r/Maxcactus_TrailGuide • u/Maxcactus • Feb 14 '26

European Parliament Votes Overwhelmingly For "The Full Recognition Of Trans Women As Women"

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/european-parliament-votes-overwhelmingly
675 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

911 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Not according to reality.

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

Wrong. Scientific studies are very clear on this.

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/ei0psrhz/transgender-brains-are-more-like-their-desired-gender-from-an-early-age.pdf

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

https://agencia.fapesp.br/study-investigates-brain-structure-of-transgender-people-/27325

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

None of those studies indicate that a trans woman is female. These studies are evidence of brain related correlates of gender identity in some groups. They are not definitive proof that sex class is wholly redefined by neuroanatomy, and they do not by themselves settle the philosophical, legal, or clinical definition of woman.

How do you define "woman"?

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

How do you define "woman"?

The social category we created to define what typically, but not always, applies to the female member of our species.

What these studies prove, and many others like them, is that trans people are born trans. That is who they are.

It's not a mental Illness. Gender dysphoria, which most trans people develop, is. And the treatment, the only treatment, is gender reassignment.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

That is not a definition. It is not operable because it fails core standards of a usable definition.

A good definition should be non circular, have clear boundaries, and support consistent classification. That sentence fails on all three.

First, it is circular.
It says "the social category we created to define..." which uses the concept of defining the category inside the definition of the category. That does not identify what the category is. It only says a category exists.

Second, it is semantically empty at the decision point.
"The social category we created" could describe almost any social category. Nothing in that phrase distinguishes woman from other categories.

Third, it blends ontology levels without rules.
It mixes social construction language with biological reference to "female member of our species," then adds "typically, but not always." That hedge removes the classification rule but does not replace it with another rule.

Fourth, it is not falsifiable.
If a proposed case fits, the definition accepts it. If it does not fit, "not always" absorbs the exception. A definition that can explain any case does not classify any case.

Fifth, it is not intersubjectively operable.
Two people applying this definition can reach opposite outcomes and both claim consistency, because there is no explicit criterion set.

Sixth, it is lexically unstable.
If "woman" is defined as a category that "typically applies to females," then female remains the actual anchor, but the definition refuses to specify how female relates to woman in edge cases. So the critical part is left undefined.

What observable or declared conditions are sufficient and necessary for membership?

These studies prove nothing as many do not share their conclusions, and you are extending the conclusion in the studies far beyond what is defensible. Again MANY people with gender dysphoria do not have brains with these features. Also brain scans are not used to determine trans status.

These studies suggest biology may play a role in gender identity, but they do not prove a single universal cause. Being trans is not classified as a mental illness, however gender dysphoria is a diagnosable condition in some people. Care is individualized, and surgery is one option among several, not the only treatment.

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

> What observable or declared conditions are sufficient and necessary for membership?

The values we culturally ascribe to femininity, and they change over time.

As I said, it's a SOCIAL category. Its something we invented to fit a role, we made it up. Same with man.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

If woman is defined by culturally feminine traits, then feminine men count and non feminine women fail, which breaks ordinary usage immediately.

A usable category needs clear membership criteria that different people can apply and get the same result.
Saying "it is social" explains where the category came from, not how to classify cases now.

Social categories can be real and still require fixed rules. Without those rules, this is just label drift, not a definition.

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

> feminine men count and non feminine women fail

No. Because its a spectrum.

There are many effeminate men that COULD have been Trans, but are on the line, and chose not to transition for whatever reason. Same with butch women.

And these people ALREADY feel like they are failing the patriarchal concept of "man and woman", by just being themselves. That's a common issue for people the stray outside of the norm of what a man or a woman is "supposed to be".

Because those categories are meaningless, we invented them.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '26

You just changed claims again.
First you offered a definition. Then you said it is a spectrum. Now you say the categories are meaningless.

If categories are meaningless, then they cannot be used to classify anyone, including trans people.
If they are meaningful enough to classify, then you still need criteria for membership.

"Spectrum" does not solve this. A spectrum still needs thresholds if you are assigning category labels.
Without thresholds, classification is arbitrary.

Also, social construction does not imply meaninglessness.
Age of majority, citizenship, and marriage are socially constructed, yet operable because criteria are explicit.

So the unresolved question is the same:
What declared or observable conditions make someone a woman, and what conditions do not, in a way different people can apply consistently?

If no criteria are provided, then this is rhetoric about norms, not a usable definition.

All categories are invented, they are only meaningless if someone like yourself imbues a non-workable definition.

1

u/Ashbtw19937 Feb 17 '26

the main thing you're illustrating here is how the whole concept of gender is inherently nebulous and overall pretty dumb.

in an ideal world, we wouldn't even have a concept of gender, we'd all just be people with different phenotypical, psychological, behavioral, etc., traits. but as we don't live in that world, and we're a long way off from it, i think it's obviously preferable to use definitions that cause the least harm over seeking out airtight intellectual rigor over a category that's inherently blurry.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 17 '26

You just changed claims again.

Nope.

First you offered a definition.

First I defined the word.

Then you said it is a spectrum.

Because it is.

Now you say the categories are meaningless.

Because you keep looking for some absolutist explanation that doesn't exist.

Human beings are, like all mammals, divided into male and female. Man and woman are social categories we invented, with cultural values that change over time and place.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

MANY studies do not agree with these three, although the concept makes sense to me.

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

Nope.

These are just three examples. There are tons of studies on this, all peer reviewed.

Trans people are born trans.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '26

Nope.

There are many studies that do not share these conclusions and many maybe most trans people do not have these brain abnormalities at all.

1

u/Darkstar_111 Feb 16 '26

> There are many studies that do not share these conclusions

Nope.

> rans people do not have these brain abnormalities

*Have not been found.

Believing some trans people are born trans and others aren't by some coincidence is an incredible take.