Can a man get pregnant

[Green Line]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

[Green Line]

The definition of a racist is someone who thinks a person is inferior because of their race. The definition of a transphobe is someone who thinks a trans person is not the gender they say they are.

If racism requires a belief in inferiority why doesn't transphobia similarly require a belief in inferiority? One can find it absurd to claim that there's nothing gay about a man sucking his girlfriends lady penis without believing transpeople are inferior.

Racism no longer requires a belief in inferiority though in our modern discourse.  Racism literally just means acknowledging race in a way that makes someone feel uncomfortable or voting for a political party.

[Green Line]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

See, this is the sort of definitions game that Antonio was talking about on the first page of this thread. Trans men obviously exist and obviously, in at least some cases, can and do get pregnant. That much is simply beyond denial. What purpose is served by the endless syntactical arguments about what specific type of noun phrase "trans man" is, arguments generally engaged in by people deeply hostile to one another on increasingly profound cultural and moral levels and often without any demonstrably accurate premises or rigorous definition of terms on either side? As far as I can tell the only purposes they serve are that of a make-work program for right-wing humanities scholars and that of a way for irreligious progressives to chase the high of being ruled orthodox at a first-millennium ecumenical council. It's a fundamentally frivolous and bad-faith way of approaching an issue area that involves genuinely serious concerns.

A trans man is not a biological man.  Men have a penis and cannot get pregnant.  This is not semantics, its actually a very important distinction.  Its disturbing that there are people here who think its just arguing over words.

[Green Line]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

See, this is the sort of definitions game that Antonio was talking about on the first page of this thread. Trans men obviously exist and obviously, in at least some cases, can and do get pregnant. That much is simply beyond denial. What purpose is served by the endless syntactical arguments about what specific type of noun phrase "trans man" is, arguments generally engaged in by people deeply hostile to one another on increasingly profound cultural and moral levels and often without any demonstrably accurate premises or rigorous definition of terms on either side? As far as I can tell the only purposes they serve are that of a make-work program for right-wing humanities scholars and that of a way for irreligious progressives to chase the high of being ruled orthodox at a first-millennium ecumenical council. It's a fundamentally frivolous and bad-faith way of approaching an issue area that involves genuinely serious concerns.

A trans man is not a biological man.  Men have a penis and cannot get pregnant.  This is not semantics, its actually a very important distinction.  Its disturbing that there are people here who think its just arguing over words.

There is no such thing as a biological man. There are biological males, but a man is a gender.

Even beyond the difference between gender and sex that people still somehow don't understand (or refuse to recognize), biological sex isn't even as binary as you think. Would the 60 No-voters (many of whom have red avatars and wouldn't consider themselves transphobic, despite inviting that trans people aren't the gender they say they are) say that an intersex person who identifies as a man, and has totally masculine features, testosterone levels comparable to cis male, is not a man if they never had a penis (or had a penis removed without their consent as a baby)? What if said intersex man were raised as a girl and came out as a man as an adult Can, would they lose ManPoints in your book? Can a trans man with XY chromosomes who's had top surgery, a phalloplasty, cis male levels of testosterone, and looks like Hulk Hogan even stll be called biologically female when, even though they were born with a vulva, all the biological markers of sex are those of males?

Why do cis people get to be the judge of which trans people are valid? Ultimately, the thing I will never be able to wrap my head around is why so many cis people even care what other people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use. Other people's bodies don't affect you at all.

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

[Green Line]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

See, this is the sort of definitions game that Antonio was talking about on the first page of this thread. Trans men obviously exist and obviously, in at least some cases, can and do get pregnant. That much is simply beyond denial. What purpose is served by the endless syntactical arguments about what specific type of noun phrase "trans man" is, arguments generally engaged in by people deeply hostile to one another on increasingly profound cultural and moral levels and often without any demonstrably accurate premises or rigorous definition of terms on either side? As far as I can tell the only purposes they serve are that of a make-work program for right-wing humanities scholars and that of a way for irreligious progressives to chase the high of being ruled orthodox at a first-millennium ecumenical council. It's a fundamentally frivolous and bad-faith way of approaching an issue area that involves genuinely serious concerns.

A trans man is not a biological man.  Men have a penis and cannot get pregnant.  This is not semantics, its actually a very important distinction.  Its disturbing that there are people here who think its just arguing over words.

There is no such thing as a biological man. There are biological males, but a man is a gender.

Even beyond the difference between gender and sex that people still somehow don't understand (or refuse to recognize), biological sex isn't even as binary as you think. Would the 60 No-voters (many of whom have red avatars and wouldn't consider themselves transphobic, despite inviting that trans people aren't the gender they say they are) say that an intersex person who identifies as a man, and has totally masculine features, testosterone levels comparable to cis male, is not a man if they never had a penis (or had a penis removed without their consent as a baby)? What if said intersex man were raised as a girl and came out as a man as an adult Can, would they lose ManPoints in your book? Can a trans man with XY chromosomes who's had top surgery, a phalloplasty, cis male levels of testosterone, and looks like Hulk Hogan even stll be called biologically female when, even though they were born with a vulva, all the biological markers of sex are those of males?

Why do cis people get to be the judge of which trans people are valid? Ultimately, the thing I will never be able to wrap my head around is why so many cis people even care what other people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use. Other people's bodies don't affect you at all.

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

If you have a uterus you can get pregnant. And sometimes you can't. What that has to do with 'male/female' is of little use to this discussion. Saying 'only women can get pregnant' is not a true statement as some women cannot get pregnant. Post menopausal women cannot get pregnant. So you end up with a useless terminology if you define what it means to 'be woman' by their ability to carry children.

Where did you get from the phrase "only women can get prgenant" that I ever said "all women can get pregnant".  I never said that.