Your entire argument seems to be, “I’m defining the word ‘man’ in this particular way, even though I can’t give any solid reason why my definition is superior, therefore I win this argument.”
Sure: if you define your words in a particular way and refuse to pay attention to alternative definitions or to listen to reasons why those other definitions might be superior, you can LALALA your way to victory. This is what a lot of people decided to do with marriage: “Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, so same-sex marriage doesn’t make sense, so I WIN TEH ARGUMENT!!!”
But if you abandon the idea of victory-through-arbitrary-definition, if you look at facts and logic instead, you’ll note that your argument falls apart faster than slow-cooked Carolina pork.
It’s not an arbitrary definition at all, it is the standard definition. I am fully aware of the arguments that men who “think like women” should be considered women, and a reject them as sexist pigeonholing nonsense. Men who think more like a typical woman than a typical man are men who are neurologically atypical, they are not women any more than a man who is closer to the average height or strength of a woman is a woman.
No, it is an issue of manipulative oppression olympics and manufactured victim status which uses semantics.
Now, if a man who has a brain which operates more like a typical woman’s than a typical man’s is sincerely more comfortable using the women’s restroom or locker room, that is a legitimate concern that should be taken into consideration. But it should not be given any greater consideration than the concerns of those people who are themselves uncomfortable having men, whether or not they consider themselves trans-women, using women’s restrooms.
They are neurologically atypical. There seems to be a growing consensus among reasonable people that “trans-gender” is the commonly agreed to term. One that seems to carry neither insult nor injury.
So the consideration you offer in the first part, stops at the bathroom door. Can you provide any compelling argument why it would be wrong to examine and challenge the reasons cis-people feel discomfort in presence of trans-people?
It’s not discomfort in the presence of transsexual people that is the issue. I personally consider transsexualism to be an art form that can be beautiful in it’s own aberrant way, but not an actual change in gender. Those are not women, they are men who are very talented at disguising themselves as women and mimicking the mannerism typical of women.
It is a disagreement with the assertion that a transsexual man who thinks and acts like a woman can actually become a woman by deciding that he is one, and a rejection of the idea that the rest of us are engaging in bigoted and discriminatory practices when we refuse to go along with his delusion that he is a woman.
My position is ultimately the most progressive and accepting of the diversity of men and women, since it accepts any behavior than anyone decides they wish to engage in as appropriate for their gender.
What does “gender” mean? You keep using unclear definitions of words.
Do you mean “appropriate for people with their genitalia”? Then of course nobody here disagrees with you. You’re again trying to win arguments through definitions, not through facts. It’s a completely irrelevant statement, inasmuch as it has nothing to do with the question of whether there’s such a thing as gender identity distinct from manifested genitalia.
If that’s not what you mean by “gender”, what do you mean by it?
Gender is the phenotypic expression of sex chromosomes.
Just as a cat and a dog are the phenotypic expression of the set of genes that make up felines and canines. Even if a dog is as small as a typical cat or behaves in a manner that causes it’s owner to say “my dog thinks he is a cat”, the dog is still a dog.
Those are the traditional, well-understood definitions of male and female. Of course, people are free to lobby for others to accept their declared gender identity as their “real” gender. They are oppressing no one simply by making the request that they be considered a woman even though they are genetically someone who would traditionally be considered a man. And those of us who see no good reason to change the definition are oppressing no one simply by refusing their request that we alter our language to suit their desires.
Should I believe this because you declare it to be true, or do you have a cite for these definitions? Because this is pretty weird. It suggests that the traditional definitions of male and female dates back at best a little less than century and a half, when chromosomes were discovered. It certainly suggests that the terms can only be used by people who understand genetics; virtually no elementary school kids, according to your traditional, well-understood definitions, can use the words “male” and “female.”
Perhaps you’d care to refine, or better yet cite, the traditional, well-understood definitions of male and female?
Humans have an inborn ability to discern the differences in genetic makeup of life forms based on how they express themselves. Thus people have been able to tell ash trees from oaks and rose bushes, dogs from cats, and men from women for as long as we have been human.
So you’re saying no human has ever mistaken a woman for a man (or vice versa) based on sensible cues. We ‘just know.’ The same as we know who’s cis and who’s trans. Please.
That’s ridiculous, and you yourself have contradicted this, suggesting that any expression of the self by a genotypical male was necessarily the expression of a male.
What is so terrible about saying that, just as the definition of marriage has changed in recent years to include same-sex marriage, the definition of gender may change in order to allow more personal liberty in its declaration? What is so terrible about increasing personal liberty in this regard?