[ciiiicii]

Sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. If I decide to identify myself as a dog or a lampshade, it doesn't mean that I am a dog or a lampshade. It's just words.

Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman. The mere utterance of words does not alter that material fact.

Also worth considering is just how contradictory it is for her to try to identify into a sex class that is, by definition, incapable of being pregnant.

[consteval]

> Similarly, a pregnant woman who for whatever reason has decided to call herself a man is, in reality, still a pregnant woman.

Uh, no. Just according to you. “Woman” isn’t easy to just say like that, there’s no one definitive way to tell who is a woman.

I notice you didn’t point to any objective truth, most likely because you can’t. I think this conversation is way over your head, and I’m not going to try to convince people who do not have the mental capacity to understand what I’m saying.

[ciiiicii]

Think about this logically. Consider a person. This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system. Which means that this person must be a woman.

Or, we can look at this from the other direction. Male sexual development does not result in a female reproductive system. Therefore this person is not a man.

You can perform this exercise of logic with any species that has individuals with different reproductive roles. For example: consider a chicken. This chicken lays eggs. From this we know that this chicken has a female reproductive system. Therefore this chicken must be a hen, not a cock.

[consteval]

> This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system.

No, no you can't. You can in 99% of circumstances, but not absolutely. They may also have a penis, or testicles, or any combination of reproductive organs. Yes, really.

But even if you could assume this, which you can't, you ALSO can't assume that a female reproductive system makes a woman. Because gender is complicated.

For example, you might call the bank teller "ma'am". Did you examine her reproductive organs? No, right? So this should be impossible - how did you know she was a woman?

Because, regardless of what bumbling idiots on the internet will claim, gender is inherently a social construct. You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things. Your brain then computes these all together and you determine "woman". But, she could have a penis.

In fact, just statistically speaking, you've encountered many women with penises and you will never know who they are, because they are women by your own perception. The same goes with men. Whether you choose to acknowledge this or remain a bumbling idiot, I do not care. This conversation is stupid, and frankly beneath me.

[ciiiicii]

If you are unaware that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system and that this is the process the female reproductive system in humans and most other mammals is specialized for, then I would very much recommend you learn more before attempting to discuss this topic. At the very least, please look up what a uterus is and its role in gestation.

As for your view of women being "clothes, hair and makeup", this is a remarkably sexist perspective and I would urge you to rethink your understanding on this as well.

[consteval]

You’re being purposefully dishonest, as none of this is what I’ve said. You can’t just ignore what I wrote and fill in something that is easier for you to argue - this makes you look unbelievably stupid.

[ciiiicii]

I wrote: "This person is pregnant. From this fact alone we can infer the presence of a female reproductive system."

You replied with: "No, no you can't."

From this, it is reasonable to assume that you either you don't understand that pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, or that you don't understand what the female reproductive system is.

You wrote: "You understand she is a woman because of the societal context of her clothes, her face, her hair, her makeup, and 1001 other tiny little things."

From that, it is reasonable to assume that you have a view of women based on sexist stereotyping around clothes, hair and makeup.

If you don't like the ideas that your words convey, that's on you for writing them.