Can a man get pregnant

[If my soul was made of stone]

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 are plenty of trans men who've had hysterectomies and phalloplasties and thus fit your criteria.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

We aren't saying that trans men have penises or whatever. We're saying that categorizing whether someone is a man or a woman in social contexts based solely on whether they were born with ovaries or testicles hurts trans people and has no upside.

[Ferguson97]

This is just a proxy for "do you think trans people are the gender they identify as".

Everyone obviously knows that Elliot Page can get pregnant, because he has a uterus. (Assuming he hasn't had a hysterectomy.)

So "can a man get pregnant" is really just asking "Do you believe Elliot Page is really a man"?

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

We aren't saying that trans men have penises or whatever. We're saying that categorizing whether someone is a man or a woman in social contexts based solely on whether they were born with ovaries or testicles hurts trans people and has no upside.

To be fair, it's a bold assumption that most people don't view hurting trans people as an upside.

This is just a proxy for "do you think trans people are the gender they identify as".

That's why "no" is winning by 30. Come on, do you seriously think there are more than 35% of people on this secular blog who genuinely think I am who I say I am?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

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 insisting 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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is just a proxy for "do you think trans people are the gender they identify as".

Everyone obviously knows that Elliot Page can get pregnant, because he has a uterus. (Assuming he hasn't had a hysterectomy.)

So "can a man get pregnant" is really just asking "Do you believe Elliot Page is really a man"?

Yes, which is why it's a disingenuous semantics game.

To Scarlet's point, I understand the importance of supporting and validating trans people on this, but questions like when to use "man" vs. "male", whether "trans" in "trans man" is a prenominal adjective or part of a compound word that happens to have a space in it like the British spelling of "work day", etc., still strike me as...well, aiming awfully small and missing the forest for the trees, especially in languages where these concepts don't have words that are as distinct as they are in English (Italian for example has femminile for both "female" and "feminine", whereas Japanese has a whole panoply of minutely differentiated sex and gender-role terminology, yet few people would claim life as a trans person is easier in Japan than it is in Italy).

[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.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

You care enough on drawing a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

Because disgreeing with a transperson on a semantics argument about nebulous terms that are barely a decade old does not inherently suggest fear or hatred of transpeople.

Sorry not sorry but expecting the 99% of non transpeople to literally deconstruct and abandon millenia of understanding to boost the egos of the 1% of transpeople is unreasonable. If you think you are going to win over most people to your side by acting like an obnoxious, condescending, name-calling, know-it-all bully, guess what you arent.

You do you, use whatever bathroom you want, use whichever binary pronoun you want ... i have no problem with that. But you will never convince me that there are infinity genders or that a lady penis is a thing. And its not because i hate you or fear you. Its because I disagree and dont think youve met your own burden.

[TheReckoning]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

How do you define “woman”?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

How do you define “woman”?

What's the meaning of life? What's the difference between right and wrong; is there a difference between right and wrong? Is there a god?

There aren't objective answers to those questions, and few people get hung up about people who say they have the answer to those questions.

Ultimately, any definition for woman, man, nonbinary, or gender itself that I could give is not one that would convince you or any transphobe (whether they acknowledge their transphobia or not) who insists they be given they a definitive answer would accept or be convinced by. You're not looking for an answer when you ask that question.

The legal definition of a woman in the United States is a person who is either a cisgender female or an assigned male at birth who has gone through the legal process of changing their documented sex markers to female (which, by the way, does not necessitate that a person have surgery). My personal definition of gender validates trans people who haven't gone through the legal process of changing their sex markers, but that's besides the point. My point is that the people who cling to a definition of gender based on genitals at birth are clinging to a definition that is objectively not used by US law. Legally, there are pregnant men and women with penises; in some states, there are people with any set of genitals who are legally nonbinary.

Gender is a social construct, people are going to define it in different ways, as with all social constructs. Social constructs still have material effects, which is why it's important that the law and social culture attempt to define socially constructed terms. The law is imperfect, but it already recognizes the need to define gender beyond one's genitals at birth. Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

If you are defining "invalidate and marginalize" to include disagreeing with what you admit is your subjective opinion and the vast majority of people in fact disagree with your subjective opinion, why wouldnt you have to tolerate them? Do you intend to separate from 80% of all people?

[TheReckoning]

How do you define “woman”?

Gender is a social construct, people are going to define it in different ways, as with all social constructs. Social constructs still have material effects, which is why it's important that the law and social culture attempt to define socially constructed terms. The law is imperfect, but it already recognizes the need to define gender beyond one's genitals at birth. Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

So if gender is a social construct, then that means that it’s possible to construct gender in a way that would end the existence of transgender people. Indeed, that’s the way it was constructed for thousands of years-Gender was defined by genitals. And if you claim that the definition of “women” is subjective, then that means that defining “woman” by genitals isn’t inherently incorrect.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

If you are defining "invalidate and marginalize" to include disagreeing with what you admit is your subjective opinion and the vast majority of people in fact disagree with your subjective opinion, why wouldnt you have to tolerate them? Do you intend to separate from 80% of all people?

Slavery was predicated on the belief that black people were not people, that they were, at best, three fifths of a person.

Plenty of whites would have said "I don't hate the negros nor do I fear them, I just disagree with the definition of them as people."

Obligatory I'm not comparing the plight of trans people to that of African slaves, before I'm disengenously accused of saying that. But black people are people, and to say otherwise is (in the present tense because plenty of people still see them as subhuman) racism, whether or not someone sees themself as actively hating or fearing black people. Trans people are the gender they say they are, and to say otherwise is transphobia, whether or not someone sees themself as actively hating or fearing trans people.

This isn't just disagreeing about an opinion, this is disagreeing that a person is who they are.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

How do you define “woman”?

Gender is a social construct, people are going to define it in different ways, as with all social constructs. Social constructs still have material effects, which is why it's important that the law and social culture attempt to define socially constructed terms. The law is imperfect, but it already recognizes the need to define gender beyond one's genitals at birth. Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

So if gender is a social construct, then that means that it’s possible to construct gender in a way that would end the existence of transgender people. Indeed, that’s the way it was constructed for thousands of years-Gender was defined by genitals. And if you claim that the definition of “women” is subjective, then that means that defining “woman” by genitals isn’t inherently incorrect.

That isn't what I said. Race and nationality are social constructs also, but while there is subjectivity about the specific definition of, for example, blackness, there are people who are not black by any definition. While there is subjectivity, there is objectivity involved as well, in (but not only in) the material effects of these social constructs. By identifying and living as whatever gender, people's lives are affected in specific, gendered ways regardless of what genitals they were born with; to exclude those people from being categorized with their gender is not objectively correct.

The fact that you predictably misconstrued my statement is why I said it'd be besides the point to offer a specific definition.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Don't know if this has been said earlier in the thread because I'm too lazy to check, but if we're basing our ideas of gender on whether or not you are physically capable of delivering a baby, then that means there are a lot of infertile AFAB women who don't know that they're men.

[TheReckoning]

How do you define “woman”?

Gender is a social construct, people are going to define it in different ways, as with all social constructs. Social constructs still have material effects, which is why it's important that the law and social culture attempt to define socially constructed terms. The law is imperfect, but it already recognizes the need to define gender beyond one's genitals at birth. Culture is going to take time to catch up, but that doesn't mean people have to tolerate those who wish only to invalidate and marginalize people who are different.

So if gender is a social construct, then that means that it’s possible to construct gender in a way that would end the existence of transgender people. Indeed, that’s the way it was constructed for thousands of years-Gender was defined by genitals. And if you claim that the definition of “women” is subjective, then that means that defining “woman” by genitals isn’t inherently incorrect.

That isn't what I said. Race and nationality are social constructs also, but while there is subjectivity about the specific definition of, for example, blackness, there are people who are not black by any definition. While there is subjectivity, there is objectivity involved as well, in (but not only in) the material effects of these social constructs. By identifying and living as whatever gender, people's lives are affected in specific, gendered ways regardless of what genitals they were born with; to exclude those people from being categorized with their gender is not objectively correct.

The fact that you predictably misconstrued my statement is why I said it'd be besides the point to offer a specific definition.

No one is “objectively” not black from a definition that is not inherently arbitrary.

[John Dule]

Don't know if this has been said earlier in the thread because I'm too lazy to check, but if we're basing our ideas of gender on whether or not you are physically capable of delivering a baby, then that means there are a lot of infertile AFAB women who don't know that they're men.

Literally nobody thinks that all women can get pregnant.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

No one is “objectively” not black from a definition that is not inherently arbitrary.

Just because you're ignorant of the debate between how to categorize racial categories does not mean the debate does not exist with similar contention to the debate over gender definitions.

Ask any mixed raced person, especially someone who is 1/4 or less black if their blackness is universally accepted as valid, in the black community or out of it. There is debate on whether Africans Descended from Slaves and African immigrants belong in the same category. Then there's Afro-Latinx immigrants who emigrated from Latin American countries but whose ancestors in those countries were slaves stolen from Afrifa; many of them identify strictly as Hispanic and not black, and many of those who identify as black are told by non-Latinx black Americans that they're more Hispanic than black. Then there's Africans in Africa, many of whom feel solidarity with black Americans and consider them to be one people, then there's Africans who feel they're completely separate from black Americans and that the concept of race and blackness is not as important to their identity as it is for black Americans.

So, most of the time when we talk about black people, most of us agree on who we're talking about. Nevertheless, there is contention, especially when you try to pin down a specific definitive definition. That's the same thing with trying to pin down a specific definition for women or men.

[fhtagn]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

[fhtagn]

No one is “objectively” not black from a definition that is not inherently arbitrary.

Just because you're ignorant of the debate between how to categorize racial categories does not mean the debate does not exist with similar contention to the debate over gender definitions.

Ask any mixed raced person, especially someone who is 1/4 or less black if their blackness is universally accepted as valid, in the black community or out of it. There is debate on whether Africans Descended from Slaves and African immigrants belong in the same category. Then there's Afro-Latinx immigrants who emigrated from Latin American countries but whose ancestors in those countries were slaves stolen from Afrifa; many of them identify strictly as Hispanic and not black, and many of those who identify as black are told by non-Latinx black Americans that they're more Hispanic than black. Then there's Africans in Africa, many of whom feel solidarity with black Americans and consider them to be one people, then there's Africans who feel they're completely separate from black Americans and that the concept of race and blackness is not as important to their identity as it is for black Americans.

So, most of the time when we talk about black people, most of us agree on who we're talking about. Nevertheless, there is contention, especially when you try to pin down a specific definitive definition. That's the same thing with trying to pin down a specific definition for women or men.

stop calling us latinx, racist bigot.

[John Dule]

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

[If my soul was made of stone]

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

Yet we recognized above that this usage has changed since whatever your definition of "throughout history" entails (which is itself misleading, since there have been many instances of historically-recognized gender non-conforming people being known by other pronouns than those they were assigned at birth and by the name given by their culture to gender non-conforming people), although your response to it was the very wishy-washy "definitions do change but I'm still going to be hostile to this particular instance of it Because Ideology".