Instigator / Pro
4
1480
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3549

"Trans women are women" Is A Valid Claim

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description

I will argue that it is valid to claim that biological males who honestly identify as trans women are women in a least one reasonable sense of the word "woman". It will be my burden to argue that they can claim to be women and it be actually true. It will be the burden of the contender to argue that only adult human biological females can reasonably be called women, and that calling biological males "women" in any sense is unreasonable.

Round 1 will be opening arguments (Con will not be required to respond to any of my arguments until round 2)

Round 2 will be for rebuttals

Round 3 will be for closing arguments and closing rebuttals

-->
@Novice_II

If I were allowed to vote, you would have mine hands down.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

>>You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...<<

"a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others' perception."

~ Making fact-based observations premised on your own writings (in tone, demeanor, etc.) and recognizing same as an observation is NOT "trolling." It is NOT "denialism" either. And it most certainly is NOT "irony" just the same.

>>...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.<<

I do not care what Webster has to say, since it has kowtowed to the liberal left mob in making nonsense out of previously crystal clear definitions based on actual scientific fact, and not emotive subjective bullshit.

Semantic changes have to be legit, not emotively driven with no scientific basis. Also do not care what psychological journals you refer to without citation since they are all, more likely than not, bastardized by liberal emotive drama and wokeism.

>>However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.<<

There is no reality to fantasy you clown.

>>Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.<<

Easy to claim, harder to prove.

>>Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.<<

No, it has not.

-->
@christianm

Thanks a lot, I was afraid I would get a no vote tie. Also, I will get to your debates as there are many debates I will be voting on today

-->
@Novice_II

Just voted. I have several debates in voting too, if you could vote on those it would be great!

-->
@Intelligence_06
@christianm

Much apologies for the sudden mention, however I need a last min vote on this hoping it does not turn into a no vote tie

You were trolling according to your own definition by talking about me living in a fantasy land, Dunning Kruger, and other useless ad hominem inflammatory attacks. Also, look up the word "irony". The only one engaging in denialism is you, if you think about it. Why?...

...Well, Webster, Oxford, universities, and psychologists all acknowledge the semantic change with regards to gender *not* necessarily being synonymous with sex, and the term "woman" not necessarily having to be in terms of biology. There are tons of psychology journals that make it clear that gender, in 2022, is generally not regarded as the same as sex. A "woman" does not have to be defined biologically as ***the multiple definitions*** I provided prove.

However, you not accepting this reality and thinking it is still 1800 or something is magically supposed to be convincing. Instead of using actual logic you just throw out words like "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument.

Your whole case is based on an Appeal to Tradition fallacy, and can thus be rejected.

Conclusion? There has been a semantic change in the English language that allows "women" to be defined in terms of psychology and gender and necessarily not biological sex.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

"It is clear you are just a troll."

>> ROTFLMAO!! Thanks for proving you cannot refute anything I have put forth with actual emotional and intellectual intelligence. Since you are so fond of Merriam-Webster: "TROLL: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content." NOTHING I have written in response to your leftist fantasy garbage was "inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive," but your entire argument and rebuttals meet that definition to the proverbial "T".

"I proved beyond any reasonable doubt ... "

>> Delusions of grandeur. You're a legend in your own mind, pal.

"Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" ..."

>> Thanks for affirming your denialism.

"Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible..."

>> You failed to disprove anything I've rebutted against you with. Your delusions of grandeur, fantasy island definitions, and psychological projection does not arise to evidence in support of your tripe.

It is clear you are just a troll.

I proved beyond any reasonable doubt based on Webster and Oxford that the resolution is true and you just repeat flawed fallacious arguments I've already debunked or just repeat the term "fantasy land" as if that is supposed to be an argument. The resolution has been established based on the third definition of "woman" given by Webster in terms of having a "distinct feminine nature". Someone having an X nature is often synonymous with "character" when talking about humans, and character is a psychological state. Such as "George couldn't help but be generous, it is just in his nature". The idea it circles back to the traditional definition is something you made up. Womanliness means having the general character that is typically associated with biological woman...Even if the woman is *not* a woman biologically, they can still instantiate womanliness and thus be a woman psychologically by definition.

Your refusal to accept basic semantic change in terms of "gender" or "woman" based on your political biases don't change the reality this change exists in 2022. This change is recognized in all universities and by psychologists (a small band of right wing traditionalists can't change this). Also, obviously a semantic change has to go through the peer-review process before it becomes "official" but the change itself as far as use goes before it hits dictionaries has certainly been over night.

Please be a troll on someone else's debate. There is no way you can be serious with arguments this terrible...

-->
@Novice_II

Where do I vote for you? You are winning the debate, hands down.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

Not even going to repeat myself debunking your regurgitated fallacious arguments in that third response of yours. My 3-part reply to you stands as written. Nothing you have retorted with has discredited anything I've written. As far as I am concerned, this debate/discussion with you is over. Between your tunnel vision, lack of reading comprehension skills, continuous use of the strawman fallacy (among numerous others), and obvious penchant for the exhibited Dunning Kruger Effect establishes the fact that any further effort on my part would be a waste of my time and any measure of patience I have left beating a dead horse. It just won't get up.
Good day.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

"Also semantic changes have happened instantly."

>> Nope. They do not magically appear in the dictionary or any other source. Applications are submitted. Those submissions are peer reviewed. Processes are followed. Rejections heard. Once finalized, then it happens. Nothing is instantaneous when it comes to the written word and their meanings. Change takes time.

"You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this."

>> Strawman. I never said those changes "[needs to happen]," and it is true.
-"The nature of semantic change
It is important to remember that semantic change is a gradual process. The meaning of a word doesn't just change in an instant, it can take many years."
//https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/lexis-and-semantics/semantic-change/

"Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway."

>> Still using terms you do not fully comprehend, thereby using them incorrectly via a strawman. I made no such fallacy, and you completely misconstrued what I wrote. You Sir (or Madam) are a dishonest person.

"Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow."

>> I made no such argument or assumption. I leave the [ass]umptions to you and those like-minded as you.

"In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female."

>> you're not comprehending what you're reading and misconstruing the definitions to fit your agenda.

"Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established."

>> Nope. You're still living on Fantasy Island.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

>> Not only are you lacking in reading comprehension skills, but you also lack in debating skills. That is not an ad hominem, that is a fact-based observation. Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse. Just one strawman fallacy after another with cherry picked aspects of your opponent's comment(s) that you "think" you can easily rebut.

"I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender."

>> In your initial reply to me you did NOT cite any such definition; and in your subsequent reply you cited it incorrectly. I am looking at MW (not WM) right now on the other monitor...and it clearly denotes that quoted phrase as being directly associated to "womanliness." What does that mean? Hmmm... qualities or state of being traditionally associated with [a] woman. It circles back to the term woman; and [the] definition of a woman is "an adult female person." All you are doing, have been doing, is making a fallacious semantics argument. That dog don't hunt. So again, you did not cite/use it correctly, you just made BS up to fit your agenda. Only one lying here is you, lying to yourself and everyone else you are engaging on this topic. And I already said, which is common knowledge, what a word means depends on the context in which it is used. You do not get to cherry pick a subsection and claim it as a catch all for your backwards agenda.

"Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality."

>> No, I do not and no matter how many times you claim it will not make it any truer.

"It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022."

>> Yes, they still are. Just because liberals and the other loons have bastardized the definition doesn't make it fact-based reality. I bet you are a proponent of decriminalizing pedophilia and redefining it too, like many on the left have been moving towards bringing that slippery slope to fruition.

"Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds."

>> I already debunked this. Not wasting my time repeating myself.

"MAIN doesn't mean ONLY."

>> I never said or implied that it did mean "ONLY."

"Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition."

>> Should does not = must. There is nothing objective about their "suggestion," it's purely subjective in order to pander to others "feelings." Facts do NOT care about your feelings. Period.

"All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.""

Strawman fallacy. I have explained and in great detail. You just glanced over it and cherry-picked parts you thought you could rebut, but you failed. Epically.
My observation of your false equivalency fallacy is apropos, and your inference of me "crying" about it is rather sophomoric.

Main points to respond to keep this short.

1. A Semantic Change has clearly happened to the terms "Gender" and "Woman" as both MW and Oxford make perfectly clear. Oxford even says the term gender should be "considered with reference to social and cultural differences, RATHER THAN differences in biology" in their MAIN definition. Also, gender is certainly "associated" with sex, it just doesn't mean the same thing necessarily.

2. A Semantic Change isn't necessarily a REPLACEMENT but an ADDITION, especially in this case. The traditional definition of "woman" is still valid in the context of biological sex even if there are different additional definitions in terms of psychology, society, and gender.

3. A Semantic Change does not have to be gradual over time and there is no literary rule which states this has to be the case. There are lots of examples of semantic changes that occurred essentially over night.

4. There being a MAIN definition doesn't mean it is the ONLY definition. Other definitions are valid regardless of whether they are main definition or not.

5. Trans people being a small less-than-1% minority doesn't mean only trans people agree with this Semantic Change. The support for these semantic changes is largely supported by non-trans people and is actually common place in today's society.

6. Trans women have "a distinctly feminine nature" (one of Webster's definition of "Women") despite not being biological females. Therefore, in one sense of the term "woman", the term "trans women are women" is a valid claim and the resolution has been established. I only had to show the claim to be valid in one sense of the word "woman" not all senses of the word.

Also semantic changes have happened instantly.

in 1988 the term "web" only had one basic meaning, then in 1989 the word "web" referred to the internet.

In the year 2005 the term "cloud" had certain meanings, then in 2006 the term cloud expanded to also mean "a singular network of servers".

You literally just made up the idea that semantic changes need to happen gradually over time. There is literally no rule that states this.

Also, just because a small population are trans, doesn't mean that only a small population agrees with the definition change of gender. In fact, their are more non-trans supporters of this change than there are non-trans detractors on the right. This is just an ad populum fallacy on your behalf anyway.

Your argument is fallacious as you assume one has to be trans in order to agree with this semantic change. That does not follow.

Also, this semantic change is only an ADDITION, not a REPLACEMENT. Nobody is "fixing" the traditional definition it is still perfectly valid in it's own context.

In conclusion? Both Webster and Oxford make it clear that gender can be referred to in terms of a social construct and psychology and don't have to by synonymous with biological sex. WM even has a definition of "woman" that says "a distinctly feminine nature", which one can have without being a biological female.

Thus, "trans women are women" is a valid claim in terms of gender and the resolution has been established.

Just because you don't like that a word can have more than one meaning doesn't mean anything. This is just wishful thinking on your behalf.

To TWS1405.

I specifically cited one of Webster's dictionary definitions of "Woman" ("a distinctly feminine nature"). So to say I "did not" is just a blatant lie on your behalf. One word can have more than one meaning as WM clearly shows. Even if "an adult human female being" is completely valid in terms of biology in sex, it wasn't the only definition given in terms of psychology and gender.

Also, in the real world, you keep committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy. This is a basic logical error. Maybe it isn't in fantasy land, but it is in reality.

It doesn't matter if sex and gender "have been" synonymous with each other, they are not now in 2022.

Webster defines gender as "“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”. So if an adult biological male has psychological states typically associated with a female, then a woman would be their gender, just not their sex. It also doesn't matter if it is not THE main definition, as long as it is A definition then what I'm saying still holds.

MAIN doesn't mean ONLY.

Oxford makes it clear that the term gender should be “considered with reference to social and cultural differences, NOT differences in biology” in their MAIN definition.

Did you read that? Gender is in reference to social and cultural differences NOT differences in biology.

All you have done is just say "nuh uh your argument is fallacious" without actually explaining why it is fallacious besides crying "false equivalency" improperly on several occasions. Your argument contradicts basic dictionary definitions.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

PART III

"Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere."

>> Stop making unsubstantiated allegations and false equivalency fallacies and yes, maybe we can get somewhere.

"Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

>> *sigh* That is the subsection (b) of sub listing number 2. That is not [the] commonly understood meaning of the term. Subsection (a) defines it as "Sex sense 1a // the feminine gender" Hmmm... looks like gender is being associated to sex. Same as definition (2)(b) does too.

"So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex."

>> Wrong. While MW made a grammatical error in (2)(b) - "... associated with one (sic) sex," it is clear what was meant is "...one's sex." As such, anything "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits" that are typically accepted as male are associated with the male sex, and same goes for female. Period.

"I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology."

>> And I am sorry you lack reading comprehension skills to properly understand that which you are reading and citing as evidence of your argument, albeit incorrectly (as in, it does not support your argument because you are not applying it correctly on any level). And no, the term gender does not "mostly refers (sic) to a social construct based on psychology." Not even in the slightest.

"No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex."

>> LOL! If that were true, then there would be no need for them to enter spaces, sports, etc. specifically designed for biological females. And yet they invade all those spaces under the claim that they are just as much a woman as the rest of them (i.e., they are biologically a woman).

"In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts."

>> In conclusion, your conclusion is patently fallacious since it was based on an equally patently fallacious premise.

"Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex."

>> You've established no such thing. What you have established is your penchant for the Dunning Kruger Effect.

"Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you."

>> It remains wishful thinking, and no strawman fallacy was committed. Try again.

>> "I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially"."

You incorrectly used the dictionary, more than once, and it remains wishful thinking, and you're grasping for straws and coming up short.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

PART II

"Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way."

Yes, semantic changes do happen, but they occur gradually over time not in an instant. That is what the left and transgenders are trying to do, change meaning of words in an instant. That's not how it works. And society on the whole (i.e., the vast majority vs their 0.6-7% of the population) simply does not agree with their new fictional definition of a term solidified in history as meaning what it means. I am sure you are familiar with the saying that if we do not learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat history again. Do you comprehend the meaning of that statement? Here is another one for you, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Both are rooted in what we learn and understand from history. So, if historically it has worked and there is nothing objective to contradict it, then it should remain intact as it is and commonly understood to be as. So no, I did not commit the fallacy you allege. Lastly, your comparison to slavery is an implicit false equivalency fallacy. We are discussing the meaning of [a] term (woman), not institutions like slavery. *facepalm*

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

"I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female."

>> Uh, no you did not. You did not cite it nor directly state you were using such a source for your given definition, which was obviously your personified version of it. Now you want to backpedal to the MW definition and claim you were using it? *facepalm* It's also clear you did not even look at the defined term MW provides for "woman." MW does NOT define woman "in terms of feminine characteristics," so you had nothing to expand on other than your obviously personified version of the actual definition given by MW. MW gives 6 meanings of the term depending on the context in which it is used, but [the] main definition is direct and clearly understandable (i.e. it is common knowledge): "an adult female person." That's it. No feminine characteristics.

"As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world."

>> In today's world? There is only one world today, yesterday, and tomorrow: the real world. Not Fantasy Island. And had you referred to MW on this term too, you would have seen a little history about gender and sex at the bottom that most certainly demonstrates how they have been synonymous with each other. I mean really, in order to know/understand what one's gender role(s) are in the real world, one must look at their sex to identify those roles.

"In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). " - MW

>> Are the terms masculine/masculinity related to the sex female? Are the terms woman/girl related to the sex male? No, they are not. Not in the real world. Maybe on Fantasy Island, but not the real world.

-->
@TWS1405

I gave a definition from the Webster dictionary that defines "woman" in terms of feminine characteristics and I expanded on it, and this definition had nothing to do with the person being biologically female.

As far as the term "gender" goes, is not synonymous with "sex" or completely determined by sex in today's world. Semantic changes are common in the English language, and you are committing the basic Appeal To Tradition fallacy by stating that because something has historically been a certain way, then that is the way it should remain. That is a basic logical error on your behalf. Slavery was common place for hundreds of years, should we have kept it? Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it is the right way.

Stop committing the Appeal To Tradition fallacy, and maybe we can get somewhere.

Now, Webster defines gender as: "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

So if an adult human biological male has the "typical psychological traits typically associated" with adult human biological females, then this person's gender would be woman BY DEFINITION, even if they are *NOT* a "woman" in terms of biological sex.

I'm sorry you are stuck in your outdated views, but in 2022 the term gender mostly refers to a social construct based on psychology. No trans woman thinks they are biologically female. When they say they are a "woman", they mean psychologically in terms of gender and not sex.

In conclusion, since trans women are women psychologically in terms of gender, then they are woman in at least one sense of the term. This holds true even if they are not biologically women in terms of sex. Both meanings of the term "woman" are valid in their respective contexts.

Therefore, I have self-evidently established the resolution. "Trans women are women" is valid claim in at least one sense (the sense in terms of psychology and gender). They just are not woman in terms of biology and sex.

Oh and there is no wishful thinking argument on my behalf that is a straw-man fallacy committed by you. I am simply going off basic definitions ***given by the dictionary*** itself. It is no more wishful thinking than to define a "road" as "an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals especially".

When I am using dictionary definitions, they are obviously not based on my own personal wishful thinking. That is just an absurd claim by you...

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

"One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*."

>> There is no un-liberalized (i.e. un-bastardized) term on earth that defines just "psychologically" for the meaning of what a woman is. Having said that, you are stating the obvious that words have multiple meanings, but those meanings are predicated on the context in which they are used and not how they are alike in spelling and pronunciation. So, no. You're wrong on this matter of linguistics.

"The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex)."

>> Uh, no. It is not self-evidently true in terms of gender, or any made up perverted term for that matter.
Gender and sex are not mutually exclusive. Gender is predicated on sex, and sex is the defining factor of gender. Historically, and I mean historically, when a child was born and their sex was clearly delineated upon birth, each already had their path of who and what they are and what they were expected to do already set out before them. This obvious direction in life was rather apparent to the Vikings, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, Muslims, so on and so forth. Any deviation in behavior and expectations innate to each sex/gender, they were then determined to be abnormal. This was common knowledge and accepted for centuries of our meager human existence on this planet until only recently when liberalism and wokeism sank its vampiric teeth into humanity.

"I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***."

>> Stating the obvious.

"We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention."

>>Oh, I have been paying attention. But your wishful thinking fallacy on what the term woman means is invalidated.

"Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically."

No, they cannot. They think they can, but they cannot. It is psychologically impossible for a man to be an equal to a woman on the psychological level. The male brain will never be on par with a woman's brain and their respective innate emotions, thought process, level of being an introvert or extrovert, that mother instinct, and interpersonal communication skills, among so many other innate attributes of what a woman is in existence. So, you're wrong, again.

"Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts."

>>No, they are not. Maybe in your delusional fantasy land but not in reality (i.e. the real world).

"I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did…."

>>No, you did not.

-->
@TWS1405

One term can have multiple meanings (this is called a homonym), thus there is no issue with biological males being women if by the term “women” we mean “women” *psychologically* and not *biologically*.

The resolution was trivially easy to establish, as it is self-evidently true in terms of gender (just not in terms of sex).

I am not disputing scientific fact here, ***only adult human females can only be women biologically. No matter how much a male mutilates genitals or feels feminine this male will never be a biological woman***.

We both agree there with the above, there is no dispute there. So when you say that is an established fact I agree! If you think I would ever disagree, you obviously haven’t been paying attention.

Now, the point is, this person can be a woman psychologically, even if this person can never be a woman biologically.

Both meanings of the term “woman” are equally valid in their own contexts, just like both meanings of the term “cold blooded” are equally valid in their own contexts.

I only had to establish that trans women are women in *one* sense of the word not *every* sense of the word. Which I did….

Pseudohermaphroditism is when a person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female. Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization. Didn't God know anything about quality control?
A human is made up of 37.2 trillion cells. Why would something be made of that many parts?

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

You simply cannot use a fallacious interpretation of a [concrete] term like, woman (women) that would in any way be equated to being [a] man (men) on ANY level of biology, physiology and/or psychologically. There is nothing for the contender to argue. It has been an established objective fact-based truth that women are women, and men are men (i.e., boys have a penis and women have a vagina and boobs).

The stark and intrinsic differences psychologically, physiologically, biologically and legally is paramount and cannot be simply whisked away by fancy semantics arguments that will not fly.

A biological man can never be a woman, and a biological woman can bever be a man. That is established fact-based reality on so many levels it isn't even, respectfully, funny!!!!!

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

Oh, sure, I remember you and have read your debates before. Great to have you!

-->
@oromagi

I was known as "Rational Thinker" back then.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

Debate.Org back in the day

Oh? Lot's of ex-DDOers here, including me. Did you have the same username on DDO?

-->
@oromagi

Appreciate it! I had a huge presence on Debate.Org back in the day. I wanted to get back into online debates but saw the site is no more :(

I'm glad I found this one.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

Welcome to the site!

-->
@oromagi

The definition is part of my opening argument, and is a surprise.

Thus, of course, accepting this debate does NOT mean accepting my definition. The definition is the thing being debated... It will be the challenge of Con to argue that the definition I provide in my opening arguments is NOT a reasonable use of the term and only the traditional definition of "woman" (an adult human female) is valid.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'll just respond here, as I cannot edit the debate outline at this time.

Male is XY Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as a penis and testicles) and female is XX Chromosomes (typically with genitalia such as vagina, ovaries, uterus, fallopian tubes etc.).

A reasonable definition of woman based on either a Webster or Oxford definition will be provided as *part of my argument*, that hopefully, I can argue include biological males.

It will be the job of Con to argue that the traditional definition of "adult human female" is the only reasonable definition of the term "woman", and thus ,"trans women are women" is an invalid claim.

Remember, my definition of "woman" has to be deemed reasonable by the voters. I can't just say they are mammals or something to cheaply win the debate by default.

I would be sure to define those reasonable senses of the word WOMAN in the description.

-->
@DebateAllDaTings

Please can you define male, female and woman for me to accept this debate.

To be clear I don't mean here, in the comments but in the official debate description.