Words, or to be precise, proper nouns, describe a person, place or thing. Nouns are not social constructs or any other convoluted gobbledygook a mentally ill and defective person invents during their delirium. They are language, a skill Homo Sapiens developed. As a result of the biological capability of our species.
Yes. The mere existence of noun isn't a social construct, but individual nouns certainly are. They're invented by people and have no objective existence. They weren't dug out of the ground, or found like, in a tree. People invented them!
There is no unanimous acceptance that men, with XY chromosomes can become women, much less that they can by simply claiming they are.
there's no unanimous acceptance of anything.
There is biological reality and there is your mental illness. There may be mass hysteria and delusions amongst academics (and this has happened so many times in the past examples would take pages to list) but every sane, logical and rational person knows a human being born as a man cannot become the opposite sex simply by willing it, much less by becoming a eunuch.
Interesting that you invoke mental illness, considering that both the scholarly and medical consensus maintains that being trans is
not a mental illness. Why even bother citing mental illness? Appeal to sanity and logic? Nice. Also, nobody is saying that anyone can change their sex; only their gender.
What you have to do is explain why your certain definition of woman (which from my understanding is basically: anyone who identifies as a woman & usually likes to adhere to feminine stereotypes) is the one we should all be using. Why is this definition of 'woman' more useful than the physical, biology-based definition?
Well, because nobody in everyday life looks at someone and thinks "hmm, their molecular biology suggests that they are a woman!" No, you look at what they look like, how they act etc. Also, the "physical, biology-based definition" still exists; it's called sex.
What's even the goal? Is it to prevent transwomen from being excluded from anything? You know, even if everything works out in your favor and the generally-accepted definition of woman changes from "xx-chromosomes" to "anyone who conforms to stereotypes and claims to be a woman", it technically wouldn't prevent exclusion from taking place.
well, there are already trans women in women's spaces. I should know, because I've been using them for years. Nobody has ever excluded me, or even acted surprised or disturbed. Like, when I go to the bathroom, the other women there don't fucking scan my cells and say "Troon alert!" I'm just another women.
I genuinely believe that many women's spaces would just become AFAB-only spaces. Biological women (or AFAB, as you'd call them) and transwomen just have totally different experiences and struggles; exclusion is always bound to occur.
How would that occur? there'd be like a scanner on the door of women's restrooms? I mean, there is some truth to what you say, I think. Trans women and cis women DO have different sexes, so there would always be differences. Trans women can't get pregnant (at least for now!) etc, but none of that stuff comes up in everyday life. Do you actually personally know any trans women, any of you? In normal life, we're just regular women.
"The experts agree" is the very definition of a fallacy, the appeal to authority.
en.wikipedia.org
No, appealing to authority is not the very definition of a fallacy. An appeal to authority can be fallacious, though.
from rationalwiki "Notably, insofar as the authorities in question are, indeed, experts on the issue in question, their opinion provides strong inductive support for the conclusion: It makes the conclusion
likely to be true, not
necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true — not prove it."
^ but I'm sure they're all just spergs anyway. I'm not saying that the experts agreeing makes my argument true or proves it, I'm just pointing out that it does suggest that my argument is correct.
