“1 in every 5000 women is born without a vagina.” Assuming that’s true, that means if you use “born with a vagina” as a criterion for determining who is female, you’d get a false negative rate of about .02% (and a false positive rate of about, oh, 0%). From a statistical standpoint, that’s pretty damned good.
But it also presupposes that you have some way of knowing which people are women and which aren’t, which seems to belie the claim that being a woman is a matter of self-identification.
And finally, one way of knowing that someone definitely is not a woman is if they were born with a penis.
I already told off some locals about that “Women’s March” in Portland… The poster included language about freeing Palestine, immigrant rights, trans shit, and probably something BLM related. I suggested that maybe they should pick a lane as opposed to requiring participants to sign on to a raft of unrelated causes.
He’s right to point out that some women are born missing X characteristic and are still considered women, just as some men are born without etc. etc.. What he misses, due to blinders or deliberate intent: those people are considered women (or men) because they were born with the rest of the traits from the female or male side of the divide.
By stark contrast, this man was born without a vagina, and also without a vaginal opening, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix, clitoral crura, vulva (labia majora and minora, glans clitoridis, clitoral hood); high oestrogen and progesterone, low androgens; wide pubic arch and pelvis, shallow rib cage, generally slender bones; XX chromosomes.
It is also a safe bet that unlike those women he mentions – women born without vaginae yet still considered women – he was born with the full complement of male traits: penis (glans penis, corpus cavernosa, corpus spongiosum, prepuce), suspensory ligament, testes, seminal vesicles, scrotum, Vas Deferens, prostate gland, fused perineum; high androgens and low oestrogen and progesterone; narrow pubic arch and pelvis, deep ribcage, generally robust bones; XY chromosomes.
Quite, Holms, and no amount of “born without X” means you’ve made any progress at all towards “born with Y”. Lacking a vagina at birth doesn’t grant anything else. Stating that there are women without a uterus (like many of our mothers later in life) doesn’t mean that a man with every male characteristic, chromosome and organ is anything like her.
“1 in every 5000 women is born without a vagina.” Assuming that’s true, that means if you use “born with a vagina” as a criterion for determining who is female, you’d get a false negative rate of about .02% (and a false positive rate of about, oh, 0%). From a statistical standpoint, that’s pretty damned good.
But it also presupposes that you have some way of knowing which people are women and which aren’t, which seems to belie the claim that being a woman is a matter of self-identification.
And finally, one way of knowing that someone definitely is not a woman is if they were born with a penis.
“But it also presupposes that you have some way of knowing which people are women and which aren’t,”
Yes, his rant is an exercise in question-begging.
He sounds angry. I’ll bet he was born without a uterus.
What a fatuous argument. We know an adult human female is a woman and he is not one.
I already told off some locals about that “Women’s March” in Portland… The poster included language about freeing Palestine, immigrant rights, trans shit, and probably something BLM related. I suggested that maybe they should pick a lane as opposed to requiring participants to sign on to a raft of unrelated causes.
Also, that LoTT lady is a vile human being.
He’s right to point out that some women are born missing X characteristic and are still considered women, just as some men are born without etc. etc.. What he misses, due to blinders or deliberate intent: those people are considered women (or men) because they were born with the rest of the traits from the female or male side of the divide.
By stark contrast, this man was born without a vagina, and also without a vaginal opening, uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervix, clitoral crura, vulva (labia majora and minora, glans clitoridis, clitoral hood); high oestrogen and progesterone, low androgens; wide pubic arch and pelvis, shallow rib cage, generally slender bones; XX chromosomes.
It is also a safe bet that unlike those women he mentions – women born without vaginae yet still considered women – he was born with the full complement of male traits: penis (glans penis, corpus cavernosa, corpus spongiosum, prepuce), suspensory ligament, testes, seminal vesicles, scrotum, Vas Deferens, prostate gland, fused perineum; high androgens and low oestrogen and progesterone; narrow pubic arch and pelvis, deep ribcage, generally robust bones; XY chromosomes.
They always leave this relevant fact out.
Quite, Holms, and no amount of “born without X” means you’ve made any progress at all towards “born with Y”. Lacking a vagina at birth doesn’t grant anything else. Stating that there are women without a uterus (like many of our mothers later in life) doesn’t mean that a man with every male characteristic, chromosome and organ is anything like her.