Can a man get pregnant

[Mr. Reactionary]

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.

[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.

[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?

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

He's a transman.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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%.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Men can't get pregnant. If a 'birthing person' gives birth, they are a woman. Trans men can be men, but they clearly aren't if they give birth to a child.

What is it about giving birth which meaningfully changes a person's gender?

The adult human female part.

[Mr. Reactionary]

no man has ever gotten pregnant or given birth and no man ever will. it’s a specifically and intrinsically female experience, and the most important and defining one at that.

I hope uterine transplants become a thing just to see if you react with the ideologically consistent "okay, trans women who get uterine transplants are women" or the more likely "b... but he wasn't born a woman! That's not his uterus!".
If the former, are trans people the gender they say they are without the need for affirming fertility apparatuses, provided they fail to bear children? It's fine if we're not, I just want to gather information about your views.

It's possible the argument comes from that if one has a child, they are 'surrendering' being male. Or, to put it in other terms, if one is truly transgender they wouldn't participate in cisgender things.

"Cisgender things"?

Traditional gender things, like childbirth for women for instance.

I get that, it just seems like a weird way of putting it, because just about everything in a 99% cis world is a "cisgender thing".

All the more reason to discard "cisgender" as a term.

[Mr. Reactionary]

When I read these kind of questions, I’m reminded about the great medieval debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

It’s a useless debate, which do nothing to bring people together, improve the lives of anyone, or uncover new truths. In fact it does the opposite.

So the answer to the question is: it depend on how you define a man.

How do you define a man?