgery to get sexually involved without disclosing their past and present gender identity. In fact, I guarantee that if the former was as of a widespread phenomena these two people would have the exact same obligation disclose certain thing - not because of their sex - but their gender is associated with a sex."
The first sentence I think is backwards by error.
"I do not agree every trans woman is colloquially a woman"
Right I don't agree with that either. Unless the opposing side is just saying some are colloquially women and others aren't which still agrees with me.
"When most people say woman they are referring to a collection of cultural attitudes, appearance. feelings, and behaviors associated with the female sex and sometimes a collection of biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones."
You left out "transgender " or referring to also men that have turned women. See even by traditional, habitual, subconscious inclination, that is omitted because that is not part of the colloquial language, colloquial expression and equation.
You say "appearance " and what is the appearance of a cisgender and trans?
Are they seamless in physical proportion? In close proximity, can a disparity be established?
With a difference, this is not what is being referred to nor have in mind because cis men anticipate that there be a difference so they automatically won't have it in mind. It wouldn't even enter their minds.
Due to this in the minds of men, this colloquial distinction is a representation of this mindset in men. Separating the idea of "real" women (women) vs pseudo women (trans woman; she-man).
The Con side mentioned association with genetics and biological construct. Any learned man or educated man knows of the XX chromosomes.
When men think of women , they think of these chromosomes and genetic make-up being associated and vice versa.
"The reason why trans woman disclosing their past and present gender identity is important in some situations is because most people have a strong genital preference."
This much the opposing side already concedes to or agrees with.
Let's look at it this way. Is a woman a woman?
Yes.
Is a man turned woman a woman? No. Not in a colloquial referential value because it's not just as basic as a woman being a woman. In other words the label of "woman" does not sufficiently detail what a transgender person has transitioned through or may possess anatomically.
Using the term "woman"broadly encompass both cis and trans women would be inaccurate and confusing.
The two are not women just the same. They both may identify as that. If I say bring me a group of ladies in here to model. I have in mind exactly that.
If you bring me a mix bag with transgenders, are you
now saying they are women in the same manner as these other natural women?
How do you explain this to a child?
This is the issue broadly misapplying the term so colloquially it is not in everyday conversation.
On average a woman is a natural woman. Maybe when the average so called woman is transgender, maybe then it'll be a shift colloquially.
But if colloquially a trans woman is just another woman like a natural woman, the issue is with a man thinking he's getting a certain type of genitals when in actuality possibly getting another.
A woman is generally expected to have this certain type. The transgender person doesn't conceal in such circumstances and says "I'm colloquially a woman so you should expect this". This is why the person makes the distinction. By the person telling the man of this about herself, the transgender is saying "I'm a distinction. I'm not a woman in the traditional, expected, ordinary, colloquial sense."
"It is conceivable for a cis woman to get bottom surgery then to get sexually involved (without disclosing their surgery), and that would be bad for the exact same reason for when a trans woman who has not gotten bottom surgery to get sexually involved without disclosing their past and present gender identity. In fact, I guarantee that if the former was as of a widespread phenomena these two people would have the exact same obligation disclose certain thing - not because of their sex"
It is the same difference. A cis gender person that has altered the genitalia is a transgender. Remember what I say about a woman is a woman and a man turned woman is not a woman but a man turned woman.
It's the same way vice versa .
I believe the opposing side has had debate topics concerning trans women or all trans women being women.
That's true. Don't have to debate that because these individuals are identifying under the label of women.
But what do you think they mean by the label "women" or "woman? Do you think they have thought of the connotation?
Being that they know the connotation of "woman" is what it is, they have to break it down to a person they're about to get involved with sexually because of that person they're getting involved with will have that colloquial connotation hence the breakdown.
P.S.
In the midst of preparing these points, I received further communication from the opposing side. The initial communication,I asked a question about agreeing that not every trans woman is colloquially a woman.
Message below from the opposing side:
4/24/2024, 6:02:32 PM
"I would like to inform you that my position is actually some trans woman are colloquially woman. Since you seem to be of the position that no trans woman is colloquially a woman."
The opposing side amends the original response now specifying partial agreement. So now we get to find out why what I've stated doesn't apply to every trans woman.
The debate is still surrounding the same conflict but with the attachment or amendment of what appears to be justifying a double standard.
Still I take the position that trans women are not colloquially women. You can interpret this correctly as all .
The opposing side takes the position that trans women are colloquially women. With the specification now brought to the light, not all but apparently more than one.
Maybe one , the con side can specify the number, whatever.
Thank you Mall for the dialogue.
Throughout the debate CON will take note of every agreed upon proposition as another postulate. CON will also forfeit if PRO is able to demonstrate unsound logic and that no transgender woman is colloquially a woman.
CHAPTER 1 Round One Argument
1.1 Definitions
- Something used in ordinary or familiar conversation is colloquial.
- Female is of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
1.2 Postulates
- Every individual that’s convincingly a woman is a woman in everyday conversation.
- Some transgender women are an individual that’s convincingly a woman.
1.3 Propositions
Proposition 1.1. SOME TRANSGENDER WOMEN ARE CALLED A WOMAN IN EVERYDAY CONVERSATION.
Every individual that’s convincingly a woman is a woman in ordinary conversation [Postulate 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are an individual that’s convincingly a woman [Postulate 1.2]; therefore, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation.
Proposition 1.2. SOME TRANSGENDER WOMEN ARE COLLOQUIALLY WOMEN.
Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]; therefore, some transgender women are colloquially women.
1.4 Response
Malls' argument
To summarize Mall's argument:
Historically, traditionally, and to normal thought "woman" has been used to refer to a female.
In everyday conversation (colloquial dialogue) , the use of the term woman is commonly received with the implication that natural females from birth are being referred to....Used in everyday conversation and throughout history, when the term woman is used, when you think of a woman, it is exactly that.
Which transgender women, as PRO continues, cannot fit the category of and therefore, transgender women are not colloquially women - as they are a "man turned woman". Which is the entirety of the reason why, when men talk about getting sexually involved with another woman, they exclusively refer to cisgender women and not transgender women.
Malls' preemptive rebuttals
CON has made the rebuttal that people, when wanting to get sexually involved with another person, is not due to the gender assigned at birth but rather the strong genital preference people hold. As a cisgender woman may get bottom surgery to get a penis, generally, cisgender man will probably avoid or stop any sexual proceedings for the exact same reason.
As a rebuttal PRO states that it is the same difference since they (the cisgender woman who got bottom surgery) are then transgender by the virtue of having a penis.
CON would disagree with the definition PRO has given. For the same reason CON will like to amend the rebuttal - as they were under the impression that PRO and CON were using the same definition of transgender, and, would rather not argue over the definition. Which follows:
When wanting to get sexually involved with another person, is not due to the gender assigned at birth but rather the strong visual preference people hold. As a cisgender woman may look like a man but, generally, cisgender man will probably avoid or stop any sexual proceedings for the exact same reason for a transgender woman whom looks like a man. The inverse also shows the colloquial use is in CON's favor; if a transgender woman is visually a woman to others (and had bottom surgery) that person would be included in the group that hetero men would colloquially consider women. Let's assume that the woman does not inform them that they are transgender to make it simple, how would they not be considered colloquially as a woman by the man?
You say "appearance " and what is the appearance of a cisgender and trans?Are they seamless in physical proportion? In close proximity, can a disparity be established?With a difference, this is not what is being referred to nor have in mind because cis men anticipate that there be a difference so they automatically won't have it in mind. It wouldn't even enter their minds.Due to this in the minds of men, this colloquial distinction is a representation of this mindset in men. Separating the idea of "real" women (women) vs pseudo women (trans woman; she-man).
PRO's rebuttal seems to be that seems to be that men's lack of distinction between transgender woman who look like women and women who look like women (since they only think of the latter) reinforces the idea there is a separation of "real" and "pseudo" women? The point is that men would also colloquially include transgender women in the category of woman. Not entirely sure how the premises even lead to the conclusion. Please try to write in a more understandable manner on this point specifically, since the argument trying to be made here seems to be unclear.
1.5 Other issues
CON would like to drop their argument: "The reason why trans woman disclosing their past and present gender identity is important in some situations is because most people have a strong genital preference" as CON was under the impression both parties were using the same definition of transgender.
Round 2
"PRO's rebuttal seems to be that seems to be that men's lack of distinction between transgender woman who look like women and women who look like women (since they only think of the latter) reinforces the idea there is a separation of "real" and "pseudo" women? The point is that men would also colloquially include transgender women in the category of woman. Not entirely sure how the premises even lead to the conclusion. Please try to write in a more understandable manner on this point specifically, since the argument trying to be made here seems to be unclear."
Ok I will start here . It appears to be easiest to progress this exchange along regarding the conflict between the opposing sides. I still wish to know and request from the opposing side why some transgender women are not colloquially women.
See if we can discuss the common ground on that, we can ride that line of reasoning to all transgender women. If you're just going to argue " some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]; therefore, some transgender women are colloquially women.", that's just relative , is it not?
I can just say all transgender women are called anything else but women so therefore. It all depends on the context and environment , doesn't it?
But when I say "colloquial" and this may be the part that needs cleared up for the opposing side so that it registers, it's not just simply calling something a name. It is referring to with an exclusive connotation as I mentioned.
Again, if transgenders and cis people just fit the same labeled connotation, we're not being accurate, honest and appropriating value properly. A natural woman is not the same and is not to be placed in the same box with a man turned woman. That transgender person can't honestly say he is just like her(a natural female) from birth. That is a factual significant difference. It is a difference that is very important to a man that only, only, only wants and is interested in a natural female.
Again , the distinction and disclosure of a sex identity would not exist because a transgender that may appear as a natural born female , carries the label woman, that label is received with the colloquial connotation of a woman which is the natural woman.
For an illustration because this may help better. A man see what appears to be a woman walking down the street. He approaches the person because the person appears attractive and is appealing to him.
So far looks like a woman, begins a conversation , talks like a woman. What is in that man's mind? He's only interested in the opposite sex. He's encountered someone that appears to fit that.
Let's stop right there. In his view, in his interests, is a female just as what was defined last round. A natural woman with natural female capacities.
All of this is what constitutes the connotation just by appearance and perception which we'll see is false. So the implications are there of a natural woman and so the label woman carries that connotation. All of this from the appearance, to the personification, associative physical capacities attach to that label "woman". Not a man turned woman but just a woman that is a woman. This is the colloquial established connotation. This label is established colloquially.
From the beginning of time, from the very first woman because cis genders were the initial progenitors. Transgenderism has become an evolution from the disarray or genetic disorder. So initially that's what a woman has been first and everything else has been modified, amended and expanded over time.
This has been the connotation that has been established so colloquially when women are referred to as that, you go no further than that. You think nothing else but a natural born female until a distinction and disclosure is made in language or visually.
Getting back to the illustration , the man of course came from a woman and presumably has been taught that as well so he knows and identifies one as the same. Which is why he always means a natural woman when saying woman. To be honest with himself and not be confused in his mind and confuse others , he's going to have to distinguish in the labels because he as well as others will receive the wrong connotation. So colloquially there is a difference.
This man after finding out from the transgender that the individual is not what is perceived to be, the transgender will admit that the same connotation does not apply. The transgender says " I in terms of my sex do not connotatively fit that of a cisgender". Think of that. The transgenders cannot be honest and say they're exactly like natural women in the same manner. This is why the colloquial difference will always exist or a have way to resurface .
I believe the opposing side mentioned about a strong genital preference. This is why the connotation exist and has to exist. This is why the colloquialism along with it exists and has to exist. As each are attached exclusive to indicate or connotate one preference versus another.
After finding out from the transgender person this information, it dismantles the connotation of the label woman being applied to this transgender because the transgender is not just a woman to fit the label woman. The person is a man turned woman. Now out of respect and political correctness, the person will be referred to as whatever requested but not from colloquial establishment. It's from whichever requested socially. Transgender women are socially whatever they are referred to.
Depending on the society, they're referred as women based on the society which I believe is where the opposing side is thinking. Transgenders are called what they're socially wished to be identified but being based on society, it is subjective, relative as mentioned earlier. Just as with pronouns. The pronoun he is colloquially male.
However a person that is a she but is socially regarded as he is still not colloquially established as such. A distinction still has to be divulged because of the connotation difference.
One thing I say about the meaning of colloquial. It's what is used everyday ordinary familiar conversation. Not everyday and ordinary conversation based on a region , society, culture. That's subjective . You and I can make the opposing cases based on the same rule or basis. It's not based on an environment because it's objective in universal language.
Anywhere in conversation, a woman is a natural woman. That's colloquial. Some places in conversation , a woman is both a natural and transgender woman. That's social. Like I said last round, perhaps when the average perceived natural woman is actually a transgender , the connotation distinction will disappear because it'll be what you see , talk to, refer to everyday ordinarily as a woman. You see, it'll more familiar than ever before.
Thank you Mall for the dialogue.
CHAPTER 2 Round Two Argument
2.1 Response
Questions
"PRO's rebuttal seems to be that seems to be that men's lack of distinction between transgender woman who look like women and women who look like women (since they only think of the latter) reinforces the idea there is a separation of "real" and "pseudo" women? The point is that men would also colloquially include transgender women in the category of woman. Not entirely sure how the premises even lead to the conclusion. Please try to write in a more understandable manner on this point specifically, since the argument trying to be made here seems to be unclear."I still wish to know and request from the opposing side why some transgender women are not colloquially women.
The question presumes that CON had an answer and that CON thinks some transgender women are not colloquially women. Simply, the position CON has took is that some transgender women are colloquially women - as that is a negation and so mutually exclusive to PRO's position. The position isn't mutually exclusive to the idea that all transgender women are colloquially women. The choice here was done in the attempt to make dialogue easier for both parties.
Furthermore: PRO has not actually cleared up the point that was made, but rather, tries to oppose the argument CON has made. The answering of this question also seems unrelated to the ability to answer CON's request to clear up a point PRO has made.
Rebuttals
See if we can discuss the common ground on that, we can ride that line of reasoning to all transgender women. If you're just going to argue " some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]; therefore, some transgender women are colloquially women.", that's just relative , is it not?I can just say all transgender women are called anything else but women so therefore. It all depends on the context and environment , doesn't it?But when I say "colloquial" and this may be the part that needs cleared up for the opposing side so that it registers, it's not just simply calling something a name. It is referring to with an exclusive connotation as I mentioned.
It is relative as that is the nature of colloquial usages of words. However, saying you can exclude all transgender women from anything else but women therefore... CON notices that PRO has not finished the point, however, for good reason. Since if they finished the argument they would either conclude that no transgender women are colloquially women or some transgender women are not colloquially women. The former is invalid since it just does not follows from the stated premise while the latter seems to not be a rebuttal at all. What it seems like is trying to be communicated is that if everyone scopes to a colloquial usage of women in environments that exclude transgender women, then in those contexts, no transgender women is colloquially a women.
However, that seems to be a weird form of special pleading. If something is colloquial it includes all words that are used in ordinary or familiar conversation. It would be akin to saying that some colloquial use of sick means cool, but then disagree because everyone can scope the colloquialism to refer only to poor-health or being ill; it is weird, fallacious, and seems to be a cop-out from acknowledging that some transgender women are colloquially women. The topic brought up as colloquial is obviously inferred to be the totality of the colloquial use, otherwise, it would be special pleading without any preface to this personal additional element to "colloquial."
Again, if transgenders and cis people just fit the same labeled connotation, we're not being accurate, honest and appropriating value properly....Again , the distinction and disclosure of a sex identity would not exist because a transgender that may appear as a natural born female , carries the label woman, that label is received with the colloquial connotation of a woman which is the natural woman.
The claim of the first statement displayed here summarizes a lot of PRO's Round 2 Argument. However, this is under the presumption that this "scoping" of "colloquial" is accepted, which is absolutely not as per to the before-mentioned reasons. There is not even an argument to why CON should accept this "scoping," rather, it is assumed as if it is agreeable or reasonable.
The second statement is an example. This is essentially saying that the colloquial use of women is natural women, moreover, no transgender women is a natural women; therefore, no transgender women is colloquially a women. However, the former premise is not substantiated at all.
For an illustration because this may help better. A man see what appears to be a woman walking down the street. He approaches the person because the person appears attractive and is appealing to him.So far looks like a woman, begins a conversation , talks like a woman. What is in that man's mind? He's only interested in the opposite sex. He's encountered someone that appears to fit that.
You know, this person sounds like they would be called a woman in ordinary or familiar conversations. You know, the thing agreed upon what is colloquial. Wait, hold on, they're t-t-transgender?!?! (context: The situation PRO set up was that the woman is a transgender woman.)
Also, when illustrating, it is hilarious that PRO has to remind the reader that what the man is thinking about is the "natural" woman while also, in every approximation of this scenario, the transgender woman would be colloquially called a woman until the end of the scenario. Does the colloquial use of the word in the recent past, like, not count for some reason? What if they just never know? What if, before during and after intercourse, the person just never realizes they are a transgender woman in their entire life? The illustration here is so flawed.
It can't be merely or only because the person, after realizing they are a transgender, now thinks they are not a woman. Since some men consider transgender women as actual women, and thus, are examples of people who would call these transgender women, well, women in everyday conversation.
One thing I say about the meaning of colloquial. It's what is used everyday ordinary familiar conversation. Not everyday and ordinary conversation based on a region , society, culture. That's subjective . You and I can make the opposing cases based on the same rule or basis. It's not based on an environment because it's objective in universal language.
So, essentially, "everyday ordinary familiar conversation" is colloquial but "everyday ordinary familiar conversation (in America)" is not? Since America is a society or region. They are both colloquial, the former is just more broad while the latter is a specification of the former. Objective universal language??? Language is inherently inter-subjective. You know, being only capable of being established for two or more subjects.
Anywhere in conversation, a woman is a natural woman. That's colloquial. Some places in conversation , a woman is both a natural and transgender woman. That's social. Like I said last round, perhaps when the average perceived natural woman is actually a transgender , the connotation distinction will disappear because it'll be what you see , talk to, refer to everyday ordinarily as a woman. You see, it'll more familiar than ever before.
Ok, so, yes. Some transgender women are colloquially women. You just have a personal little additional totally-made-up element to what counts as colloquial and in that sense no transgender women are colloquially women. Meanwhile ignoring the definition given beforehand, which cleanly includes some transgender women.
Argument
CON will repeat the, very simple, argument in which transgender women are colloquially women. Of which, PRO has to completely stretch the definition of colloquial til it rips apart to make unsound.
Every individual that’s convincingly a woman is a woman in ordinary conversation [Postulate 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are an individual that’s convincingly a woman [Postulate 1.2]; therefore, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation.
Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]; therefore, some transgender women are colloquially women.
Round 3
"It is relative as that is the nature of colloquial usages of words"
This is not correct according to the definition given .
I explained the difference last round .
" However, saying you can exclude all transgender women from anything else but women therefore... CON notices that PRO has not finished the point, however, for good reason. Since if they finished the argument they would either conclude that no transgender women are colloquially women or some transgender women are not colloquially women. "
This is also incorrect. The point was the relative reason can based on whatever. It doesn't matter the reason. The point is that it's subjective which is societal versus colloquial which is universal.
"If something is colloquial it includes all words that are used in ordinary or familiar conversation."
Correct . That's all words, not some but all familiar words to who? A society, a region, a niche, a political party, which one?
If one and not the other, then that negates the concept of ordinary.
See it is ordinary from the beginning of there being a woman. What has been ordinary about her? She has been recognized as such and has been carried on through to be referred to as that thus establishing a colloquial reference, concept and connotation.
But because we're having this disagreement right now, there's disagreement all over the world regarding what's a real woman. What constitutes a woman fluctuates and is dependent on social subjectivity.
But a natural female from birth is just that. No disagreement or controversy there. Everywhere you go you get the same connotation as it is ordinary.
A natural female doesn't have to divulge what she really is from start to finish because she's received as she ordinarily is and has been from birth. It's been the same.
But a transgender has had changes, amendments and will be received differently than what was before and sometimes there's de-conversion which is different from being the same ordinary mode of gender.
"It would be akin to saying that some colloquial use of sick means cool, but then disagree because everyone can scope the colloquialism to refer only to poor-health or being ill; it is weird, fallacious, and seems to be a cop-out from acknowledging that some transgender women are colloquially women. "
Now you're confusing slangs into this which are again subjective.
An appropriate example would be "heart attack". Colloquially what other expression is used to refer to what it medically called myocardial infarction?
Same thing with high blood pressure or being fired. All colloquial or universal language pointing to a constant ordinary connotation.
"This is essentially saying that the colloquial use of women is natural women, moreover, no transgender women is a natural women; therefore, no transgender women is colloquially a women. However, the former premise is not substantiated at all."
The opposing side says "not substantiated at all". The opposing side's understanding is insubstantial. What is also insubstantial is saying some transgender woman are colloquially women because some are called women. Just being called that does not make a colloquialism because it would be foreign and not familiar to those who don't connote transgender women as colloquial women. That is because to them, they're men turned women. The distinction is very important especially to cis heterosexual men. This distinction would not be perpetuated if the connotation difference didn't exist for all transgender women. It is defined this way as the transgender woman is not regarded the same as every woman. The opposing side is arguing in pockets that transgender women are colloquially women which is actually relativism. There's a difference.
What I asked of the opposing side is the claim about insufficiency, what else do you need to suffice that cis and transgender women are not exactly the same?
Being that they're not exactly the same, the connotation would not be the same. I believe the opposing side drops this point regarding explaining the difference to a child . You say all transgender women are colloquially women or some are, you're in a confusing conflicting problem. Why are there some that are given this basis to be colloquially such that can't extend to the rest and vice versa?
This is supposed to be ordinary and familiar. You're going to have to explain what you're calling ordinary is not so ordinary. The end result and conclusion is the array of social conflicts, constructs and vernaculars.
" What if they just never know? What if, before during and after intercourse, the person just never realizes they are a transgender woman in their entire life? The illustration here is so flawed."
The opposing side is grasping at straws. What if the transgender person does not realize the body has went through transition and yet has had I guess sexual intercourse?
Why wouldn't the person know what he(she) is? Did the person experience amnesia? How is the person not going to know what he is at some point at least?
Wouldn't the cis male recognize while engaging in a sex act of male genitals attached to the trans gender that has not had genital surgery?
Did the cis male not get sexual education? Is the transgender appearance so foreign(not ordinary) to him, he doesn't realize a nude transgender person when in the presence of ? The opposing side started with questions and I got more on top of them as the attempted counterpoint instead of making a counter just fell short .
This attempted argument from the opposing side is so weak, lackluster, it's warranting all these questions for answers to questions left unanswered from an incomplete argument or an argument that is lacking the rationale of a situation logically existing that would prove to negate or debunk anything.
If the person has amnesia, what else doesn't the person remember and why doesn't that take precedence over a sexual escapade?
If that's the case, the person would be expected to be in some kind of personal or professional care.
The person with amnesia tends to have a lot of questions in the head imperative to be answered versus laying down with somebody. The person didn't realize or remember being a transgender, that's a hard hitting question to be answered. Who did it? Why? Were rights violated? All of these questions and answers before getting in bed with somebody. Neely Fuller Jr. suggests about 200 questions to ask one another before getting in bed and these are suggested to folks with full memory and awareness.
"Since some men consider transgender women as actual women, and thus, are examples of people who would call these transgender women, well, women in everyday conversation."
A couple of issues that stick out, one is "consider". Which means to think of. So some men think of these people as natural women but know they're not so would these men consistently ordinarily refer to these people as not trans women? Again as a social identification these men would opt socially to identify them as such. But biologically it's a different story which may or will cause indication in distinctive language to surface . Particularly in isolated or private conversations and situations. Next issue is "some men". Well being that it's some men, how is it in ordinary conversation?
Think of it. This is just as misleading as applying the false connotation the same way between cis and trans women. Same logic brings the flawed approach. You say it's ordinary conversation, why am I finding conversations where it's not ordinary? Which one is it? It either is or isn't. You don't have this conundrum when you conclude colloquialisms are universal. They're not subject to pockets of societies such as slangs under social constructs and social conditioning.
I'm trying to get the opposing side and the public to look at this from since the beginning, what was established. The identity of what something actually is has an established label, a reference, a connotation and with that went out all over the planet. We've had changes and evolutions along the way that has caused different expressions verbally in vocabulary in language that has not translated the same all over across the planet such as the original connotation has.
So at second rate resulting in certain expressions to only be subject to those that are for the usage of these expressions based on subjective conclusions perhaps abandoning established conclusions or blending them all together. This is what each society appears to be capable of and has done and so therefore rejecting everything else that conflicts that societal condition, view, subjective identity, selective expression. Which apparently a member of a society is on here rejecting me rejecting a universal conclusion about colloquialisms trying to blend liberated elective expressions with colloquialisms. What's ordinary doesn't liberate, change up from conversation to conversation. These are slangs that do that from conversation to conversation , generation to generation. The opposing side can argue that colloquially today trans woman are more likely referred to as women compared to 20 to 30 years where most likely derogatory terms were used. But it isn't colloquial, it's social. I've went over the difference more than enough. Changing from conversation to another , from one generation to another is not colloquial. A natural woman is what she is colloquially as she is that,has been that over time, all over the world. Which brings me to the next point about the region of America.
"So, essentially, "everyday ordinary familiar conversation" is colloquial but "everyday ordinary familiar conversation (in America)" is not? Since America is a society or region. They are both colloquial, the former is just more broad while the latter is a specification of the former. Objective universal language??? "
Everyday ordinary conversation in one place and not in another is conflicting with what familiar and ordinary are. It's either familiar or it's foreign. Just look at the question. Everyday ordinary conversation in a region(America). Line that up with the definition = Everyday ordinary conversation. That's it . It stops there. You're adding the specification to the definition. You say one is more broad as the other is specific. What is specific is relative because you're specifying a region's subjective use of language. What is broad is the world abroad which is in line with the meaning of colloquial.
You're taking the meaning, tailoring it based on perspective. But once I show a different perspective by a different region even in America because apparently, the use of these terms change within America, let alone the planet, it disqualifies certain terms being a colloquialism. Then we're at the question again, is this a colloquialism or not? You can say it depends but that doesn't square with the definition. The definition doesn't give a "yes and no" application so you're accurate or more so just leaving it as broad as the definition states covering everywhere abroad. You can flip flop with a slang or social lingo because certain terms do connote different to different people. A natural woman connotation does not connote as a trans woman's connotation does or else we wouldn't even be having this particular conversation. So "trans woman" does not hold colloquially of a natural female. So when you talk to this one, that one, they'll refer to trans women ordinarily as trans women while others refer to them as women.
This is while one society will do the same compared to another. Inside a society or compared with anywhere else. The pockets within a society, within a state, country, region, land, town, village, etc., ordinary is based on what is relative as opposed to just ordinary. The natural female reception of the word(s) are constant and just ordinary.
"Language is inherently inter-subjective. "
Whatever that means by the opposing side. When I say "language", I'm including the meaning and connotation. The language of love is universal and means the same as well as the word all over even as it translates or accordingly transliterates all over the globe.
The words change but the meaning still is universal.
Even within a literary speaking language exclusive to people within english, we're using different words still conveying the same meaning because that what fully constitutes language still successfully getting communication across. The connotative meaning of " natural woman" is not subjective but is universal/principle while the specific translated words change. Now I can only circulate points due to the circular rebuttals I'm receiving.
The opposing side is projecting with saying I'm ripping the definition up. I clearly made it quite clear in essence straightforward all conforming to the stipulation of the definition of what is colloquial from the first round. It is the opposing side I have demonstrated that has manipulated and or amended the original definition in an ad hoc fashion to favor the opposing position.
"Every individual that’s convincingly a woman is a woman in ordinary conversation [Postulate 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are an individual that’s convincingly a woman [Postulate 1.2]; therefore, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation."
This is incredibly flawed. Bottom line, "some" and " colloquial" do not belong together in this equation. The "convincingly" part is too subjective and volatile while the connotation for a natural female is cemented and solid. This is the issue the opposing side is not solving. Transgenderism, one of other elements tied to sexuality has fluidity. The natural female has no fluidity like that so why is there the same connotation given to a trans female in the colloquial expression? There wouldn't be, it's flawed.
"Convincingly" is subjective which subjective is again, social constructing.
"Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]; therefore, some transgender women are colloquially women."
Here are the repeat issues I just mentioned. Just raises questions. "Every individual woman". We have to know what type of woman you're talking about. Comes down to subjectivity again. That's where this is leading and ultimately concluding with. The "Every individual called a woman" statement is certainly true for the natural female and not just because she is being called a woman, but the universal connotation she gets has her to receive that colloquial label. The simplicity of just being "simply called" something has caused the opposing side to jack up the colloquial definition conflicting it with elective labeling. Some trans women are called a woman in ordinary conversation where? If it's not everywhere, they're not colloquially women.
Some trans women are called a woman in ordinary conversation where? If it's not everywhere, they're not colloquially women.
"It is relative as that is the nature of colloquial usages of words"This is not correct according to the definition given .I explained the difference last round .
The difference between what exactly? The totally-made-up standard of what is colloquially due to an additional element and the before-given definition of colloquial? CON has already critiqued the difference, and to pretend or ignore that critique is absurd. If it is something else then CON would like PRO to quote themselves giving this "difference" of what and what.
"However, saying you can exclude all transgender women from anything else but women therefore... CON notices that PRO has not finished the point, however, for good reason. Since if they finished the argument they would either conclude that no transgender women are colloquially women or some transgender women are not colloquially women. "This is also incorrect. The point was the relative reason can based on whatever. It doesn't matter the reason. The point is that it's subjective which is societal versus colloquial which is universal.
Funny how the two sentences later CON explained what the point PRO actually tried to make: "What it seems like is trying to be communicated is that if everyone scopes to a colloquial usage of women in environments that exclude transgender women, then in those contexts, no transgender women is colloquially a women." Wow, seems like CON understood what PRO's point was. For someone who tries so hard to write like a late 19s philosopher their reading comprehensions needs work.
"If something is colloquial it includes all words that are used in ordinary or familiar conversation."Correct . That's all words, not some but all familiar words to who? A society, a region, a niche, a political party, which one?If one and not the other, then that negates the concept of ordinary.See it is ordinary from the beginning of there being a woman. What has been ordinary about her? She has been recognized as such and has been carried on through to be referred to as that thus establishing a colloquial reference, concept and connotation.But because we're having this disagreement right now, there's disagreement all over the world regarding what's a real woman. What constitutes a woman fluctuates and is dependent on social subjectivity.But a natural female from birth is just that. No disagreement or controversy there. Everywhere you go you get the same connotation as it is ordinary.
It is pretty obvious what "ordinary" means - all it seems like is that PRO is being deliberately obtuse. If someone was talking to a friend about how hot a woman was in the street, but they were trans, that is an ordinary conversation that makes some trans women colloquially women. Pretty clear cut. To who? To the ordinary populous who use the given language.
"It would be akin to saying that some colloquial use of sick means cool, but then disagree because everyone can scope the colloquialism to refer only to poor-health or being ill; it is weird, fallacious, and seems to be a cop-out from acknowledging that some transgender women are colloquially women. "Now you're confusing slangs into this which are again subjective.An appropriate example would be "heart attack". Colloquially what other expression is used to refer to what it medically called myocardial infarction?Same thing with high blood pressure or being fired. All colloquial or universal language pointing to a constant ordinary connotation.
Every word used in ordinary or familiar conversation is colloquial, moreover, some usages of "sick" to mean "cool" is a word used in ordinary or familiar conversation; therefore some usages of "sick" to mean "cool" is colloquial.
Wow, a clearly true and valid syllogism. Seems like the example CON used was correct. It also seems like a word can be both slang and colloquial - it almost seems like they are not mutually exclusive.
This attempt to try to find this universalism to what is colloquial is simple: universally every colloquial word is used in a familiar or ordinary conversation. Trying to add anymore or any less is just trying to muddle the waters when it has been previously established, especially when it only came up after-the-fact of establishing CON's syllogistically valid argument.
"This is essentially saying that the colloquial use of women is natural women, moreover, no transgender women is a natural women; therefore, no transgender women is colloquially a women. However, the former premise is not substantiated at all."The opposing side says "not substantiated at all". The opposing side's understanding is insubstantial. What is also insubstantial is saying some transgender woman are colloquially women because some are called women. Just being called that does not make a colloquialism because it would be foreign and not familiar to those who don't connote transgender women as colloquial women. That is because to them, they're men turned women. The distinction is very important especially to cis heterosexual men. This distinction would not be perpetuated if the connotation difference didn't exist for all transgender women. It is defined this way as the transgender woman is not regarded the same as every woman. The opposing side is arguing in pockets that transgender women are colloquially women which is actually relativism. There's a difference.
I did substantiated it, clearly with these premises:
"Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]..."
And the latter premise was substantiated with these premises:
"Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]..."
The only time PRO's premise is "substantiated" was given this one story of a man who found out that a woman is a transgender woman and not considering them a woman anymore. At most that is substantiating the idea that some transgender woman are not colloquially women - which does not negate CON's position. Which means it does not substantiate that no transgender woman is colloquially a woman.
At no point, by the way, does PRO question the truth of CON's premises but rather tries to extrapolate from the stated premises to add way more to CON's argument than needed. If this was unknown to PRO, deductive reasoning has the attribute of monotonicity - meaning if the premises validly lead to the conclusion then no additional information or premises would effect the conclusion.
Furthermore, PRO still has not substantiated their premise.
What I asked of the opposing side is the claim about insufficiency, what else do you need to suffice that cis and transgender women are not exactly the same?Being that they're not exactly the same, the connotation would not be the same. I believe the opposing side drops this point regarding explaining the difference to a child . You say all transgender women are colloquially women or some are, you're in a confusing conflicting problem. Why are there some that are given this basis to be colloquially such that can't extend to the rest and vice versa?This is supposed to be ordinary and familiar. You're going to have to explain what you're calling ordinary is not so ordinary. The end result and conclusion is the array of social conflicts, constructs and vernaculars.
Never said they were exactly the same. They would not be the same connotation, correct. Can PRO quote the times CON has said this? Wagering not.
Why exactly is the ability to explain trans women to a child relevant? What is exactly meant by "confusing conflicting problem"? What is exactly being referred to as "You're going to have to explain what you're calling ordinary is not so ordinary"?
" What if they just never know? What if, before during and after intercourse, the person just never realizes they are a transgender woman in their entire life? The illustration here is so flawed."The opposing side is grasping at straws. What if the transgender person does not realize the body has went through transition and yet has had I guess sexual intercourse?
Didn't know PRO never knew what bottom surgery was.
Why wouldn't the person know what he(she) is? Did the person experience amnesia? How is the person not going to know what he is at some point at least?
What exactly is the first question referring to? That could be a possibility. Didn't know CON had to explain this, but, most men don't have sex with all or even the majority of women they know. Or, in fact, most of the women they see in public - but would nevertheless call a woman. It is also interesting that PRO does not engage with the question "Does the colloquial use of the word in the recent past, like, not count for some reason?"
Wouldn't the cis male recognize while engaging in a sex act of male genitals attached to the trans gender that has not had genital surgery?
Found a potential contradiction and complete outside information, which CON personally thinks concretely proves the PRO is not only being obtuse and possible objective is to only muddy the waters.
- The scenario given by PRO never mentioned that the transgender man has or needed to have male genitalia. All this seems to accomplish is to make the conversation less direct and to avoid actually answering the questions.
- PRO said that "A cis gender person that has altered the genitalia is a transgender." This is after giving a scenario where a woman gets bottom surgery but does identify as a woman. Then they continue: "It's the same way vice versa."
- Either three things: PRO's original rebuttal does not stand up, other factors are important in determining if someone is transgender (but for some reason the alteration of genitalia is more important only in situations where someone who still identifies with their gender at birth but have bottom surgery), or it is merely a contradiction.
- The first is, like, fine.
- This is just special pleading; a fallacy.
- In which case, PRO is only objective is to muddy the waters. Why exactly does the transgender woman have male genitalia in the scenario PRO made up when they would not consider them transgender?
- Of course, PRO would never admit this but is good to point out.
Which all does not matter since PRO knows that transgender people can have bottom surgery. It can be, pretty easily, extrapolated that CON is referring to transgender women with bottom surgery. The fact that this is something that needs to be cleared up shows that PRO is not only being deliberately uncharitable (even shown in the second quote in this R3 argument), but also that PRO is being deliberately obtuse and trying to misrepresent what CON is saying.
"Since some men consider transgender women as actual women, and thus, are examples of people who would call these transgender women, well, women in everyday conversation."A couple of issues that stick out, one is "consider". Which means to think of. So some men think of these people as natural women but know they're not so would these men consistently ordinarily refer to these people as not trans women?Think of it. This is just as misleading as applying the false connotation the same way between cis and trans women. Same logic brings the flawed approach. You say it's ordinary conversation, why am I finding conversations where it's not ordinary? Which one is it?
OMG. Not gonna respond to anything else after this; I will not engage with someone who does not even read the things I am typing, deliberately misrepresent the things I say, and tries to be obtuse about everything. I think that everything PRO is going to say can and has said in this round, almost to a confident degree, be guessed to be either of those things.
Same logic brings the flawed approach. You say it's ordinary conversation, why am I finding conversations where it's not ordinary?
Did not know the world revolves around you. Did not know that what you see brings is what "logic" is. All of this is absurd.
So some men think of these people as natural women but know they're not so would these men consistently ordinarily refer to these people as not trans women?
Some men don't even think "natural women" exist as some people consider "women" as a social construct informed by biology.
Round 4
"The difference between what exactly? The totally-made-up standard of what is colloquially due to an additional element and the before-given definition of colloquial? CON has already critiqued the difference, and to pretend or ignore that critique is absurd. If it is something else then CON would like PRO to quote themselves giving this "difference" of what and what."
I'm saying there's a difference between colloquialism and social relative vernacular , lingo or jargon. I've already explained this with examples of colloquial terms such as "heart attack" and "blood pressure" and "stroke" all over the world.
As opposed to your examples "cool" and "sick. These are slangs changing from generation to generation, conversation to conversation not as colloquialisms. Just like a generation or so ago, the social lingo was different. Saying "tranny" versus just saying "women" today .
Which it's not ruled out that this other language is used in some areas which disqualifies it as a colloquialism.
"Funny how the two sentences later CON explained what the point PRO actually tried to make: "What it seems like is trying to be communicated is that if everyone scopes to a colloquial usage of women in environments that exclude transgender women, then in those contexts, no transgender women is colloquially a women." Wow, seems like CON understood what PRO's point was. For someone who tries so hard to write like a late 19s philosopher their reading comprehensions needs work."
My simple response to this is just the definition of colloquial: "used in ordinary or familiar conversation"
It's just as plain as that .
"It is pretty obvious what "ordinary" means - all it seems like is that PRO is being deliberately obtuse. If someone was talking to a friend about how hot a woman was in the street, but they were trans, that is an ordinary conversation that makes some trans women colloquially women. Pretty clear cut. To who? To the ordinary populous who use the given language."
Yes "hot woman " is not a colloquialism, it is a slang.
Why? It's because I can find others who will not use this phrase, let alone apply it to trans women.
The opposing side will not acknowledge the definition of colloquial.
Upon doing a Google search for slang: a type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people.
According to Merriam Webster for slang: language peculiar to a particular group
There's a difference. The opposing side continues to use vernacular examples, not colloquial ones.
"Every word used in ordinary or familiar conversation is colloquial, moreover, some usages of "sick" to mean "cool" is a word used in ordinary or familiar conversation; therefore some usages of "sick" to mean "cool" is colloquial."
I don't use those terms and individuals I've interacted with on this site don't use them with me.
So they're not qualified as colloquial terms.
Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.
Case closed really right here.
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
"Wow, a clearly true and valid syllogism. Seems like the example CON used was correct. It also seems like a word can be both slang and colloquial - it almost seems like they are not mutually exclusive."
Slang and colloquial are not the same.
"This attempt to try to find this universalism to what is colloquial is simple: universally every colloquial word is used in a familiar or ordinary conversation. Trying to add anymore or any less is just trying to muddle the waters when it has been previously established, especially when it only came up after-the-fact of establishing CON's syllogistically valid argument."
If slang and colloquial were the same , the definitions would be the same.
Simple as that.
"I did substantiated it, clearly with these premises:
"Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]..."
And the latter premise was substantiated with these premises:
"Every individual called a woman in ordinary conversation is colloquially a woman [Def 1.1], moreover, some transgender women are called a woman in ordinary conversation [1.1]...""
No because I debunked all of this.
"The only time PRO's premise is "substantiated" was given this one story of a man who found out that a woman is a transgender woman and not considering them a woman anymore. At most that is substantiating the idea that some transgender woman are not colloquially women - which does not negate CON's position. Which means it does not substantiate that no transgender woman is colloquially a woman.
At no point, by the way, does PRO question the truth of CON's premises but rather tries to extrapolate from the stated premises to add way more to CON's argument than needed. If this was unknown to PRO, deductive reasoning has the attribute of monotonicity - meaning if the premises validly lead to the conclusion then no additional information or premises would effect the conclusion."
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
"Never said they were exactly the same. They would not be the same connotation, correct. Can PRO quote the times CON has said this? Wagering not."
I don't believe I said you said it. But you communicate it or indirectly say it when you take the position that trans women are colloquially women.
"Why exactly is the ability to explain trans women to a child relevant? "
For the sake of truth that the two are not the same. You confuse people, particularly under developed minds with using conflating language.
"What is exactly meant by "confusing conflicting problem"?
Try to teach the child that the trans woman is not a woman that the child came from and how the child communicates what a woman is, in how identifying a woman to others distinguishing what is being referred to as such to not intermingle the language confusing others that may refer differently, to include cis men that operate and engage under such language and interactions and engagements.
Keep in mind at a young age, it's more simple and non problematic to just distinguish actual women from men .
Not to mention that at a young age,the child is shielded from much of the reality of sexuality and gender transition crisis.
Otherwise that is the problem . The problem is conflating the language when the distinction is relevant and important.
Basically this whole debate we're having and others like it is basically where you'll have to start in teaching in breaking down the conflict, where it begins, the basis of the disagreement , the relevant realistic issues broached here , properly characterizing colloquialism and so forth.
There's no debate about what a natural woman is. It's not a persistent confusing issue. No question from a child as to why to debate that. But the question will be asked of this debate with trans women, why and perhaps how to debate it.
Questions arise from a confused standpoint as we're dealing with a confusing conflicting problem.
Otherwise we'd experience no conflict with this.
"What is exactly being referred to as "You're going to have to explain what you're calling ordinary is not so ordinary"?"
What you're calling ordinary is not ordinary in my conversation as well as others around the world. This is what is conflicting about your position on the meaning of colloquial.
"Didn't know PRO never knew what bottom surgery was.''
I was responding to what you said : "What if, before during and after intercourse, the person just never realizes they are a transgender woman in their entire life?"
What, did you forget what you said? You stated all these questions and I followed with more questions to demonstrate the inadequacy of the point you tried to make.
Please I don't want to take time out to re-quote.
"What exactly is the first question referring to? "
I was responding to what you said : "What if, before during and after intercourse, the person just never realizes they are a transgender woman in their entire life?"
I think you're getting lost in the sauce comrade. It happens with multiple points .
You lose track of where you are.
"Didn't know CON had to explain this, but, most men don't have sex with all or even the majority of women they know. Or, in fact, most of the women they see in public - but would nevertheless call a woman. It is also interesting that PRO does not engage with the question "Does the colloquial use of the word in the recent past, like, not count for some reason?"
What was your point here?
Found a potential contradiction and complete outside information, which CON personally thinks concretely proves the PRO is not only being obtuse and possible objective is to only muddy the waters.
- The scenario given by PRO never mentioned that the transgender man has or needed to have male genitalia. All this seems to accomplish is to make the conversation less direct and to avoid actually answering the questions.
- PRO said that "A cis gender person that has altered the genitalia is a transgender." This is after giving a scenario where a woman gets bottom surgery but does identify as a woman. Then they continue: "It's the same way vice versa."
- Either three things: PRO's original rebuttal does not stand up, other factors are important in determining if someone is transgender (but for some reason the alteration of genitalia is more important only in situations where someone who still identifies with their gender at birth but have bottom surgery), or it is merely a contradiction.
- The first is, like, fine.
- This is just special pleading; a fallacy.
- In which case, PRO is only objective is to muddy the waters. Why exactly does the transgender woman have male genitalia in the scenario PRO made up when they would not consider them transgender?
- Of course, PRO would never admit this but is good to point out.
Which all does not matter since PRO knows that transgender people can have bottom surgery. It can be, pretty easily, extrapolated that CON is referring to transgender women with bottom surgery. The fact that this is something that needs to be cleared up shows that PRO is not only being deliberately uncharitable (even shown in the second quote in this R3 argument), but also that PRO is being deliberately obtuse and trying to misrepresent what CON is saying."
Instead of all this multilayered mess, I'm going to make my response pertaining to my position in a concise bottom line back to the epicenter of the topic direction. I'm sure the readers will appreciate making it easy to follow along instead contributing more fluff.
My response to bring it back to center:
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
Boom. Now if the opposing side desires, just to make it light on the opposing burden, the opposing side can argue against this point alone making it simple, simplifying the opposing argumentation.
"OMG. Not gonna respond to anything else after this; I will not engage with someone who does not even read the things I am typing, deliberately misrepresent the things I say, and tries to be obtuse about everything. I think that everything PRO is going to say can and has said in this round, almost to a confident degree, be guessed to be either of those things."
Yeah ok . To kill all the noise and clear the air, we just go straight to the jugular.
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
Slam dunk my all-stars.
"Did not know the world revolves around you. Did not know that what you see brings is what "logic" is. All of this is absurd."
Hey my friend, check this out:
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
"Some men don't even think "natural women" exist as some people consider "women" as a social construct informed by biology."
A social construct is not necessarily colloquial. Definitely not from one society out of many .
I think that's a wrap for you.
Honestly: trying to respond to this in any serious manner, trying to explain why you're wrong, feels like an insult to the reader. I'm just gonna quote my favorite - as in, funny - bits in this Round 4 argument.
"Wow, a clearly true and valid syllogism. Seems like the example CON used was correct. It also seems like a word can be both slang and colloquial - it almost seems like they are not mutually exclusive."Slang and colloquial are not the same.
Yes "hot woman " is not a colloquialism, it is a slang.
"Did not know the world revolves around you. Did not know that what you see brings is what "logic" is. All of this is absurd."Hey my friend, check this out:*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
Honestly, respect the honesty that what is colloquial - in this person's view - is determined by them and the people around them - and not - if a word is used in ordinary conversation. The definition established.
Round 5
*******Just like I as others do not refer to trans gender women as women so therefore they're not colloquially women.*******
Ordinary conservation is ordinary. If it's not ordinary in mine, how is it ordinary?
If you say it's ordinary depending on the individual group of people, region, that doesn't fit the definition of colloquial.
Colloquial according to a search on Google:
"used in ordinary or familiar conversation"
The opposing side cannot get around this technicality, no matter how many attempts to going by the definition of a slang or jargon as that is based by context , people, region or society.
Ordinary conversation. Period. Not ordinary conversation by region or depending on who's talking.
After explanation of all this, the opposing side apparently could not give a rebuttal to any of it.
Anytime you give an excuse instead of an actual rebuttal, you just forfeit.
I can't give a rebuttal to gibberish.
Remember the times when teachers told us to instead use the sources Wikipedia cites rather than wikipedia itself? Yeah, good times.
->A female according to a search on Google: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."
This is a bad definition for what a woman is. I have a better one.
It's noice to see Mall finally getting the hang of the bolding function, we will wait five more years to see if he will use the italic and underline functions, and 10 more for the quoting function, and 15 more for the hyperlink function.