Can a man get pregnant

[TheReckoning]

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.

“Shiver me timbers!”

[TheReckoning]

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

It's as the late, great poet J. R. Steinman once said: You'll never know what it means, but you'll know how it feels.

Really? Because I sure don’t.

[TheReckoning]

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

It's as the late, great poet J. R. Steinman once said: You'll never know what it means, but you'll know how it feels.

Really? Because I sure don’t.

Well, it's fairly simple. How do you know you're a man? (assuming you are one, of course--replace this with whatever your gender is if you're not)

I was told from a young age what my gender was by others, who determined it by what’s in my pants. I never saw any reason to disagree.

[TheReckoning]

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

It's as the late, great poet J. R. Steinman once said: You'll never know what it means, but you'll know how it feels.

Really? Because I sure don’t.

Well, it's fairly simple. How do you know you're a man? (assuming you are one, of course--replace this with whatever your gender is if you're not)

I was told from a young age what my gender was by others, who determined it by what’s in my pants. I never saw any reason to disagree.

So if you had been assigned female at birth (like, ignore the obvious genetic fact that the person who would replace you in the AFAB Reckoning universe would most likely be a different person entirely because obviously it's not like the only difference between sperm cells from the same provider at a given moment is sex), do you think you would have taken the same path (i.e. grown up to become a cisgender woman)?

Honestly? It’s impossible to know for sure, but I personally don’t see why I wouldn’t grow up to be a cisgender women.

[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”?

[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.

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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.”

[TheReckoning]

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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

For thousands of years, they didn’t, though- gender and sex were seen as synonymous. It’s only recently their has been a proposed difference between the two.

[TheReckoning]

Just LOL at the fact that a thread by an obvious sock/troll has gotten 6 pages of replies.

[TheReckoning]

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

It's as the late, great poet J. R. Steinman once said: You'll never know what it means, but you'll know how it feels.

Really? Because I sure don’t.

Well, it's fairly simple. How do you know you're a man? (assuming you are one, of course--replace this with whatever your gender is if you're not)

I was told from a young age what my gender was by others, who determined it by what’s in my pants. I never saw any reason to disagree.

So if you had been assigned female at birth (like, ignore the obvious genetic fact that the person who would replace you in the AFAB Reckoning universe would most likely be a different person entirely because obviously it's not like the only difference between sperm cells from the same provider at a given moment is sex), do you think you would have taken the same path (i.e. grown up to become a cisgender woman)?

Honestly? It’s impossible to know for sure, but I personally don’t see why I wouldn’t grow up to be a cisgender women.

Fair enough. I don't know, I guess maybe most cis people just don't think that deeply about it.

A much more interesting question to ask a cisgender person would not be what you proposed, but instead, “Could you start living as the opposite sex now without much trouble?” Like if they could use opposite sex pronouns, dress as the opposite sex, and present as the opposite sex. Because unlike your question, it’s much more possible and doesn’t rely on being in a totally different reality than ours. In my opinion, I still think I could, but I personally wouldn’t like it.