I'm still interested in hearing how "adult human female" is mental gymnastics, if anyone can help me out there.I think this is true for the most part. If you're a young effeminate boy who happens to enjoy musical theatre then there's a good chance trans activists will try and convince you that you're actually a girl. It's incredibly regressive and really no different logic from the rightoids who say men who wear dresses are not men. It's the same silly idea, dressed up in far right or far left packaging. Let kids be who they are and they'll likely grow up to be well adjusted adults who do not make their personalities, clothing and hobbies their entire being. There's a good chance I would have received this messaging as a little girl and whatdayaknow, I grew up to love wearing dresses and I happen to be good at math and building and creating things. I'm still a woman, regardless of what I wear and my hobbies and skills.

I love to cook, bake, and garden (award winning roses), and I was teased relentlessly for it in elementary and middle school. I was also a multi sport all state athlete in high school and a D1 all American in college. I even think I enjoy buying my daughters' cute outfits more than my wife. People consider me hyper masculine, and I would agree, but still get confused looks from people when they show up to a party at my house and find I cooked everything and made some of the floral arrangements. Culturally, gender and sex have become interchangeable, and I do not believe them to fall on any kind of spectrum. However, I do believe gender stereotypes are mostly archaic, and their continued enforcement leads to a lot of the "confusion" that we are seeing

You sound awesome! Yes, you can like whatever you like and still be who you are. You sound like a great father and role model as well. We need more men who are proud of who they are, same for women! I absolutely love being a woman and feel it's my duty to be a non-retarded one for the next generation of girls who are learning horrible, untrue lessons about what is a woman.

Fortunately, I had wonderful parents who greatly enforced this in myself and my siblings, and I try my best to pass it on! One of my daughters is pretty wild, as I was and believe to be perfectly normal for a child, gets called a "tomboy" all the time. It's infuriating to me, and I constantly fight the urge to scream at them but end up just gently correcting "no just a fun loving child" (a lesson for my kids). Ironically, its primarily older women I would consider to be feminist who do it. My oldest daughter used to just be my shadow, but now she has gotten old enough were all of my hobbies are becoming her own. Its reinvigorating passing everything on to her

i think people conflate biology with personality (gender), just because you behave the way society perceives how a woman should 'act' doesn't make you female in the literal sense, this whole debacle really just exposes the clown world we live in lol

This is the best post in the thread, and it's a point that misc just doesnt understand for whatever reason. It's a definitional issue. "gender" is not a term of interest to biology or science. So when people say the left is wrong on basic science on this issue....well no, it's not even an issue of science. This is not like the fundamentalist religious right being wrong thinking the earth being 6000 years old or evolution didnt happen-thoseare not mere definitional issues, they are just incorrect facts. We all agree what a 'year' is for example, but the creationist just doesnt understand the earth is orders of magnitude older than they think, based on evidence.

In science, you could really do away with labels completely- those are not important to what is physically there, it's just a way of communicating between humans. A great example of this is the planet Pluto. There has been some discussion on whether that particular body of rock and ice is a 'planet'. Current agreement, using certain definitions of 'planet', is that Pluto is not a planet. It was considered one before. But here's the thing.....it doesnt matter....at all actually, that body of rock and ice out there is just what it is....that body of rock and ice out there. In fact one of the only meaningful ways this even comes up is whether 3rd grade students have to remember it as one of the planets of the solar system or not. In science, the body of matter is just what it is out there, regardless of labels or categories.

In biology, the chromo****l sex is what it is, and no biologist should say a MtoF trans isnt XY chromo****l sex. The chromo****l sex is whatever shows on the karyotype. Now if society takes 'gender' to be some kind of social construct,definesit to be what someone identifies as, etc, this has nothing to with biology. If someone defines woman in the sense of the latter, and enough of society agrees with this type of definition over the years, then that's just how the word 'woman' ends up being talked about, how communication happens in the society. It really doesnt matter about labels in science.....that person is still just that mass of matter, that entity in space and time. Now getting beyond this mere definitional issue, of course people will argue how about how society should deal with this....should MtoF trans be able to compete with chromo****l female sex in womans sports, public restroom issues, ethics of hormonal treatments in the young etc....that is different than the mere definitional issue of what should we call things and people. People are debating mere definition.

You're a smart guy. Would you disagree with "adult human female?"

If you define 'woman' to be 'adult human female', then what does 'female' mean. And what exactly does 'adult' mean. Let's say you define 'female' to be chromo****l sex XX, and adult to be '18 years old or older'*. Ok, that's your definition. It is possible others might define it in some social construct way, how someone identifies, level of hormones, appearance, or some other way. Definitions arent really 'correct' or 'incorrect' in the sense of being true or false....they are definitions. It's just consistency that is important so communication is possible. The overall point of my last post was that to science, none of this matters at all....these are mere labels, and all science cares about is things like what is matter comprised of, how matter interacts with other matter, etc. The makeup of a cell visible under the microscope is interesting scientific information....what we call the various organelles or strands of DNA, or what we call a person having particular chromosomes over another, is not a matter of science. Definition is not a scientific question.

If we define all integers congruent to 0 (mod 2) to be 'quirks' (which usual convention calls 'even numbers'), so that 0,2,4,6,8 etc are quirks, and all integers congruent to 1 (mod 2) to be 'bamps' (which usual convention calls "odd numbers", so that 1,3,5,7,9 etc are bamps, then these definitions arent 'true' of 'false'....it's just a definition. Even though the definition itself isnt true or false, we can still construct statements thataremeaningfully true or false: '57 is a bamp'' is a true statement under this definition. 'A quirk + a bamp = a quirk' is false.

Let's go back to your definition of 'adult human female' for woman. And you further define those terms as above, particularly a cutoff of 18 for 'adult'. Now there has to be some kind of dividing line between non-adult and adult, and if you make this at precisely the moment of 18th birthday, consider someone a nanosecond before this time, compared to that time. The person doesnt change basically at all during this extremely small interval of time- they are essentially the same entity of matter, in space-time- the person sitting there. But according to definition they are not a woman that nanosecond before, yet a woman on the dividing line. I dont think anyone really thinks anything is miraculously changing at the moment, this is just a convention to define adult, and one that is important in various societal ways. But not an important question of science.

This is what's silly when people ramble on about "leftists dont even understand basic science that there are only 2 genders"...well not really, if in fact they are defining 'gender' in some different way, and in fact in modern biology, 'gender' isnt even a relevant term and not studied, that's left to sociology, gender studies, and psychology. The original guy I quoted had it correct....it's essentially semantics. And not an issue of science.

*: under this definition, someone with monosomy or trisomy X would not be considered a female, which would be odd. A person with trisomy X, for example,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_Xappears 'female' to anyone else.