Women's Rights

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"Cats have four legs" is a true generalization. Anyone can see that a cat with only three legs is still a cat. But it is also obvious that something went wrong, like an accident, if a cat has only three legs. Such accidents do not affect the kind of thing it is. The same holds true for males and females. The primary sex difference is gamate size but there is a constellation of secondary sex difference that come out of this. Secondary sex differences are only proxy indicators of sex. Accidental changes or exceptions to the secondary sex differences in no way alter whether someone is of the male or female kind.

Cats can be born with three legs. Therefor it is not the definition of a can to have 4 legs. Also there is a lot more to a cat then having 4 legs. This reductionism is absurd. Also if  your definition of cat doesn't account for all kinds of cats and all states of cat. Then your definition of cat is a failure. As for women and men your definition fails even harder if your definition can't account for all women and must dismiss exceptions or worst deny their existence as a core issue of the definition. It gets even worst when you consider the difference between sex and gender and the fact the best definition of woman is an open ended self identifier as it takes all things into account not just simplistic biology.

If a cat us born with three legs, then - as Neo said - something went wrong. This doesn’t alter the fact that a three-legged cat is still a cat.

To the topic: if a female is born sterile, something also went wrong, but she’s still a female. The mistake Huggy deliberately and obstinately continues to make (even though he knows better) is to equate ‘female’ with ‘woman’. A trans woman is not and never can be a female, but is absolutely a woman.

Huggy has to stick to this error. Without this, his entire trans-hating world view melts like a Nazi’s face in ‘Raiders’.

Boru