this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2025
419 points (97.5% liked)

196

5746 readers
671 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's always funny when people try to define terms and they try to rip off the style of dictionary entries despite not having the same mastery of English as dictionary writers. Just saying "born with the capability of holding eggs" didn't sound dictionary-y enough to her, so she tried to add more to make it sound more badass and legit. But saying anyone is born with the intention to hold eggs is the most ridiculous and obviously flawed part of her whole argument, which would have been better off if she just left it out. But nooooo I need to sound super smart.

A stronger play from here would have been to utilize the fact that Dani challenged her not to exclude any cis women, so you could just propose that the definition of biological female is identical to the definition of cis woman. This would include all cis women and exclude all trans women by definition, just like Lea wanted to do. And by using Dani's own terminology which Dani already implicitly agreed was valid, Dani is left without a clear counterargument. But Lea was too stupid to have this simple idea. And Dani was too stupid to realize that she was already implicitly agreeing to there being a substantive difference between cis and non-cis women worthy of terminological distinction, and that she was implicitly drawing a connection between biological women and cis women by putting forth the challenge in the first place. A profound display of inability to think from all sides.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

And by using Dani's own terminology which Dani already implicitly agreed was valid, Dani is left without a clear counterargument.

For one, it's fine, Lea would never use the term "cis," that's enemy speak. It passively acknowledges that cis is one kind of woman, meaning trans can be another.

For two, the counterargument I would offer is that "cis-woman" suffers the exact same problems that "woman" itself does. The distinction you'll see offered is that cis-women are "assigned female at birth," which you'll notice does not actually explain what a woman is. If a doctor ticked the wrong box by mistake, then John Sutherland over there might be a cis-woman. Or trans, I guess.

The exercise Dani is trying to walk Lea through is that words are vibes. In all cases, they ask that you intuit what the other person is gesturing at by being just specific enough not to cause any problems.