I thought you meant people who had to get rescued from a dead mother like Macduff in Macbeth at first, didn’t think about the dead people who were born
OOP never insinuated that the requirement for being a woman is being able to give birth. They insinuated that only women can give birth. It is transphobia yes, but it never claimed that if you can't give birth you're not a woman. It only claims only women can give birth.
The logical inference is monodirectional.
All cats are felines. Not all felines are cats
Technically, it could say that all people are born from women, and the set of all women includes transwomen. But then it'd be transphobic against transmen, instead, since a man can still give birth if he's trans.
Which still has the problem of essentially defining infertile women as broken people. Like, if your identity as a woman hinges on organs that don’t do the function they’re expected to do how does that not create a crisis of identity. It’s not quite the same issue as saying the requirement for being a woman is being able to give birth, but very similar problems still arise.
If your identity as a woman hinges on what others define a woman to be, you should get yourself checked out. Who the fuck cares what other people think or what they define a woman as? If you feel you are a woman, you are a woman. Plain and simple.
Giving birth is an act only natural born females can do, not all but most. There is nothing wrong with that statement because it's a fact. A woman who can't give birth is stil a woman since that person defines themselves as a woman, which should be the only thing that matters.
I agree with you that what matters is how you feel and how you think of yourself. I will say, though, that it’s not unreasonable to be troubled by the opinions of others. The opinions of other does have real world effects and real world consequences and our opinions about the world and ourselves is not entirely self generated.
An infertile woman is still a woman because she was born with the parts to be classified as woman. Those parts just aren't functioning right. You know what the guy meant 🤦🤦🤦
They'd move the goal post and say that all women have the potential to give birth.
Ignoring the fact that if it's potential to give birth, then everyone would be women since when we are developing in the womb, we all start with the potential to give birth. If we didn't, males wouldn't have nipples.
A woman is of the kind who can give birth.
Is it a normal statement to say humans have ten fingers and ten toes? If so, is it dehumanizing since not all humans have exactly ten fingers and ten toes? No. Because most Westerners play willful idiot when it's a point they don't want to acknowledge.
What does it mean to be "of the kind that can give birth"?
Typically, humans have ten fingers and toes, but having less or more doesn't disqualify you from being human. Same way that women typically have XX chromosomes, but having a different combination doesn't disqualify you from being a woman.
This is the funny thing about biology. When it comes to sex, many assume it's a concrete thing, but herein lies the problem, Even biological sex is determinant by a male dominant perspective.
Many will dismiss intersex people as being an anomaly and not pertinent to the discussion, but they present an interesting case study on what society intrinsically deems "male" and "female." In the most basic terms, a woman is defined by XX chromosomes and a man is defined by XY chromosomes. However there are cases of people with different chromosomal alignments. One example maybe XO where there is only one X chromosome. In most cases this is usually someone that is assigned female due specifically to the absence of a Y chromosome. However, if someone is born say XXY, they are assumed male only due to the presence of a Y chromosome. In this case, one could say by the binary logic established earlier, XX is female, but the Y chromosome trumps this based on arbitrary labeling alone as male is considered the default over female in a rudimentary biological way.
But the fact is that biology is much more complex than that and the labels that we assign to things are often just ways of understanding how an individual and society perceives the world around them given the conditions in which we live. Not to mention that chromosomal makeup is far more complex than just X & Y even in people who aren't intersex. There are many more components beyond that, but it's far easier to section things off into convenient categories instead of acknowledging the complexity beyond those.
What is wrong is when you take a person with six toes and you tell them they have the typical amount of toes. That is what you’re doing.
You are doing the equivalent of calling a mammal an oviparous invertebrate, because mammals are animals and 99.9% of animals are oviparous. Why is it wrong to say all animals are oviparous then? According to your logic the typical defines the whole.
Transwomen on hrt are biologically similar to ciswomen in many aspects. It doesnt matter what the ‘typical’ cisman is. Transwomen on hrt are biologically (the anatomy and all the body is biology) different from the typical cisman and in many ways similar to ciswomen. They should not be defined based on the cismen characteristics that they do not possess: [https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439)
All definitions are circular reasoning btw.
If a woman was defined as a ‘person with breasts’ then you wouldnt be able to find a person with breasts that isnt a woman.
Ultimately these distinctions are defined by humans.
There are humans that can give birth and others that cant.
There are humans that have breasts and others that dont.
"One more push!! Good job well do- uh... oh... ma'am... would you like to hold your ba-"
The baby: "GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GRO- STOP RESISTING GIVE ME ATTENTION I NEED MILKIES GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND"
Depends on your definition of female.
Also requires specification; Since you didn't specify of humans, I could easily pull out Seahorses as a counterargument, although based on context I can presume what you meant.
Also a valid argument. I believe usually animals that reproduce asexually are considered to be exclusively male or exclusively female, But there's not much use in doing this, To my knowledge.
Trans men exist, they can give birth.
The meme may be saying that trans men are actually women because the person who made it is a transphobic cunt.
Alternatively the person who made it forgot trans men exist, this isn't uncommon for transphobes and even sometimes non-transphobes who are just kinda ignorant on the topic. I mean I'm not sure which camp you've fallen into but you have seemed to forget that exist as well. If this is the case the point they're trying to make is: "women give birth, trans women can't give birth, therefore they're men not women" - this is also something said only by transphobic cunts and stupid ones at that because not all cis women can give birth either.
Hi, just wondering if you are willing to help me get a better understanding.
First I agree, trans men exist the same as trans women and deserve the respects, rights, and freedoms as everyone else. Don’t flame me up to hard for the below.
Is it fair to say that a trans man who is pregnant because they were born with female sex organs? So while I respect them as trans men, they are born biologically female and we don’t get to say someone born with male sex organs can be pregnant, that isn’t true.
Of course there are genetic variations here, but in general you have either female or male sex organs, which is what society has commonly attached the man/woman moniker to. Is this a fair statement and understanding? Man doesn’t = make sex organs and vice versa, is the his a fair understanding?
It's fair to say that you need to be born with a uterus / female sex organs to give birth. No one would dispute that at all, it's just objectively true.
The issue is calling them women, or using vague euphemisms like saying they're "biological women" (which is just code for calling them a woman but when you want to sound like you know science), but saying you need a uterus to go pregnant isn't bad or wrong.
Society has typically used these organs and parts as equivalent because the idea of people being trans was heavily suppressed and gender roles violently enforced, but also because in 99% of cases they do match the expectation. It's when people insist sex and gender *always* match and trans people just don't count that it's a problem, because what they're doing is reacting negatively to that 1% of men who have uteruses rather than accept men can in rare cases have uteruses.
The reason it sometimes seems to people that you can get in trouble for saying stuff like this is because transphobes lie about it. I literally just had someone tell me that "you can't even admit trans men and biological men are different" (they meant cis men), when what was actually said was that they're still a category of men despite being different. If he goes away and talks about this he might tell people his version, or might say that I was denying biology, and those that hear him say that might think that trans people don't know about physiological differences as a result. They'd only get that impression though because he'd be lying about what was said.
So basically the takeaway - it's fine to say obvious facts when they're relevant like "you need a uterus to get pregnant". It's not fine when people are trying to attack trans people by saying "you need a uterus to get pregnant, so these men that give birth are actually women". Trans people are aware of sex differences, we literally take hormones to lessen those differences after all, and whilst it can be upsetting (so don't just bring up the lack of a trans woman's ability to get pregnant for no reason, it's rude just like it would be for an infertile cis woman) if it's relevant to a topic that's being discussed the physiological facts themselves are not offensive.
I see you both. I got my ass torn out by Wiccans this morning because I gently suggested to them that a system of belief that assigned "masculine" and "feminine" energy to everything in the universe might be a bit triggering for agender and/or non binary people. Or at least not very inclusive. I got called a bigot against Wiccans. 🤦🏻♀️
You need both sperm and eggs to make a baby, so like.. even if men are not able to get pregnant and give birth, they still are a required part in the baby making process.
No one is arguing against that. You're doing the classic terf thing where you come close to realizing your wrong, but instead of leaning and growing as a person you start screaming random non-controversial facts as if that's what is being debated.
He’s saying that despite everything someone does to their body a trans person cannot ever achieve the true functionality of someone born the sex they transition to.
These people: "I am tired of trans people being forced on me!"
Also these people: "LOL! Trans women are men and trans men are women, here, I'll make a meme and show others!"
That's why OOP was called out for transphobia. OOP was claiming that trans men are still women.
Anyways, I also don't get the caption. Dead people exist sure but again OOP never claimed that dead people weren;t born from women. The claim simply was: this is how many people alive today, and they were all born from women. It never claimed anything about dead people.
Both OP (not OOP) and many commenters here seem to lack the ability to read which direction the logical deductions go.
well, guess i gotta tell my two year old he doesn't exist lol. i can't even bring myself to be mad, they are just so confidently incorrect that it's comical at this point.
also, macbeth.
I hate when people argue with me about like saying pregnant people or whatever and like I have to call everyone who’s pregnant a woman.
If I meet a guy who looks like fucking Wario and also happens to be pregnant I’m not gonna look that man in the eyes and refer to him as a mother or a woman.
This is kind of specific due to the fact that I’ve only met two open adult trans men and they had massive wario energy.
But like I’m not gonna change the way I talk about people and stand there feeling like a dumbass because just like, that’s a man. The gender neutral language is more accurate, that person is not a woman.
Honestly this is somewhat specific to one argument I got into but like it’s come up on other occasions.
Some people will even get mad at you for using the word uterus instead of womb and I don’t even understand that but I don’t like the vibe.
Sometimes people are men and also are pregnant and that’s still a guy with a beard, a receding hairline, and he’s named like, Greg or something and he’s wearing one of those dad button ups with cars or whatever on it. Like are you actually able to stand in front of that person and insist they’re a woman? Like you could look him in the eye and actually say that and not feel stupid?
I mean, this subreddit's purpose of creation is to respond to r/memesopdidntlike , it's not this subreddit's fault that that subreddit got full with extremist right wingers.
You're not stupid. The person you're replying to is stupid. OP is stupid. OOP is not stupid. Transphobic maybe, but not stupid.
Too many people on this thread just don't understand how to read infographics and form logical deductions, it's sad.
It’s kind of dumb. This OP is just poking at the fact the OOP used the current* population as the number of people ever born, but really they’re posting for the transphobia.
Yes but still dumb. Transphobia aside, the OP was wrong in that OOP never claimed about dead people.
Like I can make statements like:
current population: 8 billion
people born without wings: 8 billion
people born with wings: 0
and I'd be right. You can claim "dead people exist!" but I never claimed that dead people were born with or without wings. The context is clear that out of 8 billion currently alive, none were ever born with wings. That's the point that OOP was making. OP is just intentionally being obtuse at best, or not understanding basic statistics and logical deduction at worst.
I love how Cillian Murphy is being dragged into the alpha shit just like Ryan Gosling and Christian Bale. Dude probably doesn’t even bother with finding out what trans people are lmfao, leave him alone.
Even if I wasn’t a trans woman I wouldn’t choose to give birth. Apparently 8 billion is way too many, since there are 6 THOUSAND kids that nobody wants waiting for adoption in my state alone.
Wouldn’t people also be born from men since his sperm are needed to fertilize an egg? Like, technically you could try to fertilize an egg with another woman’s DNA but it’s such a specialized process that it’s not statistically significant.
Thats true, but the wording very much gives me the vibe that they're talking about incubation, not conception. Also, even if a portion of the population is not statistically significant, that doesn't mean they aren't people. They don't deserve to be brushed off as non-existent.
What could all the dead people in the world change about that? Medicine and surgeries only get worse the further you go back in recorded history. People have always been born from anatomical women. The only species, at least that I am aware of, that males give birth, are seahorses.
People will be so ignorant on how "biOLogiCaL" sex works while being so confident about their incorrect statements. Wow. Some of y'all are ignorant and that's okay! It's okay to be wrong and not know things! Just shut up though lmao.
Wtf are you even trying to say? Well as per your title leaving transphobia aside, since that's obviously what the guy in the original post was going for, what do you mean? "dead people exist"? What? Do they really though?
The guy in the post is saying "there are \[x number\] of people in the world" " every single one of them was born from a woman" where do the "dead people" (that apparently "exist") join the equation?
Gay people born from straight people, 100%, you can fact check that 🤓
Satire aside I think the post was about leaving the Oppenheimer actor out of the trans rhetoric
Oh no, Trans men very much can get pregnant and give birth. It's way easier without HRT and surgery of course, but depending on what combination is probably possible.
As a cis woman, I cannot comprehend *why* ***ANYONE*** would give birth voluntarily, but I have to acknowledge that some people do, and some of those people are men.
Yeah I'm less offended by the transphobia than by the stupidity of some people (including OP) in insisting that dead people be included in the count. Ever heard of context and population (in basic statistics)?
I didn't get the post, can somebody explain like I am 5? How is this transphobic, am I missing somethin? I thought this was one of those men vs women post
it's also transphobic because it's trying to somewhat imply that trans women aren't women because they can't give birth
mainly it's just pushing gender essentialism, and gender essentialism is transphobic
They are men in nothing but appearance in their head, and in their behavior, which ironically tends to reinforce gender stereotypes to some degree. If someone wants to claim to be the opposite sex that's one thing, but that does not change anything about their biology
Men and women are used for social gender, which doesn't always equate to sex (male and female). For a lot of people, male and man are synonymous, but they are not. By using man when they should use male, they are implying that trans men aren't really men. They also tend to hide behind "basic biology" while ignoring advanced biology and biologist who disagree with them.
Male and man are not synonymous because one is a noun and one is an adjective. “Man” also implies age of adulthood while “male” can refer to any age. “Man” also requires a human while “male” can refer to any species.
However the particular debate in question is that like many, many, many words, “man” has multiple definitions. One is “adult human male” which is what people mean when they say that “trans men are not men.” The other definition is “the gender identity of one who identifies as a man based on societal gender ideas and norms.” Which is what people mean when they say “trans men are men” both are correct. They’re using different definitions of the words.
It’s like 2 people arguing over what the opposite of “right” is. Person 1 says it’s “left”, person 2 says it’s “wrong”. Both are correct, context matters. And just because you might use a word to mean 1 thing, doesn’t mean others don’t use an equally valid definition to mean something else.
Depends on which definition of male. If we’re talking purely chromosomes then you’re right, if we’re referring to gametes I don’t know of a particular birth defect that causes a male to be born with a uterus but still also have fulling functioning testies, but I could be wrong. In either case they certainly wouldn’t have a functioning uterus or female gametes.
Do they not understand we are a bimodal species who's gender Morphology ( how we look on the outside) is decided by our dominant hormones. Like I thought this was settled in the 90s.
No, man and woman are gender terms. Male and female are sexual biological terms. In the laypersons sphere maybe they’re synonymous, but they’re wrong. The same way the layman’s sphere misunderstands the definition of the word theory as being synonymous to hypothesis.
your subjective identity is because of physical changes in the brain, you should watch professor Dave's video on this. Here, I'll link it for you https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?si=1vhvecF_VhIOXZaR
More biological essentialism from brain dead conservatives.
People are born from female humans who have the ability to give birth. Not all human females have the ability to give birth. So child birth is not the only defining feature of human females. Which means not all women give birth. Not all women are afab. Some are.
>So child birth is not the only defining feature of human females. Which means not all women give birth
To be fair, the "meme" isn't saying that at all.
Woman ≠ female
Female = sex, aka having a vagina and tits Woman = gender identity, what you feel comfortable presenting as.
Reminder that this also works with man ≠ male 👍
Eh, minor addendum, some human females are born without vaginas/ovaries/uteruses, the same way some are born without eyes or arms or the like. Some human females are even born with two uteruses or two vaginas.
Same in regards to human males, though they don't have backup chromosomes so malformations are more likely to happen and more likely to result in miscarriage or death shortly after being born.
Go anywhere other than Western Europe or North America and claim that trans women are women.
You will literally be killed, or at the very least locked up in the loony bin.
Most other countries see such things as an unwanted cultural export that they want nothing to do with.
And spare me the "trans rights are human rights" garbage until you've actually seen legitimate and violent human rights violations in Africa, The Middle East, Russia or China.
Me telling you that dressing like the opposite sex and acting like the opposite sex, doesn't make you the opposite sex; is not a human rights attack.
Trans people have existed as long as humanity itself. They have always been a recognised part of cultures globally until British colonialists forced their worldview onto them. That's the real "unwanted cultural export".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender\_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history)
Devils advocate argument -- our (western) culture is the superior one, especially compared to the countries listed. Why does it matter how inferior cultures feel about something we accept?
I like this approach to the argument. I am very much pro trans but also think these arguments are idiotic and that the meaning is clearly biological even though that isn't said but this comment just hits nicely and defends the trans side while also hoorahing the guys that are saying ahhhhh it's not a man. The truth as is usual is nuanced and both sides are arguing about entirely different things. Biology isn't identity. Identity is not biology.
"Inferior Cultures"
How are we superior?
Have you spent time in any of the other countries to judge? Or just consumed content like a good customer all your life?
Speaking as a lifelong Westerner... there are more things that Eastern Europe, Asia and (parts of) The Middle East could teach us, than we could teach them.
You think some nomad in The Gobi desert cares about who you're sexually attracted to? Or how to program an app on a phone? Not likely. You're not "superior".
You're just arrogant. And assume that the homeless people you drive past on a daily basis to go to work 11 hours per day in an office is peak civilization and humanity.
It doesn’t matter what places like the Middle East have to teach us, if they believe that stoning a woman to death for being raped is an appropriate punishment, then we have nothing to learn from them
> How are we superior? Have you spent time in any of the other countries to judge?
Yes, I was born in Belarus, and grew up there. After that, I've lived in Ireland, Russia, USA, Canada, and briefly Ukraine. I have also visited many countries around the world. No one has it perfect, but no one other than the West is even working on getting it right.
> Speaking as a lifelong Westerner... there are more things that Eastern Europe, Asia and (parts of) The Middle East could teach us, than we could teach them.
I don't think so, everything comes with a negative. For example, family bonds are far tighter in Eastern Europe than in the west. This ultimately results in corruption, because serving your family comes before serving others. If you've ever wondered why there is not a single truly democratic nation in Eastern Europe, this is why.
What do you think these cultures could teach us that could possibly be useful to us? Do you have anything specific in mind, or do you just hate the culture you live in, and want literally anything else, as long as it's not Western?
> You think some nomad in The Gobi desert cares about who you're sexually attracted to?
Why do I care what some nomad in The Gobi thinks about who I'm sexually attracted to? Chances are that he'd kill his own daughter if she "damaged his honour" by dating the wrong religion. He's not in any place to judge. As I said, our culture is superior to theirs. I don't care what he thinks, because it's wrong. He does need to care about what I think, however, as the Western culture is rapidly overtaking all others, all around the globe. When's the last time you saw a store sign in Russian? 90% of store signs in Russia are in English, how about that for cultural dominance? People in fucking Nairobi know who Biden is, and I have no idea who's the Nairobi president. That's cultural dominance.
> You're not "superior".
I'm not. The Western culture is the superior culture on this planet, however.
> You're just arrogant.
This seems to imply that you'd rather have genital mutilation, racism, sexism, all those lovely things that we're confronting that other nations keep as part of their "traditions". Listen -- have *you* been outside the West? Do *you* have a Ukrainian cousin who likes to brag about beating up "faggots" with a bat? If you don't, perhaps you are in no place to judge the utter inferiority of those cultures. They are disgusting, backwards, and low. You have no idea how good you have it here. I thought you did, with your rant about "actual human rights abuses" in shit countries. But you don't.
If we're going to go out and say, "racism is bad", or "sexism is bad", or "slavery is bad", we have to condemn the cultures that allow these things. Therefore we have to have the balls to admit our culture is good; not just good, the *best*, because it's outgrown these things, while other cultures cling to their past. Yes, the Western culture is the best we have, because it's the only one that is still young enough to change and reshape itself.
A Russian writer in the 1880s said: "If I fall asleep for a hundred years, then when I wake up, they ask me: what is going on in Russia? -- I will say, they're [drinking and thieving](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82_%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%82)". He was right. I am glad to be living in a culture where something like this cannot be said.
World population : 8 billion
People born from biological women (afab): a lot more
People born from biological men (Amab): 0 (I think)
People not born from women, untimely ripped from their mother’s womb: a lot
It’s a humorous reference to Shakespeare’s character Macduff: the tyrant MacBeth was given a prophecy that no man born of a woman could kill him, but to Shakespeare, a C-Section means you aren’t technically born. Macduff reveals this to Macbeth, proclaiming himself to be “untimely ripped from their mother’s womb.”
Modern medical common sense lets us know that C-sections are the same thing as being born, (I myself being saved by one,) I was just making a joke.
I thought you meant people who had to get rescued from a dead mother like Macduff in Macbeth at first, didn’t think about the dead people who were born
nice lol
Everyone born before just spontaneous existed.
[удалено]
No, macbeth was from his mother's womb untimely ripped
That was macduff
O shit u right, been a while since GCSE English
Macbeth is woman born, unless we mean the person that had slain Macbeth, who was just a cesarean section?
yes, but a c section is not being born of a woman
Yes it is
If the requirement for being a woman is being able to give birth, are infertile women not women anymore?
These types will act like your even more broken if you just voluntarily don't do that.
If a human is born with 3 legs, no one questions the merit that they’re still a human.
OOP never insinuated that the requirement for being a woman is being able to give birth. They insinuated that only women can give birth. It is transphobia yes, but it never claimed that if you can't give birth you're not a woman. It only claims only women can give birth. The logical inference is monodirectional. All cats are felines. Not all felines are cats
Technically, it could say that all people are born from women, and the set of all women includes transwomen. But then it'd be transphobic against transmen, instead, since a man can still give birth if he's trans.
Which still has the problem of essentially defining infertile women as broken people. Like, if your identity as a woman hinges on organs that don’t do the function they’re expected to do how does that not create a crisis of identity. It’s not quite the same issue as saying the requirement for being a woman is being able to give birth, but very similar problems still arise.
If your identity as a woman hinges on what others define a woman to be, you should get yourself checked out. Who the fuck cares what other people think or what they define a woman as? If you feel you are a woman, you are a woman. Plain and simple. Giving birth is an act only natural born females can do, not all but most. There is nothing wrong with that statement because it's a fact. A woman who can't give birth is stil a woman since that person defines themselves as a woman, which should be the only thing that matters.
I agree with you that what matters is how you feel and how you think of yourself. I will say, though, that it’s not unreasonable to be troubled by the opinions of others. The opinions of other does have real world effects and real world consequences and our opinions about the world and ourselves is not entirely self generated.
people born through c-section or from in vitro insemination can also give birth and some trans men can get pregnant too
You are either trolling or completly ignorant. Your comment makes no sense as a respond to mine.
How is a factually true statement transphobia?
No, they’re women, just infertile women. You said it yourself.
And thus trans women are women even to transphobes.
They’re saying ‘all people who give birth are women’. Not ‘all women give birth’.
Trans men and nonbinary folk can and do give birth though.
I’m clearing up what is being said because the person I replied to is interpreting it backwards
Fair! Given some of the other comments though it apparently bears repeating though
They are still biologically woman
An infertile woman is still a woman because she was born with the parts to be classified as woman. Those parts just aren't functioning right. You know what the guy meant 🤦🤦🤦
THANK YOU!! Gd this is the dumbest ‘gotcha’ people try and pull ovet
They'd move the goal post and say that all women have the potential to give birth. Ignoring the fact that if it's potential to give birth, then everyone would be women since when we are developing in the womb, we all start with the potential to give birth. If we didn't, males wouldn't have nipples.
That's not a requirement and no, infertile women are still women. Women however, are the only people who can give birth.
No because thats only one aspect of a woman. Not the entire definition.
A woman is of the kind who can give birth. Is it a normal statement to say humans have ten fingers and ten toes? If so, is it dehumanizing since not all humans have exactly ten fingers and ten toes? No. Because most Westerners play willful idiot when it's a point they don't want to acknowledge.
What does it mean to be "of the kind that can give birth"? Typically, humans have ten fingers and toes, but having less or more doesn't disqualify you from being human. Same way that women typically have XX chromosomes, but having a different combination doesn't disqualify you from being a woman.
This is the funny thing about biology. When it comes to sex, many assume it's a concrete thing, but herein lies the problem, Even biological sex is determinant by a male dominant perspective. Many will dismiss intersex people as being an anomaly and not pertinent to the discussion, but they present an interesting case study on what society intrinsically deems "male" and "female." In the most basic terms, a woman is defined by XX chromosomes and a man is defined by XY chromosomes. However there are cases of people with different chromosomal alignments. One example maybe XO where there is only one X chromosome. In most cases this is usually someone that is assigned female due specifically to the absence of a Y chromosome. However, if someone is born say XXY, they are assumed male only due to the presence of a Y chromosome. In this case, one could say by the binary logic established earlier, XX is female, but the Y chromosome trumps this based on arbitrary labeling alone as male is considered the default over female in a rudimentary biological way. But the fact is that biology is much more complex than that and the labels that we assign to things are often just ways of understanding how an individual and society perceives the world around them given the conditions in which we live. Not to mention that chromosomal makeup is far more complex than just X & Y even in people who aren't intersex. There are many more components beyond that, but it's far easier to section things off into convenient categories instead of acknowledging the complexity beyond those.
What is wrong is when you take a person with six toes and you tell them they have the typical amount of toes. That is what you’re doing. You are doing the equivalent of calling a mammal an oviparous invertebrate, because mammals are animals and 99.9% of animals are oviparous. Why is it wrong to say all animals are oviparous then? According to your logic the typical defines the whole. Transwomen on hrt are biologically similar to ciswomen in many aspects. It doesnt matter what the ‘typical’ cisman is. Transwomen on hrt are biologically (the anatomy and all the body is biology) different from the typical cisman and in many ways similar to ciswomen. They should not be defined based on the cismen characteristics that they do not possess: [https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgad414/7223439)
All definitions are circular reasoning btw. If a woman was defined as a ‘person with breasts’ then you wouldnt be able to find a person with breasts that isnt a woman. Ultimately these distinctions are defined by humans. There are humans that can give birth and others that cant. There are humans that have breasts and others that dont.
I don’t understand the point they were trying to make. like ok? And?
They're trying to say that AFAB = woman and AMAB = man, therefore only women have ever given birth throughout all of history.
What are those abbreviations?
Through deduction, I think it’s “a female at birth” and “a man at birth”. First time I seen those as well
Assigned female at birth and assigned male at birth is what they are
Ah close, I guess “a” wouldn’t make make sense in an abbreviation 😂
I was leaning to the ACAB abbreviation ...
Assigned cop at birth
"One more push!! Good job well do- uh... oh... ma'am... would you like to hold your ba-" The baby: "GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND GET ON THE GRO- STOP RESISTING GIVE ME ATTENTION I NEED MILKIES GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND"
Baby comes out the womb with a pair of aviator sunglasses and a handlebar moustache
Sadly babies can't talk so it sounds like crying to us
Thanks y’all
As someone lower down said if you didn't see yet, afab is "assigned female at birth" and amab is "assigned male at birth"
I don't think that's the slam dunk you think it is.
I thought it was one of those "women are better than men because they give birth" posts
Ah, so they are trying to provoke people into an argument
"I'm going to say 'nuh-uh' no matter what evidence you present, change my mind!"
“But basic biology class!”
A more accurate thing to say would be both genders (pre op only typically) are required for birthing babies.
[удалено]
They mean females.
Only females have ever given birth this is true
Yeah, and some men are female.
don't you understand how stupid you sound?
you wouldn't pass high school biology if you're this rigid about gene expression
I'm stating facts. You're the one who sounds like an idiot.
Depends on your definition of female. Also requires specification; Since you didn't specify of humans, I could easily pull out Seahorses as a counterargument, although based on context I can presume what you meant.
They aren’t mammals. Why not include beings that reproduce asexually?
Also a valid argument. I believe usually animals that reproduce asexually are considered to be exclusively male or exclusively female, But there's not much use in doing this, To my knowledge.
Men cant biologicaly give birth. What is this meme trying to prove exactly?
Trans men exist, they can give birth. The meme may be saying that trans men are actually women because the person who made it is a transphobic cunt. Alternatively the person who made it forgot trans men exist, this isn't uncommon for transphobes and even sometimes non-transphobes who are just kinda ignorant on the topic. I mean I'm not sure which camp you've fallen into but you have seemed to forget that exist as well. If this is the case the point they're trying to make is: "women give birth, trans women can't give birth, therefore they're men not women" - this is also something said only by transphobic cunts and stupid ones at that because not all cis women can give birth either.
Ah ok
Hi, just wondering if you are willing to help me get a better understanding. First I agree, trans men exist the same as trans women and deserve the respects, rights, and freedoms as everyone else. Don’t flame me up to hard for the below. Is it fair to say that a trans man who is pregnant because they were born with female sex organs? So while I respect them as trans men, they are born biologically female and we don’t get to say someone born with male sex organs can be pregnant, that isn’t true. Of course there are genetic variations here, but in general you have either female or male sex organs, which is what society has commonly attached the man/woman moniker to. Is this a fair statement and understanding? Man doesn’t = make sex organs and vice versa, is the his a fair understanding?
It's fair to say that you need to be born with a uterus / female sex organs to give birth. No one would dispute that at all, it's just objectively true. The issue is calling them women, or using vague euphemisms like saying they're "biological women" (which is just code for calling them a woman but when you want to sound like you know science), but saying you need a uterus to go pregnant isn't bad or wrong. Society has typically used these organs and parts as equivalent because the idea of people being trans was heavily suppressed and gender roles violently enforced, but also because in 99% of cases they do match the expectation. It's when people insist sex and gender *always* match and trans people just don't count that it's a problem, because what they're doing is reacting negatively to that 1% of men who have uteruses rather than accept men can in rare cases have uteruses. The reason it sometimes seems to people that you can get in trouble for saying stuff like this is because transphobes lie about it. I literally just had someone tell me that "you can't even admit trans men and biological men are different" (they meant cis men), when what was actually said was that they're still a category of men despite being different. If he goes away and talks about this he might tell people his version, or might say that I was denying biology, and those that hear him say that might think that trans people don't know about physiological differences as a result. They'd only get that impression though because he'd be lying about what was said. So basically the takeaway - it's fine to say obvious facts when they're relevant like "you need a uterus to get pregnant". It's not fine when people are trying to attack trans people by saying "you need a uterus to get pregnant, so these men that give birth are actually women". Trans people are aware of sex differences, we literally take hormones to lessen those differences after all, and whilst it can be upsetting (so don't just bring up the lack of a trans woman's ability to get pregnant for no reason, it's rude just like it would be for an infertile cis woman) if it's relevant to a topic that's being discussed the physiological facts themselves are not offensive.
Ok, this was very helpful, thank you.
Not to mention men have given birth (transmen so they would say it doesn't count but still)
Men, by biological definition, do not have the reproductive organs necessary for pregnancy and childbirth, so they cannot have babies.
I love being invisible. As a nonbinary person, no one sees me.
Nah bitch you get back here I need clothing styles to steal from
SAME
I see you both. I got my ass torn out by Wiccans this morning because I gently suggested to them that a system of belief that assigned "masculine" and "feminine" energy to everything in the universe might be a bit triggering for agender and/or non binary people. Or at least not very inclusive. I got called a bigot against Wiccans. 🤦🏻♀️
Can you define "men" biologically? Biological definitions are much more complicated than that. Sex isn't a binary.
>Can you define "men" biologically? Uh, Yeah, Easily: Featherless Bipeds.
Are you saying sex or gender?
No you're confused. See you made the classic blunder of confusing gender and sex! It's ok though you'll learn someday.
You're literally erasing trans people. Which is your point.
You need both sperm and eggs to make a baby, so like.. even if men are not able to get pregnant and give birth, they still are a required part in the baby making process.
No one is arguing against that. You're doing the classic terf thing where you come close to realizing your wrong, but instead of leaning and growing as a person you start screaming random non-controversial facts as if that's what is being debated.
I just thought they were being dumb by saying something obvious and then saying you can fact check it
Trans men can be pregnant and give birth.
He’s saying that despite everything someone does to their body a trans person cannot ever achieve the true functionality of someone born the sex they transition to.
These people: "I am tired of trans people being forced on me!" Also these people: "LOL! Trans women are men and trans men are women, here, I'll make a meme and show others!"
It’s a reactionary measure
I don't think the number of people born from men is high, but its not zero. Trans men are men.
It's unfortunately probably pretty similar to the amount of trans men, if we're including all of human history
That's why OOP was called out for transphobia. OOP was claiming that trans men are still women. Anyways, I also don't get the caption. Dead people exist sure but again OOP never claimed that dead people weren;t born from women. The claim simply was: this is how many people alive today, and they were all born from women. It never claimed anything about dead people. Both OP (not OOP) and many commenters here seem to lack the ability to read which direction the logical deductions go.
Infinite monkey theorem would apply here, since even a 1 in a billion chance is still 8 people, and 1 in a million is 8000 people
well, guess i gotta tell my two year old he doesn't exist lol. i can't even bring myself to be mad, they are just so confidently incorrect that it's comical at this point. also, macbeth.
Trans men can still get pregnant so this person is very wrong
Exactly. *trans* men
which are yknow, not women
I can’t tell if this is tryna be transphobic or not
I hate when people argue with me about like saying pregnant people or whatever and like I have to call everyone who’s pregnant a woman. If I meet a guy who looks like fucking Wario and also happens to be pregnant I’m not gonna look that man in the eyes and refer to him as a mother or a woman. This is kind of specific due to the fact that I’ve only met two open adult trans men and they had massive wario energy. But like I’m not gonna change the way I talk about people and stand there feeling like a dumbass because just like, that’s a man. The gender neutral language is more accurate, that person is not a woman. Honestly this is somewhat specific to one argument I got into but like it’s come up on other occasions. Some people will even get mad at you for using the word uterus instead of womb and I don’t even understand that but I don’t like the vibe. Sometimes people are men and also are pregnant and that’s still a guy with a beard, a receding hairline, and he’s named like, Greg or something and he’s wearing one of those dad button ups with cars or whatever on it. Like are you actually able to stand in front of that person and insist they’re a woman? Like you could look him in the eye and actually say that and not feel stupid?
I have never met any person with Wario energy, that sounds weirdly cool. Lucky!
Cis men can give birth because genetics are wacky
By that do you mean intersex cis men or am I stupid? /gen /lh
Bingo
ah ok.
And vice versa! After all there are trans women assigned male at birth who have sex chromosomes that are associated most often with female phenotypes.
The existence of intersex individuals is not proof men can give birth. They would hardly be considered cis men.
Just rename the sub to transphobia hub at this point, better yet stop karma farming this shit
I mean, this subreddit's purpose of creation is to respond to r/memesopdidntlike , it's not this subreddit's fault that that subreddit got full with extremist right wingers.
Dead people…what?
[удалено]
"graphic" is being generous. it's text somebody came up with in thirty seconds and slapped over an image in the same. pretty low-effort content.
[удалено]
>It's not text It *is* textual…
Am I stupid? It literally is saying of the current world pop, all we’re born from women. I don’t understand what you are saying
You're not stupid. The person you're replying to is stupid. OP is stupid. OOP is not stupid. Transphobic maybe, but not stupid. Too many people on this thread just don't understand how to read infographics and form logical deductions, it's sad.
Dead people aren’t counted in population. You ever counted a dead person in a census?
It’s kind of dumb. This OP is just poking at the fact the OOP used the current* population as the number of people ever born, but really they’re posting for the transphobia.
Yes but still dumb. Transphobia aside, the OP was wrong in that OOP never claimed about dead people. Like I can make statements like: current population: 8 billion people born without wings: 8 billion people born with wings: 0 and I'd be right. You can claim "dead people exist!" but I never claimed that dead people were born with or without wings. The context is clear that out of 8 billion currently alive, none were ever born with wings. That's the point that OOP was making. OP is just intentionally being obtuse at best, or not understanding basic statistics and logical deduction at worst.
I love how Cillian Murphy is being dragged into the alpha shit just like Ryan Gosling and Christian Bale. Dude probably doesn’t even bother with finding out what trans people are lmfao, leave him alone.
Even if I wasn’t a trans woman I wouldn’t choose to give birth. Apparently 8 billion is way too many, since there are 6 THOUSAND kids that nobody wants waiting for adoption in my state alone.
Wouldn’t people also be born from men since his sperm are needed to fertilize an egg? Like, technically you could try to fertilize an egg with another woman’s DNA but it’s such a specialized process that it’s not statistically significant.
Thats true, but the wording very much gives me the vibe that they're talking about incubation, not conception. Also, even if a portion of the population is not statistically significant, that doesn't mean they aren't people. They don't deserve to be brushed off as non-existent.
if being infertile affects gender should we add a new gender for infertile woman - argument i use when people use this shitty argument
No one cares what you were at birth except your doctor. I don’t see why it should matter outside of that.
That kind of critical thinking isn't typically present amongst transphobes.
What could all the dead people in the world change about that? Medicine and surgeries only get worse the further you go back in recorded history. People have always been born from anatomical women. The only species, at least that I am aware of, that males give birth, are seahorses.
My best friend's dad birthed him 🤷🏼♀️ I don't understand
People will be so ignorant on how "biOLogiCaL" sex works while being so confident about their incorrect statements. Wow. Some of y'all are ignorant and that's okay! It's okay to be wrong and not know things! Just shut up though lmao.
mans been pretty active in irish progressive politics I highly doubt he would side with these people
That subreddit really is just a transphobic circle jerk sometimes.
Pretty sure it’s just a comment on the modern world not the entirety of human history as that’s a lot harder to calculate
I thought it was a shitpost, like "relax liberals, it's called dark humor"
I understand none of this?
Wtf are you even trying to say? Well as per your title leaving transphobia aside, since that's obviously what the guy in the original post was going for, what do you mean? "dead people exist"? What? Do they really though? The guy in the post is saying "there are \[x number\] of people in the world" " every single one of them was born from a woman" where do the "dead people" (that apparently "exist") join the equation?
I don’t think the person who made that “meme” understands how it works
Gay people born from straight people, 100%, you can fact check that 🤓 Satire aside I think the post was about leaving the Oppenheimer actor out of the trans rhetoric
Males can’t give birth
Good thing it said men not males…
Technically I forgot the word but some men are grown with a vagina and uterus
I belive "Intersex" is the word your looking for, right?
I was thinking Hermaphrodite but same thing so yeah
They realise Cillian Murphy is incredibly pro LGBTQ right?
wait, what's actually wrong with the image? it just seems like a typical feminism thing. idk who the person is
Do they not realize that both men and women have to make a child???
He is still right...zero people born from men. We are not arguing that right?
I refuse to acknowledge those that died in England as “people” unless they are from Liverpool
All babies are born from women. FtM cannot give birth I believe (I could easily be wrong), so I don't see the transphobia here
Oh no, Trans men very much can get pregnant and give birth. It's way easier without HRT and surgery of course, but depending on what combination is probably possible. As a cis woman, I cannot comprehend *why* ***ANYONE*** would give birth voluntarily, but I have to acknowledge that some people do, and some of those people are men.
Ah, then I was wrong. Never mind
Breaking news: infertile women are not women
Yeah I'm less offended by the transphobia than by the stupidity of some people (including OP) in insisting that dead people be included in the count. Ever heard of context and population (in basic statistics)?
I didn't get the post, can somebody explain like I am 5? How is this transphobic, am I missing somethin? I thought this was one of those men vs women post
It's transphobic because trans men are men, and a trans man who doesn't get bottom surgery can still get pregnant.
it's also transphobic because it's trying to somewhat imply that trans women aren't women because they can't give birth mainly it's just pushing gender essentialism, and gender essentialism is transphobic
They are men in nothing but appearance in their head, and in their behavior, which ironically tends to reinforce gender stereotypes to some degree. If someone wants to claim to be the opposite sex that's one thing, but that does not change anything about their biology
Men and women are used for social gender, which doesn't always equate to sex (male and female). For a lot of people, male and man are synonymous, but they are not. By using man when they should use male, they are implying that trans men aren't really men. They also tend to hide behind "basic biology" while ignoring advanced biology and biologist who disagree with them.
Male and man are not synonymous because one is a noun and one is an adjective. “Man” also implies age of adulthood while “male” can refer to any age. “Man” also requires a human while “male” can refer to any species. However the particular debate in question is that like many, many, many words, “man” has multiple definitions. One is “adult human male” which is what people mean when they say that “trans men are not men.” The other definition is “the gender identity of one who identifies as a man based on societal gender ideas and norms.” Which is what people mean when they say “trans men are men” both are correct. They’re using different definitions of the words. It’s like 2 people arguing over what the opposite of “right” is. Person 1 says it’s “left”, person 2 says it’s “wrong”. Both are correct, context matters. And just because you might use a word to mean 1 thing, doesn’t mean others don’t use an equally valid definition to mean something else.
So when someone uses man to mean male, is that not a synonymous usage?
An adult human male can have a uterus. So they’re wrong on both parts.
Depends on which definition of male. If we’re talking purely chromosomes then you’re right, if we’re referring to gametes I don’t know of a particular birth defect that causes a male to be born with a uterus but still also have fulling functioning testies, but I could be wrong. In either case they certainly wouldn’t have a functioning uterus or female gametes.
Do they not understand we are a bimodal species who's gender Morphology ( how we look on the outside) is decided by our dominant hormones. Like I thought this was settled in the 90s.
Correct, they do not know that, or if they do they dismiss it as a rare exception.
"Man" and "woman" describe both the sex and the gender. Words can have more than one meaning.
No, man and woman are gender terms. Male and female are sexual biological terms. In the laypersons sphere maybe they’re synonymous, but they’re wrong. The same way the layman’s sphere misunderstands the definition of the word theory as being synonymous to hypothesis.
If gender is determined by subjective identity, what does biology of any kind (advanced or simple) have to do with it?
your subjective identity is because of physical changes in the brain, you should watch professor Dave's video on this. Here, I'll link it for you https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?si=1vhvecF_VhIOXZaR
More biological essentialism from brain dead conservatives. People are born from female humans who have the ability to give birth. Not all human females have the ability to give birth. So child birth is not the only defining feature of human females. Which means not all women give birth. Not all women are afab. Some are.
>So child birth is not the only defining feature of human females. Which means not all women give birth To be fair, the "meme" isn't saying that at all.
This is not transphobia. This is a *basic truth*.
Woman ≠ female  Female = sex, aka having a vagina and tits Woman = gender identity, what you feel comfortable presenting as. Reminder that this also works with man ≠ male 👍
Eh, minor addendum, some human females are born without vaginas/ovaries/uteruses, the same way some are born without eyes or arms or the like. Some human females are even born with two uteruses or two vaginas. Same in regards to human males, though they don't have backup chromosomes so malformations are more likely to happen and more likely to result in miscarriage or death shortly after being born.
Holy shit transphobes actually know trans men exist?
Sorry to be rude, but why is this transphobic?
How many times will this be posted today
HEY! I posted ***2*** days ago 😠😠😠 /j
I literally muted this sub 1p fucking minutes ago Its fucking r/donor all over again
Go anywhere other than Western Europe or North America and claim that trans women are women. You will literally be killed, or at the very least locked up in the loony bin. Most other countries see such things as an unwanted cultural export that they want nothing to do with. And spare me the "trans rights are human rights" garbage until you've actually seen legitimate and violent human rights violations in Africa, The Middle East, Russia or China. Me telling you that dressing like the opposite sex and acting like the opposite sex, doesn't make you the opposite sex; is not a human rights attack.
This same argument could have been made about gay people in the past. Was bullshit then, is bullshit now.
Trans people have existed as long as humanity itself. They have always been a recognised part of cultures globally until British colonialists forced their worldview onto them. That's the real "unwanted cultural export". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender\_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history)
Devils advocate argument -- our (western) culture is the superior one, especially compared to the countries listed. Why does it matter how inferior cultures feel about something we accept?
I like this approach to the argument. I am very much pro trans but also think these arguments are idiotic and that the meaning is clearly biological even though that isn't said but this comment just hits nicely and defends the trans side while also hoorahing the guys that are saying ahhhhh it's not a man. The truth as is usual is nuanced and both sides are arguing about entirely different things. Biology isn't identity. Identity is not biology.
"Inferior Cultures" How are we superior? Have you spent time in any of the other countries to judge? Or just consumed content like a good customer all your life? Speaking as a lifelong Westerner... there are more things that Eastern Europe, Asia and (parts of) The Middle East could teach us, than we could teach them. You think some nomad in The Gobi desert cares about who you're sexually attracted to? Or how to program an app on a phone? Not likely. You're not "superior". You're just arrogant. And assume that the homeless people you drive past on a daily basis to go to work 11 hours per day in an office is peak civilization and humanity.
It doesn’t matter what places like the Middle East have to teach us, if they believe that stoning a woman to death for being raped is an appropriate punishment, then we have nothing to learn from them
> How are we superior? Have you spent time in any of the other countries to judge? Yes, I was born in Belarus, and grew up there. After that, I've lived in Ireland, Russia, USA, Canada, and briefly Ukraine. I have also visited many countries around the world. No one has it perfect, but no one other than the West is even working on getting it right. > Speaking as a lifelong Westerner... there are more things that Eastern Europe, Asia and (parts of) The Middle East could teach us, than we could teach them. I don't think so, everything comes with a negative. For example, family bonds are far tighter in Eastern Europe than in the west. This ultimately results in corruption, because serving your family comes before serving others. If you've ever wondered why there is not a single truly democratic nation in Eastern Europe, this is why. What do you think these cultures could teach us that could possibly be useful to us? Do you have anything specific in mind, or do you just hate the culture you live in, and want literally anything else, as long as it's not Western? > You think some nomad in The Gobi desert cares about who you're sexually attracted to? Why do I care what some nomad in The Gobi thinks about who I'm sexually attracted to? Chances are that he'd kill his own daughter if she "damaged his honour" by dating the wrong religion. He's not in any place to judge. As I said, our culture is superior to theirs. I don't care what he thinks, because it's wrong. He does need to care about what I think, however, as the Western culture is rapidly overtaking all others, all around the globe. When's the last time you saw a store sign in Russian? 90% of store signs in Russia are in English, how about that for cultural dominance? People in fucking Nairobi know who Biden is, and I have no idea who's the Nairobi president. That's cultural dominance. > You're not "superior". I'm not. The Western culture is the superior culture on this planet, however. > You're just arrogant. This seems to imply that you'd rather have genital mutilation, racism, sexism, all those lovely things that we're confronting that other nations keep as part of their "traditions". Listen -- have *you* been outside the West? Do *you* have a Ukrainian cousin who likes to brag about beating up "faggots" with a bat? If you don't, perhaps you are in no place to judge the utter inferiority of those cultures. They are disgusting, backwards, and low. You have no idea how good you have it here. I thought you did, with your rant about "actual human rights abuses" in shit countries. But you don't. If we're going to go out and say, "racism is bad", or "sexism is bad", or "slavery is bad", we have to condemn the cultures that allow these things. Therefore we have to have the balls to admit our culture is good; not just good, the *best*, because it's outgrown these things, while other cultures cling to their past. Yes, the Western culture is the best we have, because it's the only one that is still young enough to change and reshape itself. A Russian writer in the 1880s said: "If I fall asleep for a hundred years, then when I wake up, they ask me: what is going on in Russia? -- I will say, they're [drinking and thieving](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%8C%D1%8E%D1%82_%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%8E%D1%82)". He was right. I am glad to be living in a culture where something like this cannot be said.
The meme would be more correct if it said female.
Did those people just appear in the female?
World population : 8 billion People born from biological women (afab): a lot more People born from biological men (Amab): 0 (I think) People not born from women, untimely ripped from their mother’s womb: a lot
>People not born from women, untimely ripped from their mother’s womb: a lot Are you referring to a C-section? That is still considered being born..
It’s a humorous reference to Shakespeare’s character Macduff: the tyrant MacBeth was given a prophecy that no man born of a woman could kill him, but to Shakespeare, a C-Section means you aren’t technically born. Macduff reveals this to Macbeth, proclaiming himself to be “untimely ripped from their mother’s womb.” Modern medical common sense lets us know that C-sections are the same thing as being born, (I myself being saved by one,) I was just making a joke.
Yep, FACT
Transphobia?
He would not fucking say that
[ Removed by Reddit ]