Transwomen are not "real" women

In specific, the ultrasound can see ".. the vulva, clitoris, and labia are taken to indicate a female fetus, whereas seeing the scrotum, penis, testicles, and raphe indicate a male fetus." 

• Some transwomen undergo surgery to change the way they look
  
• Some transwomen force their natural voice
  
• Some transwomen try and "act" like a women
  
• Some transwomen take testosterone to block estrogen (2)
  

• Having regular period cycles (i've seen transwomen mock real women of having periods as if they understand the same effects, like regular cramps during that time period)
  
• Being able to produce eggs to get fertilized 
  
• Having fairly increased risks of danger (SA, rape, harassment, etc.. hence because men have, by biological standards, a stronger advantage)(3)
  

1. Self identification regardless if it makes people happy, does not mean it's logical or true
   
2. Regardless of social construct, biologically proves the difference hence why we have different sexes 
   
3. Even if to be used as a social construct, transwoman, as well as society don't agree
   

Taking this out of the way, i'm sure we can agree on one thing. Real women have a functional uterus (including effects such as pregnancy, period cycles, etc)..

• I disagree. I have two reasons for this:
  
• Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.
  
• So people don't call another person a woman by their biology.
  
• When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
  

By being pregnant, some choose to have ultrasounds to identify if the unborn baby is female or male. In fact, it's quite straight forward, with technological advances, we can see many of the specific parts that doctors themselves in the medical field deem as male or female.(1)

Transwomen are not women by their own standards

Now this might seem insane to some people, but quite frankly it's true. Transwomen themselves don't completely view themselves as a women. How does this work?

Here's a few examples that come to mind:

• Some transwomen undergo surgery to change the way they look
  
• Some transwomen force their natural voice
  

....

All of these are examples of acting like a women. There is a fairly large gap between being a women and taking on the responsibilities of being a women.

• This is interesting, since there are two or even three claims here that are implied:
  
• Women should be convincing enough to what it is socially expected for woman to be (the "standard".)
  
• Implied from the examples of transwomen trying to fit the culturally accepted view of what a woman is.
  
• Transwomen don't actually see themselves as woman.
  
• Directly said.
  
• Transwomen only take the responsibilities of being a woman, not, actually being woman.
  
• Directly said.
  

Self-identification and society standard

If a transwomen is self-identifying, without anything to back themselves up. 

...

Counterpoint

I did some digging by myself, and i'd like to point out a few misconceptions in some peoples case, by using my words.

1. Self identification regardless if it makes people happy, does not mean it's logical or true
   
2. Regardless of social construct, biologically proves the difference hence why we have different sexes 
   
3. Even if to be used as a social construct, transwoman, as well as society don't agree
   

• CON will be responding to the Counterpoint section, as it just repeats the Self-identification and society standard section.
  

• True, but it is still the most logical way to determine what gender someone is.
  
• It is true that a claim that makes someone happy does not make that claim true.
  
• Will explain later on.
  
• True, gender and sex are different concepts.
  
• Gender is related or associated with sex, but they are not synonymous. Gender is a social construct, while sex is a biological term.
  
• So?
  
• The majority of society does not dictate how words should be used. For example, there is a time (or maybe even now) where the stereotype of how gay men act: flamboyant. This is most of what people conceive of as gay or acting gay. That stereotype is a social construct; A social perception used by a particular society to describe human behavior. Now, should being gay only be narrowed to flamboyant homosexual people? Of course not, because it being the majority of society does not determine how a word should be used. Still, however, people use the word gay to mean flamboyant or to refer to how gay people are culturally seen to behave; "Their clothes are so gay."
  

• Who is called a woman is a social construct (evident by how people call woman by how woman are expected to look and act, but not their literal biology)
  
• Social constructs should hurt the least amount of people (already discussed).
  
• Letting people self-identify as woman currently hurts the least amount of people.
  
• Therefore, self-identification is not only the most logical way to determine gender but also the most humanitarian. Unless what is logical is hurting the most amount of people, then sure.
  

“Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male, female, or intersex.

...

Gender, on the other hand, involves how a person identifies.

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs

Gender is a social construct and a social identity.

...

Sex refers to biological sex assignment; use the term “sex” when the biological distinction of sex assignment (e.g., sex assigned at birth) is predominant.

• I disagree. I have two reasons for this:
  
• Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.
  
• So people don't call another person a woman by their biology.
  
• When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
  

• Doctors at birth
  
• Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
  
• Any sexual activities with people in general (they know what they're looking at, if they have not changed)
  
• Parents (they know you're biological sex)
  

This is correct, however, let's be specific. This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

• This is interesting, since there are two or even three claims here that are implied:
  
• Women should be convincing enough to what it is socially expected for woman to be (the "standard".)
  
• Implied from the examples of transwomen trying to fit the culturally accepted view of what a woman is.
  
• Transwomen don't actually see themselves as woman.
  
• Directly said.
  
• Transwomen only take the responsibilities of being a woman, not, actually being woman.
  
• Directly said.
  

Now, remember, the first argument is the point PRO is trying to prove. Notice how the second and third point are related, but don't actually support the point that was trying to be given. Rather, they are extrapolations from the point, but don't actually support the point. So CON will not address this, and asks PRO to establish an actual link of reasoning. Otherwise, it would just be responding to something that is not even established on anything

• True, but it is still the most logical way to determine what gender someone is.
  
• It is true that a claim that makes someone happy does not make that claim true. 
  
• Will explain later on.
  

Gender is related or associated with sex, but they are not synonymous. Gender is a social construct, while sex is a biological term

Here is the argument for why trans women are real woman:

• Who is called a woman is a social construct (evident by how people call woman by how woman are expected to look and act, but not their literal biology)
  

• Social constructs should hurt the least amount of people (already discussed).
  

• Letting people self-identify as woman currently hurts the least amount of people.
  
• Therefore, self-identification is not only the most logical way to determine gender but also the most humanitarian. Unless what is logical is hurting the most amount of people, then sure.
  

• Social concept is not reality, and even by those terms, transwomen don't fit their own social concept
  
• Being a women is not a social concept
  
• A man can not do the same things as a women, nor hold the same higher potential risks
  
• Transwomen are not real women
  

• disagree. I have two reasons for this:
  
• Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.
  
• So people don't call another person a woman by their biology.
  
• When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
  

I object this idea.

I'll tell you a few groups of people that do: 

• Doctors at birth
  
• Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
  
• Any sexual activities with people in general (they know what they're looking at, if they have not changed)
  
• Parents (they know you're biological sex)
  

Women actually have usual consistent anatomy, their bone structure, vocal cords, and biological parts. People can usually tell by at least two of those things. Not only, but dna says differently.. DNA confirms your exact sex. 

• Few things here:
  
• Notice how CON said virtually everyone. Doctors and parents would know, yes, kinda. Technically the change of being able to give birth also could possibly change overtime. And since doctors do not check is a woman is able to give birth every-time they see their patient. So they wouldn't actually know, but that is being a bit pedantic.
  
• The definition PRO gave of who is a "real woman" is that they are able to give birth, just because they have are able to engage in sexual activities does not mean they are able to give birth.
  
• It's kinda weird to give a solid definition of what real woman have then hide behind many attributes of what a woman is "biologically".
  
• Essentially, if there is going to be a conversation CON would ask there to be a consistent definition or attribute (such as giving birth - what was originally given.) Otherwise, this conversation will go in circles; PRO gives attributes of what a "real" woman is, CON tries to argue against that idea of what people actually refer to as a woman.
  
• Notice that PRO agrees people uses anatomy, vocal cords, and so on to judge if someone is a woman; how someone looks and sounds. Now, of course that is, in part, of someone's biology, but those parts can be changed through practice, medical methods, the past in general. Or they merely can be birthed with an attribute associated with the opposite sex. Like a woman being born with a deep voice. These are not inherent to woman. Meaning, virtually all people don't judge if others are woman by their actual biology, but rather, attributes associated with a sex. Which is biological.
  
• Meaning, how someone calls another a woman is not biological, but rather, associations of what is biological. And if what is a woman is merely associations; it is merely social.
  
• Most people don't tell if someone is a woman by their DNA, and in the scientific field, that is not what a woman is.
  

I'm glad you agree, now let's discuss your counterpoint. Are we talking about sex?

This is where your argument fails, we are not talking about gender. We are talking about sex, not gender.

I understand you're trying to flip the tables, but let me explain why we are talking about gender and not sex.

SOCIETAL CONCEPT

Please define "societal concept" .. 

Multiple times throught your counter argument, you mention social concept, otherwise known as social construct.

Let's break down a societal concept, without my contenders defintion first.

Societal = relating to society or relations (1)

Concept = something made as an idea (2)

But let's take a look back at the title.. "Transwomen are not real women" .. The first key word we get is, "real".

What does real mean?

Real = not imagined or supposed, having objective independent existence (3)

• To answer PRO's first question, because women is largely a gender concept.
  
• Second, what is social construct is also real. Countries are social constructs, since they are all just lines made on land to differentiate themselves from other governance. Currency is a social construct, since it exists only because humans say it exists. However, hopefully this is agreeable, all of these things are still real.
  
• The definition of what is real, then, should have been specified in the description.
  
• Third, then the disagreement lies within the presumption within the statement: that there is such a thing as a "real" woman.
  
• Fourth, PRO has even implied that woman is a social construct (as implied from the previous rebuttal).
  

• And since, as that section that was responded to is literally titled as "Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)," that is a direct refutation, and the fact that this is PRO's response shows that there is - intentional or not - a changing of the goal post at play here. PRO's argument was that transwomen are not women by the scientific field, and then there is evidence that this is not the case because the scientific community considered woman as a social phenomena; gender. So, PRO then says that they are talking about sex not gender - which is different from if the scientific field considered trans woman as woman.
  

Transwomen put women on a generalized notion of their standards. But transwomen DON'T MEET THEIR OWN STANDARDS.

They force an idea on women, that they themselves, can not fit. If they can not fit their own standards of women, what makes you think they can fit real womens "standards"? I'm not even talking about culturally accepted, i'm talking about transwomens ideologies. 

When we say real, social construct is not quite a factor. My point here was saying if you're trying to make being a women a social construct, transwomen themselves can not fit it by their standards.

Can a transwomen get pregnant? No

Can a transwomen get cycled periods? No

...

And I contend your idea that they weren't related. 

Let me explain.

If transwomen can't fit their own standards (1), they can not view themselves as women (2), therefore they're picking up a false belief that they are women who (which, do not own) have the same responsibilities and biological attributes that real women do (3). 

• One, this is a heavy generalization that would need to be proven; the idea that most trans woman give themselves standards that they cannot achieve.
  
• Trans-woman can feel comfortable with who they are concurrently, not needing to feel to fit what is heavily abstracted as how a woman should feel, look, sound like. If this is most trans-woman would then need to be established.
  
• Two, feelings as if someone is not something and actually being someone are two different things.
  
• For example, someone may not feel like a woman but as along as they identify as one they are still a woman.
  
• This will be explored further in bullet point three.
  
• Two, there are two contradictory propositions within PRO's reasoning:
  
• "...they can not view themselves as women...." (premise 2)
  
• "...they're picking up a false belief that they are women..." (conclusion)
  
• How can these two things be true, let alone conclude to the other, in the same line of reasoning?
  
• Three, these premises do not conclude to the conclusions (when ignoring the beforementioned contradiction)
  
• If "real" woman can't fit their own standards, they cannot view themselves as woman, therefore they're picking up a false belief that they are woman who have the same responsibilities and biological attributes that "real" woman do.
  
• The same logic (if it can even be called that) is even applicable to what PRO would call "real" woman, since woman can feel as if they are not fitting the social and cultural expectations of what a woman should act, look, or the possessions. Like being able to give birth or nursing their baby.
  
• However, and CON is of course assuming, that PRO would agree that just because "real" woman do not themselves feel like they fit the standard of what a woman is they are, still, real woman. Same thing with trans woman, just because they feel like they do not fit the standard of what a woman is, they are still in fact a woman.
  
• Four, there is a mistake with the reasoning; the reasoning given is incomplete.
  
• The second premise seems to be a conclusion that stems from the first premise.
  
• The second premise is used to support the conclusions.
  
• An argument needs, at least, to premises to support a conclusion.
  
• Meaning there are two incomplete arguments that is supposed to support the conclusion. Maybe if this reasoning was complete, PRO would be able to not give a more clear non-contradictory reasoning.
  

The example, currency exists only because of humans. The paper made for currency exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The lines that base and stucture out a country exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality. But a transwomen saying she's a real women, is imagined. 

That being said, my contender has not shown any basis for the actual goal post.

Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)

When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
...

This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

I'm glad you agree, now let's discuss your counterpoint. Are we talking about sex?

This is where your argument fails, we are not talking about gender

Attributes 

I feel my contender was trying to prove a point by saying some of my attributes of most women (like being usually higher pitched) don't always apply. That is true. However, other attributes still continue to follow through.

Men don't have period cycles, can't get pregnant and don't have as much X chromosomes (two). 

My contender tries to flip the tables and uses a strawman by saying, "People can't tell by those things".. 

Yet, they can. Just because everybody doesn't know your dna, doesn't mean your dna changes and you don't have your dna. This also sticks with everything, just because they can't see your periods doesn't mean the cycles don't exist, or change the factor you're a women.  

Meaning, virtually all people don't judge if others are woman by their actual biology, but rather, attributes associated with a sex.

...Just because everybody doesn't know your dna...

Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.

• One: it is not a strawman, PRO directly said that they agree that everybody do not actually know someone's biology.
  
• Two: CON is just correct on the point, as PRO agreed. 
  

Transwomen put up their own standards to a women. 

If they were already a women, and felt like they were a women, why do they transition? Why do transwomen transition and change themselves to be more like their "feminine standards"? 

You bring up the point feeling like a women, but if they felt like a real women, they'd have most of the attributes, responsibilities, and risks, other women have. Yet all transwomen rarely share any attributes as those, without changing themselves. 

Three examples of social consturcts not real:

- Transwomen believing their "real women" 

...

- Objectivly, relgion

The example, currency exists only because of humans. The paper made for currency exists, that's not imagined or supposed. The lines that base and stucture out a country exist, that's not imagined or supposed. Right? All these examples prove something of objective reality. We just name these things, but theyre still of  objective reality. But a transwomen saying she's a real women, is imagined. 

Objective reality does not agree with transwomen, which definies real or not.

Sex is objectivity reality, so no, I did not change it to anything.

Part of the medical field is understanding objective reality, and one is sex.

• Unsubstantiated, and the previous rebuttal stands as a reason why this is wrong and will give a final argument at the end of why trans women are women in this R4 argument.
  
• Wow, really did not understand the point. CON will quote themselves:
  

Originally, the claim was that the medical field does not consider trans-woman as woman. Now the goal post changed to "we are talking about sex."

• Notice that CON did substantiate that the medical community does consider that trans women are women:
  

When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)

...

This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

I do admit that not everyone sees the records of someones biological dna, or biological attributes..

But does this change their biological atteibutes though people don't know?

No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Meaning, even if people "assumed" someone was male, when they are a female, the objective reality does not change.

You're goal post has changed off topic trying to sway the difference between objective reality and opinions/assumptions.

I do admit that not everyone sees the records of someones biological dna, or biological attributes..

Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth.

But does this change their biological atteibutes though people don't know? No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Meaning, even if people "assumed" someone was male, when they are a female, the objective reality does not change.

You're goal post has changed off topic trying to sway the difference between objective reality and opinions/assumptions.No, it doesn't. The objective reality of whats real or not continues to stay.

Transwomen are not women by scientific biological knowledge (medical field)

• Colloquially, people call other people woman not by having a functional uterus - rather, by their looks. Since virtually everyone does not check if the person in front of them is concurrently able to give birth. Hopefully, this is self-evident.
  
• So people don't call another person a woman by their biology.
  
• When speaking of what is a woman, there are many reliable scientific sources that clarify that women are also a heavily cultural and societal concept(1) or directly use it to only refer to women as a cultural and societal concept.(2)
  

...

This is sex, not gender(3). Keep in mind, this is a single study, while the second source given (which is a systematic review with some meta-analysis), WHO(4), APA(5), and many more reliable scientific sources all agree there is a difference.

I object this idea.

I'll tell you a few groups of people that do: 

• Doctors at birth
  
• Any partner you have (they'll find out your biological sex if you have not changed)
  

...

With my last few minutes, con askes why transwomen need to live up to "feminine standards".. 

Well, con, I'm asking the same thing. Why are they labbeling and subjecting themselves to a standard they make up that they can't fit.

Unfortunately, even when you change yourself to meet those "feminine standards", whats real or not doesn't change.

My point with that argument is not only do they not meet objective reality, but their own standards of a women.

Social construct, and objective reality both prove them as not real women.

Notice how this exact logic can be applied to real woman. Real woman - either because they act, look, or are born in a way where it is not "womanly" do not consider themselves par to these feminine standards. Which can be applicable to most woman.

...

And the question is, are all this subset of woman not "real woman" - even though they have the genitalia, chromosomes, and so on coincides. To say that this logic means transwoman are not woman would necessarily also apply to what PRO would consider "real" woman. In fact, if we ignore the last paragraph of what PRO said, this logic is perfectly applicable to most "real" woman.

... family acceptance of TGNC adolescents and adults is associated with decreased rates of negative out-comes, such as depression, suicide, and HIV risk behaviors and infection

In addition, TGNC people who receive social support about their gender identity and gender expression have improved outcomes and quality of life.

Transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) individuals are at a high risk of adverse mental health outcomes due to minority stress—the stress faced by individuals categorised as stigmatised social minority groups

Stigma-based stressors are associated directly and indirectly with mental health disparities in depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), self-harm, suicidality, disordered eating and substance use in TNB individuals.