No I didn't. I know the difference between a biological man and a biological woman. Hence why a transsexual male-to-female is a different category from the latter. If you use the difference of chromosomes to justify treating a biological female and transsexual female differently in legal matters, then I'm offering this syllogism/analogy to you: If we go strictly by conventional chromosome standards, should we then start treating people different for any chromosome states that differ from the norm of the category?
In this case, the category is: Females and legal treatment. If your chromosomes are different from that which conventionally and normally indicates female, you shouldn't be treated as a female. The counter-case I'm projecting is the category of human beings in general. Going by the principle established in the formerly mentioned case, if you don't have the conventional and normal arrangement of chromosomes that indicate a human being, you shouldn't be legally treated as such, which would include people Down's Syndrome because of the extra 21st chromosome, and therefore having 27 rather than the normal or conventional 26. If the principle is faulty here, then it can be asserted it's faulty in use of the transsexual case.
Yes, we get it, your brain can't tell what analogies and syllogism are. Oh, the post you were quoting also stretches into diasyrmus, which is a rhetorical device that creates argument through a ridiculous comparison to emphasize how ridiculous or flawed the original point(Ira's chromosome argument) is.
No you are missing the point of the difference in chromosome: What you are describing is an anomaly or genetic defect due to erroneous pairing etc. But even if someone is affected with Down's syndrome it would would still be a girl or a boy. Whether such an anomaly exist or not, is not a part of *** determination. The presence of Y chromosome is.
Normally biological *** is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the *** hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.
A transgender at the most can alter the external genitalia but his body won't be making hormones and he will have to take it regularly to feel in the group he self identifies himself. It doesn't make him same as the woman though he may think he feels like one. He still has his old male skeleton and more muscle power too. Factually such transgender people still have less reasons to be categorized as women biologically, than they have for being categorized as male. Thus you trying to equate them with biological women is being mischievous at best.
Frankly it's kind of annoying when participating in an sports event for women, one ends up competing with a "self identified woman" transgender with his physique and muscle power as a male. One can as well send only transgender women to female categories of women, leaving no place for actual women in the Olympics once again. There are other similar situations when this "self identity" whether legal or not is simply unfair to actual women and they are imposing themselves on them because it's comparatively 'easier'.
Though in military, the officers maybe happier with such 'women' instead of actual women in combat. I am going too random..But point remains Transsexual women are not women and your arguments in this regard are not sincere enough.
Female prisons are not safe from rape but have a very high percentage of such cases - at the hand of male guards and jail officials. The number of such jails for women is much less than the jails for males, so the option to transfer to another jail because of problems in one, is less feasible for them and complaining doesn't work much even if some how one of them manages to complain. So that risk of harassment is pretty much there. But regarding your last complain, yes some female prisoners maybe capable of that but a transgender woman is still more likely to have better muscle power and stronger physique and one known to have a temper ...I think none of the people actually sees the real issue here. Problem is not that a transgendered person is going to get eventually prison raped ... the problem is that prison rape is so common that people see it as unavoidable. (The problem would not have arised if there was statistically insignificant amount of prison assaults)
As Joker would say ... Inmates get raped all the time and no one bats and an eye. But news implies a transgendered criminal potentially may treated as any weakling/target behind bars ,aka, get raped and everyone loses their mind.
Also its funny that he/she thinks that female inmates are totally incapable of shoving a spoon up his/her ass if things go rough.
Last edited: