Assertion to the rescue
Is that right?
What are they then? Stallions? Bulls? Bucks? Roosters? Rams?
If trans women are not men then what does the “trans” in “trans women” mean?
Tip Jar
Is that right?
What are they then? Stallions? Bulls? Bucks? Roosters? Rams?
If trans women are not men then what does the “trans” in “trans women” mean?
“Assigned male at birth” comes to the rescue.
Notice too the shift from “male” and “female” in the original tweet to “man” and “(trans)woman”.
I know. Nonsense piled on nonsense.
Of course they abandoned the distinction between “male”/”female” and “man”/”woman” – you know, the one that they themselves imposed on the rest of us in the first place – years ago. Even “male” and “female” are now entirely understood in terms of gender identity and self-identification. As soon as they realized that Genderspeak Version 1 still allowed us to talk about biological females as an identifiable group in its own right, regardless of gender identity, the loophole had to be closed. Genderspeak Version 2 and later versions don’t have that bug.
There can be no way to refer specifically to biological females, not even indirectly. The only reason that can be acknowledged for singling out “trans women” as sufficiently distinct from “other women” to even justify the “trans ” prefix is that the former were (mistakenly) “assigned male at birth”. I.e. they’re singled out as “trans” women, not because of anything about them, but only because someone else made an arbitrary guess (e.g. by flipping a coin) regarding their “inner sense of self” and got it wrong.