Can a man get pregnant

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Just so we're clear, nobody voting No actually believes trans people are the gender they say they are.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Just so we're clear, nobody voting No actually believes trans people are the gender they say they are.

Is this supposed to make those who voted no change their mind?

My point is that I doubt that a majority of No voters consider themselves transphobic; probably, a good chunk would vote Yes in a poll asking if they consider trans people to be the gender they say they are. I hope any No voter who would vote Yes in such a poll recognizes that they don't actually support trans people.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I don't care if I put people off by calling them an ist-o-phobe. 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. Anyone who votes No in this poll is a transphobe.

All I'm doing is noting how many transphobes there are here, based on the poll, and questioning how many of them would recognize that they are transphobic. If snowflakes get offended or worry that trans people will lose the midterms of the Dems, then that's their problem.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I was referring to the Democrats who believe that acknowledging that trans people exist or using the word 'Latinx' will guarantee the Dems will never win another election again, but ok.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

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".

So you have the right to alter the definitions but we don't have the right to question those changes?

You have every right to question it; I just don't think you were doing so in good faith.

Oh ok. Why is that? I would instinctively question any redefinition of any word. The burden is on those advocating a change to the status quo to demonstrate why the change is necessary.

Are the millions of transgender people too burdensome to explain the necessity of a change?

The reason why your arguments — top say nothing of the posters preceding you who take more explicit pride in their bigotry — can't be taken in good faith is because it's been explained over and over again why it's important to change the status quo (or rather, acknowledge that the status quo had been to ignore a demographic of people who have existed ever since the social construction of gender), and you still pretend that nobody has ever presented a valid argument. It's been explained. You just don't want to listen.

[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.

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.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

you just don't like what's being said.

Pretty much all pro trans people see the sex label as effectively a gender marker for all practical purposes and/or think that birth sex shouldn't be on id(at least without also having gender marked as a superannuation category.

You're only proving my point that the trans movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time.

Why shouldn't your sex be listed on your birth certificates and IDs? For the purpose of birth certificates especially, no amount of living your life as something else changes the fact that we are born male or female. It's not something someone just assigned to us, it's our state of existence as humans.

Why does it matter that birth certificates be gendered at all? Or passports, IDs, or anything else that bigots are upset about becoming gender neutral. You can change your name on a birth certificate or an ID, so why shouldn't someone be able to change their sex marker? That is assuming the sex marker's presence on the certificate is necessary, which it isn't.

Allowing these documents to be changed are actually the simplest thing to do. If someone has transitioned, legally changed their name and is legally recognized as the gender they were not assigned at birth, then it actually causes more confusion for them to have numerous documents identifying them as a separate person than they are currently, legally identified as. Is not the purpose of identification to verify the identity of a person?

[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.

You’re just proving my point that black has no definition beyond how people want to define it because people define it based on totally arbritary things. If gender is the same, then there’s nothing wrong with saying, “there’s only two genders, and they’re based in biological sex.”

Again, not my point. My point is, while looking to pin down a specific definition is going to involve semantic debate, we all agree that black people exist, just as we agree that men and women exist (I'm going to assume you don't believe nonbinary people exist, though I'd be happy to he proven wrong, so I'll leave them out of this for now, no pun intended). To exclude people who are clearly black who identify as black from being black based on whatever semantic loophole — perhaps they're an African or a Latin American immigrant, perhaps they're multiracial with whute-passing parents — defeats the purpose of racial categorization in general. To exclude someone who is clearly a man who identifies as a man — and let's add that this theoretical man has a penis and is legally recognized as man — from being a man because he wasn't born with a penis, and perhaps he gave birth before medically transitioning (but after socially transitioning), defeats the purpose of gender labels. If that's not a man, then what is he?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

If that's not a man, then what is he?

He's a transman.

Yes or no: Is a trans man a man?

If a "transman" (don't think your lack of a space went unnoticed) is not a man in your view, but he is still a "transman" rather than a woman, then you acknowledge that gender is not the same as the genitals a person is born with, correct?

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

If that's not a man, then what is he?

He's a transman.

Yes or no: Is a trans man a man?

If a "transman" (don't think your lack of a space went unnoticed) is not a man in your view, but he is still a "transman" rather than a woman, then you acknowledge that gender is not the same as the genitals a person is born with, correct?

More or less. Its certainly the same 95+% of the time which is why its an extremely useful shorthand but yeah there are a small % of crossovers which ive discussed on here. I think transmen should in most respects be treated as men. I do think its incredibly pedantic to get indignant if someone literally just points out that there are still biological differences that do matter in this distinction. Womens sports for example or sexual attraction or being naked in a spa around kids. Seems like the easiest thing to do is add a new category for the 1% rather than force through a redefinition on the 99%.

Nobody has said there aren't differences between trans and cis people of the same gender, just as there are differences between trans people and other trans people, and between cis people and other cis people. But so long as you can accept a trans man is not a woman despite being born with a vulva, what is keeping you from accepting that a trans man is a man? To say they are men is not to say they're exactly the same as cis men.

[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.

You’re just proving my point that black has no definition beyond how people want to define it because people define it based on totally arbritary things. If gender is the same, then there’s nothing wrong with saying, “there’s only two genders, and they’re based in biological sex.”

Again, not my point. My point is, while looking to pin down a specific definition is going to involve semantic debate, we all agree that black people exist, just as we agree that men and women exist (I'm going to assume you don't believe nonbinary people exist, though I'd be happy to he proven wrong, so I'll leave them out of this for now, no pun intended). To exclude people who are clearly black who identify as black from being black based on whatever semantic loophole — perhaps they're an African or a Latin American immigrant, perhaps they're multiracial with whute-passing parents — defeats the purpose of racial categorization in general. To exclude someone who is clearly a man who identifies as a man — and let's add that this theoretical man has a penis and is legally recognized as man — from being a man because he wasn't born with a penis, and perhaps he gave birth before medically transitioning (but after socially transitioning), defeats the purpose of gender labels. If that's not a man, then what is he?

Black people exist because human beings have crafted the category of “black” to put human beings into. Males are not males because they happen to fit into some man-made categorization of human beings based on arbitrary characteristics, because maleness is 100% a real, biological phenomenon, distinct from femaleness.

Gender. And. Sex. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Man. And. Male. Mean. Different. Things.

Woman.  And. Female. Mean. Different. Things.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

So 63% of this forum is transphobic? Really?

Most of them are of the "I support trans people, but only in ways that don't offend my cis sensibilities, which is to say, I support trans people in like two ways that aren't that are pretty low priority for actual trans people. Trans Rights!" school of thought.

Compare this poll to the much broader "Are trans people the gender they say they are?" poll. If someone says a man cannot become pregnant, then by definition, they do not believe that trans people are the gender they say they are. However, if you ask them that broad question without getting into a specific thing like pregnant men, they largely vote yes, though there are far more no votes than one would hope.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Like... what? Im way too high for this, but like. If Peebs transitions from MtF she wouldn't be able to get pregnant. If a woman transition from FtM and then decided to have a baby? Like maybe idk how all the hormone stuff works but it might make the baby a lil more like the average atlas poster. Better question is what happens if I start giving my baby tren to get him absolutely ing shredded

Thanks for bumping this thread! Atlas can now spend another half dozen pages arguing about its favorite dead horse.

Orwell is going fill a syringe with that dead horse's testosterone to make his kid absolutely f***ing shredded.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

Also a gay or bi(or pan, ace. etc) cis person can still be transphobic.trans people can be transphobic as well, just like women can be misogynistic, but thats another can of worms.

Indeed, it's interesting how cis gay transphobes like saying "I'm LGBT" as a qualifier for their transphobic comments, when they're not T. If they were trans, they'd say "I'm trans". All they're really saying is "I'm not trans, but I'm going to pretend my gayness gives me the credibility y to throw trans people in the fire without being a transphobe." I bet there's quite a lot of overlap between "I'm LGBT" transphobes and the #DropTheT crowd, but of course, they'll keep the T in there when they say "I'm LGBT" in anti-trans posts.