system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Transgender activists obscure language

There are many issues that as a (hopefully) unbiased third-party observer I have in relation to many of the argumentative points in relation to the transgender issues, that arise as obfuscation of language. If the obscured terms are stated in a clear manner, most of the points disappear.  


I want to make it clear that I am approaching this in a pure rational fashion. I feel no hatred or disgust towards transgender folk and I have defended their rights in personal ways. Yet, I don't think it's transphobic to disagree with the views presented. I would not consider, for example, an atheist to have a form of religious phobia by disagreeing with theology. Someone may be a very fervient theist and identify with their religion in a very close manner, yet it would not be phobic to discuss religion in a rational manner and disagree with their position. In the same way I think it's a bad use of language to refer to all disagreement in relation to transgenderism with the umbrella term of transphobia. Yes, some points may be done because of transphobia, but the arguments may be valid anyways, or one could make different points without being transphobic.  


In terms of language, one of the biggest examples of what I mean is with the point "transgender women are women". This seems crucial to the discussion, and yet no proper definition is done. If one is seeking to re-define a concept it's because the concept is incorrect or the term is impractical(inorganic). Yet, it would seem that on those standards the traditional concept wins as it is quite organic, practical, functional and correct. There is no proper reason why a change in language and more importantly, the concepts they reflect, should be done. I don't disagree with questioning the concept or the term, but I firmly believe that a change needs to be an improvement.  


So, the question needs to be done: "if what has been considered a woman is not a woman, then what is?" When faced with a request to define properly the concept, most activists don't and state: "a woman is what a woman claims to be", which kind of begs the question. It is an empty definition as it is not truly defining the concept and merely referencing itself in order to define itself. It creates an infinite chain of referencing something that lacks substance. It's like when asked "this is a bagwhowee", I say "a bagwhowee is a bagwhowee". Well, ok, but what exactly is a bagwhowee? To say a bagwhowee is a bagwhowee is unhelpful and resolves nothing. In the same way, saying a woman is a woman who identifies as a woman does not resolve the question as to what a woman is.  
And I think what the issue is. Definitions create limits and hence exclude. This is the very nature of concepts and in language definitions. You know what a chair is by comparing it to similar things, by also contrasting differences and by referencing a substantive object. You say "a chair is not water, it is a solid object, it is something people sit on" and so on.  


Yet, many transgender activists don't like to exclude members from the term as exclusion is seen as discriminatory. However, not all forms of discrimination are incorrect. Only unjustified discrimination is bad. For example, by choosing a romantic partner you are discriminating and excluding the rest; people who have not passed the entry exam don't go into Harvard; people without a certification cannot medically operate on people; dogs aren't rocks. All of these phrases are discriminatory but all are justified. So, while saying "women are X and hence non-X are not women" is neutrally discriminatory, it is also necessary and proper.   


The definition of men/women in terms to the natural part on the reproductive process seems to me to be the best definition available. It explains the operative differences(men have penises, women have wombs) and relative differences(men are stronger because of a higher bath of testosterone). A good definition needs to be the best tension between being as fluid and as rigid as it can be. It needs to exclude as much as it can while also including as much as it can. An example I've given is the concept of "human being". If it's too fluid that it includes rocks, then it's a bad concept; yet if it's too rigid that it excludes Jews, it is also a bad concept. The proper mental concept, then, adequates the most to a given abstract order which is intelligible understood and that is reflected in language. Taxonomical categorization and linguistic families reflect this internal order that reflects a natural order.  


If one disagree with my definition, I have no problem. But a better definition needs to be presented, and whenever I honestly ask transgender activists, they are unable to give a better definition(in my view).
gpt
>(men have penises, women have wombs)

Does someone born a man who then has his penis torn off in a workplace accident no longer have a gender? 

Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy no longer a woman? 

What is the gender of someone who has both testicles and ovarian tissue, with an XXY chromosome? These people do exist.