this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
322 points (93.5% liked)
Murdered by Words
2475 readers
4 users here now
Responses that completely destroy the original argument in a way that leaves little to no room for reply - a targeted, well-placed response to another person, organization, or group of people.
The following things are not grounds for murder:
- Personal appearance ("You're fat", "You're ugly")
- Posts with little-to-no context
- Posts based on a grammar/spelling error
- Dick jokes, "Yo mama", "No, you" type responses and other low effort insults
- "Your values are bad" without any logcal or factual ways of showing that they are wrong ("I believe in capitalism" - "Well, then you must be evil" or "Fuck you you ignorant asshole")
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone else.
- Discussion is encouraged but arguments are not. Don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor the person info of anyone not in the public eye.
- If you break the rules you’ll get one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy the community in the light hearted way it’s intended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's the thing: there's a real answer to that question.
What makes a trans woman a woman is her brain has developed as a woman's brain. This development is set in progress while still in utero, and can become apparent as the relevant parts of the brain develop later. This is why many tabs people report realizing they were the opposite gender between the ages of 3 and 8.
Here are a number of studies that show the biological reality of transgender people. It’s important to note that although some of these studies suggest causation (ie, HOW a person is born transgender) we can’t know if there’s more than one cause, and therefore using any one test to see if somebody is “biologically trans” is impossible.
Sex vs Gender and the role of the SRY gene specifically (as opposed to the Y chromosome generally) in the development of each, as well as the possible role of AR (androgen receptor) gene https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6505576/
A correlation is found between AR allele repeat length and a person being transgender https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/
The brains of trans people more closely resemble those of their chosen gender identity than their natal sex https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/1506/transgender-brains-are-more-like-their-desired-gender-from-an-early-age.pdf
A trans person's brain more closely resembles their chosen gender as demonstrated by their brain's response to olfactory stimulation with androstadienone https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2014.00060/full
Estrogen signaling pathways identified which tell the brain to develop as one gender or the other, as well as mechanisms by which physical development can happen in one way while brain development can happen in the other https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53500-y
Cornell University summarizes 72 studies regarding the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being (with links to all 72 studies) https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
But just to be sure that i understand you correctly: you say its complicated, but you have no way to tell what a woman is, beyond (honest) self description?
Edit: thanks for all the comments guys. I am still not really sure what to make out of the individual points, but just that we have a forum to exchange ideas feels so much like what the internet is meant to be.
No, I'm saying that the lack of any particular medical criteria can't be used to invalidate anybody who genuinely identifies as transgender.
I don't think this response effectively rebuts his comment
That's probably because I wasn't writing a rebuttal per se, but a clarification. The distinction is important because, although he's incorrect to say that we have no means of identifying if somebody is a women besides them honestly self identifying, we also don't know if we have found all the different means by which a person may legitimately be considered a women. We can positively ID a person as a certain gender, but we can't negatively ID them as not a certain gender.
So I guess the direct answer to the question about if we can identify a woman outside of a person self identifying is "sometimes". Certainly, allowing people to self identify is easier than forcing them to take a bunch of tests and MRI scans only to get results ranging from a "yes" to "maybe"
This is the part I'm confused by. Positively identifying someone as one gender identity negatively identifies them as other gender identities. If you can identify someone as, for example, a woman, you also by definition have a way to negatively identify them as a man. So I don't think we have a definite way to positively or negatively identify someone.
Ah, I think I see where the confusion is.
The "positive" or "negative" identification is in relation to what the person claims. So if a person claims to be a woman, we can use science to determine either "yes this person is definitely a woman" or "maybe this person is a woman." What we can't do is say "no this person definitely isn't a woman" because it's possible there is some factor we haven't identified or discovered yet which would validate their identity.
Edit to add: actually, I can think of ONE test to prove that somebody who says they're a woman but isn't: gender transition to the gender they claim to identify as. Cisgender people usually get severe gender dysphoria if they attempt gender transition. I would consider that proof positive that they aren't the gender they claim to be. However, subjecting somebody to such an experiment without fully informing them if the risks and/or against their will is massively unethical which, imo, disqualifies it for the purposes of this conversation. But technically it's an option.
I'm still not sure I agree with your logic, but ethically your point really isn't one I want to argue against, so I support this anyways