What is a woman?

[Anonymous No.14539350]

Our bright minds of /sci/ence, can you answer this simple question? Please avoid being transphobic.

[bodhi No.14539430]

>>14539350
ummm hate speech much nazi?

[Anonymous No.14539438]

>>14539350
But a miserable pile of secrets

[Anonymous No.14539444]

>>14539438
I like you.

[Anonymous No.14539464]

>>14539350
A woman is biologically defined as the flesh around the vagina.

[Anonymous No.14539736]

>>14539350
An invididual conforming to a set of social norms

[Anonymous No.14539742]

>>14539350
A human female of adult age. It’s literally the exact same sort of word as “sow” or “bitch” or “buck” or “colt”.

[Anonymous No.14539779]

>>14539350
A woman has a vagina and does not have a penis. This definition applies to 99.9999999999...9% of the women

The 0.00000...1% born with genetic defects are defective women

[Anonymous No.14539792]

>>14539779
99.9999...=100

[Anonymous No.14539794]

>>14539792
Notice I didn't say 99.999... but 99.999...9

[Anonymous No.14539795]

>>14539736
You will never be a woman, but more importantly, you will never be an intellectual, have an insight, or be able to form a relevant social critique. Your existence is a failed existence.

[Anonymous No.14539812]

>>14539795
no u

[Anonymous No.14539828]

>>14539779
You think you've come within 0.00000...1% of accuracy but you've actually completely failed to define women at all, because you are clearly using a definition of woman entirely separate from your own.

Also, I'd say your estimates are more than a little off there, but who knows, really, because I have no idea how you define woman.

[Anonymous No.14539836]

>>14539350
> What is a woman

[Anonymous No.14539839]

>>14539828
Take your meds. Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.14539843]

>>14539839
Not an answer.

You're literally saying "some percentage of all women are women". What are women then? Your definition is logically incoherent.

[Anonymous No.14539852]

>>14539836
What was the first

[Anonymous No.14539853]

>>14539843
Take your meds. You will never be intelligent.

[Anonymous No.14539857]

>>14539853
Ironic. I've pointed out a clear, unambiguous flaw in your logic and all you can do is cope.

A /sci/entist has shitty opinions and does not have a brain. This definition applies to 99.9999999999...9% of /sci/entists. Obviously I exclude myself from this definition. What makes me a /sci/entist?

[Anonymous No.14539859]

>>14539857
It wasn't my logic and you haven't pointed out any "flaw" in it. His definition will have fewer exceptions than most definitions you will find the in the dictionary.

[Anonymous No.14539861]

>>14539350
XX chromosomes, genetic fuckups are genetic fuckups

[Anonymous No.14539867]

>>14539859
>It wasn't my logic
You clearly agree with it, so it is your logic.
>you haven't pointed out any "flaw" in it
Just admit you don't understand it, it's more intellectually honest.

A definition that has exceptions is not a proper definition.

[Anonymous No.14539869]

>>14539867
>A definition that has exceptions is not a proper definition.
In that case, the only math has "proper definitions", but honestly, no one cares about your low IQ arguments about semantics.

[Anonymous No.14539870]

>A man has no feathers and two feet. This definition applies to 99.9999999999...9% of the men

[Anonymous No.14539874]

@14539870
Seethe harder. My refutation of your 90 IQ "point" stands unchallenged.

[Anonymous No.14539875]

>>14539869
Imagine trying to dismiss something as "semantics" in an argument about definitions lmao, pure midwit cope

[Anonymous No.14539878]

>>14539852
Niggers

[Anonymous No.14539882]

>>14539874
Who's seething? You've been BTFO since centuries BC, idiot. What do you think you've refuted by going
>Take your meds
>Ur dum
>S-s-semantics!

[Anonymous No.14539885]

>>14539875
Imagine arguing that there are no definitions in the dictionary, getting BTFO and still replying instead of fucking off.

[Anonymous No.14539888]

>>14539882
See >>14539869 and then hang yourself. Everyone here hates you and the rest of the reddit migrants you represent. Just stop posting. You are incapable of forming coherent thoughts.

[Anonymous No.14539897]

>>14539885
>>14539888
Here's what Merriam Webster has to say about women:
>an adult female person
Does this definition apply to 99.9% of women? No, it applies to 100% of women. Because it defines women. By definition it fits 100% of women.

You don't understand what you're talking about and you're profoundly hypocritical and unintelligent. You let the mask slip: you're just incredibly butthurt that I'd interrupt your circlejerk and break the carefully maintained illusion of your intelligence. Which is why you can only sputter and cope in response, instead of offering a proper rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.14539900]

>>14539897
See >>14539885 and >>14539869

[Anonymous No.14539903]

>>14539900
You refuse to understand. I've addressed that exact argument in my reply. Again: you have no idea what you're talking about. Your definition is wholly unfit for any dictionary. You can mischaracterise my argument but actually the dictionary is the final nail in the coffin of your argument. So thanks for handing it to me.

[Anonymous No.14539904]

>>14539903
>I've addressed that exact argument in my reply
It's impossible for you to address that argument because factually speaking, few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define.

[Anonymous No.14539908]

>>14539904
>It's impossible for you to address that argument
Weird, I just did the impossible. But I guess a lot of things that are quite simple must seem impossible to someone of your intellectual capacity.

Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the dictionary definition of the one thing we're trying to define here just so happens to be one of those rare definitions that captures 100% of the things it defines? Furthermore, isn't that actually what a definition is supposed to do?

Here's the dictionary definition of definition:
>a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol dictionary definitions
>b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
What definition is not covered by this definition? Well, aside from yours, which is why it's not a definition, by definition.

[Anonymous No.14539909]

>>14539904
See >>14539908
You lost the argument and your position is unsalvageable.

[Anonymous No.14539912]

>>14539908
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. Just let it go and walk away, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14539922]

>>14539909
Thanks for the support, stranger, but I think it's a little superfluous to be linking him to my reply to the very post you're also replying to.
>>14539912
>Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define.
Prove it. I don't think you can. I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what you're talking about.

There are a lot of definitions which aren't exclusive, i.e. they sometimes cover MORE than they're supposed to. But that's not nearly as big a problem as a definition that's not INCLUSIVE, i.e. one that doesn't actually even describe what it's supposed to describe.

Furthermore, you're trying to use this "well no definition is perfect" cop-out to dance around the fact that your original claim was gibberish, logically speaking. Again, "less than 100% of women are women" is a contradiction.

[Anonymous No.14539925]

>>14539922
>Prove it.
All you have to do is open one and reflect on it for 20 seconds. You lost the argument. Just let it go and walk away, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14539933]

>>14539925
>All you have to do is open one and reflect on it for 20 seconds.
I just showed you two dictionary definitions which are 100% inclusive. What do you have?

[Anonymous No.14539936]

>>14539933
>I just showed you two dictionary definitions which are 100% inclusive
That's a dubious statement, but it has no bearing on my point in any case.

[Anonymous No.14539944]

>>14539843
>What are women then? Your definition is logically incoherent.
A woman has a funcional vagina from birth (not given by surgery), as well as all the other feminine sexual characteristics, simple as

You're literally saying "some percentage of all women are women".
No, moron, my definition applies (perfectly) to 99.99...99% of women, but evidently it does not apply to evrys ingle one, as some are maimed or genetically deformed (though they differentiate themselves from men of course)

[Anonymous No.14539948]

>>14539936
>That's a dubious statement
No it's not. Reflect on it for 20 seconds.
>it has no bearing on my point in any case
It absolutely skewers your point. These are the very model of the dictionary definition, and they utterly fly in the face of your idea of a dictionary definition, the one you use only to excuse your own lack of precision.

[Anonymous No.14539949]

>>14539948
You lost the argument in one fell swoop. Let it go, pseud.

[Anonymous No.14539952]

>>14539843
Here is an article saying the same shit as me but in a more academic way for you pretentious pseuds
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

[Anonymous No.14539957]

>>14539944
>A woman has a funcional vagina from birth (not given by surgery), as well as all the other feminine sexual characteristics, simple as
They have all the feminine sexual characteristics from birth?
>You're literally saying "some percentage of all women are women".
>No, moron, but yes
Lmao, people who are so incapable of accuracy in writing should not attempt definitions.
>evidently it does not apply to evrys ingle one
Which means your definition is flawed, by definition.
Tell me this, then: how do you identify the remaining 0.00000...1% as women?
>>14539949
Insistence is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14539958]

>>14539957
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. Just let it go and walk away, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14539959]

>>14539828
>You think you've come within 0.00000...1% of accuracy but you've actually completely failed to define women at all, because you are clearly using a definition of woman entirely separate from your own.
No you moron, a woman has a vagina and has no penis. Doctors can even tell the sex of the baby in ultrasounds and shit

[Anonymous No.14539961]

>>14539952
>Here is an article saying the same shit as me
It's not, and your inability to understand that is part of the problem.
>>14539958
>Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define.
Again, so you keep insisting, but it's not actually true. I've actually supplied evidence in favour of my point. You haven't.
>>14539959
So you're saying that the definition actually applies to 100% of all women?

[Anonymous No.14539962]

>>14539857
>A /sci/entist has shitty opinions and does not have a brain. This definition applies to 99.9999999999...9% of /sci/entists. Obviously I exclude myself from this definition. What makes me a /sci/entist?
You are a deformed /sci/entist, meaning, you were supposed to develop the essential characteristics of /sci/entist, but somehow in the middle to the way you got deformed.

[Anonymous No.14539964]

>>14539952
>Opinion piece from a conservative organisation masquerading as science

[Anonymous No.14539965]

>>14539961
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. Just let it go and walk away, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14539967]

>>14539962
>you were supposed to develop the essential characteristics of /sci/entist
Supposed to? Why? Based on what criteria?

[Anonymous No.14539970]

>>14539965
Cope and seethe you butthurt midwit. How do you get to the point where you're simply repeating your claim with zero proof over and over again and still think you're right? That might fly on /pol/ but this is /sci/.

[Anonymous No.14539975]

>>14539870
Lol trannoids mad as fuck

Seethe cope and dilate, you will never be a woman, you will never gave a vagina from birth or in any shape or form close to a woman's, you will never give birth, you will always have to larp and pretend your schizophrenic ideology is reality and not just chumps like you being cashed out by big pharma, your bones will be recognized as a male's, your sperm will become putrid horrified of being part of a tranny like you, and so your genes will die along with your mental illness

[Anonymous No.14539976]

>>14539970
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. No amount of lying and denial can save your nuked position. :^)

[Anonymous No.14539986]

>>14539964
>Opinion piece from a conservative organisation
It's good being conservative, it's a sign of intelligence
It's not an opinion piece though, that would be journalists articles. This is science
>Georgi K. Marinov is Postdoctoral Research Scholar at the Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford

>>14539957
>They have all the feminine sexual characteristics from birth?
They have the genes that determine their pussy, tits, bone structure, skin, etc. which will be inherently different from 99.999999...% of men (the exceptions being of course products of chemical contamination that ruins the natural mechanisms of conceptions and genetics)

>Which means your definition is flawed, by definition.
Flawed according to a tranny, which means it's correct since you are mentally ill and thus in no position to be giving judgment about anything

[Anonymous No.14539989]

>>14539975
>Lol trannoids mad as fuck
This is blatant projection. It's very obvious that you're not motivated in the first place by semantic precision, but by a political ideology. Which is also why you're coping so poorly with criticism from a purely logical angle. I've pointed out an inescapable logical defect in your position. You can only respond with namecalling and the insistence that I'm wrong.
>>14539976
This is what denial looks like.

[Anonymous No.14539990]

>>14539961
>So you're saying that the definition actually applies to 100% of all women?
Yes, all women were women right after conception did it's magic.

[Anonymous No.14539991]

>>14539989
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. No amount of lying and denial can save your nuked position. :^)

[Anonymous No.14539996]

>>14539986
>It's good being conservative, it's a sign of intelligence
Again, evidence in this thread is to the contrary.

>They have the genes that determine their pussy, tits, bone structure, skin, etc. which will be inherently different from 99.999999...% of men (the exceptions being of course products of chemical contamination that ruins the natural mechanisms of conceptions and genetics)
Seems like you're pushing the actual definining features of a woman back further and further. But of course even on the level of genetics you admit that it's not actually fitting.

[Anonymous No.14539997]

>>14539967
>Based on what criteria?
Your genes you fucking moron, and the fact that 99.99...999% of women who weren't genetic freaks share the ssame characteristics determined by those same genes that some combination microplastics and estrogen managed to fuck up the body of some would be circus freak

[bodhi No.14539998]

>>14539350
can we build some kind of detection device?

[Anonymous No.14540000]

>>14539990
Okay, well, I can't argue with that. I think it doesn't quite fit with how the rest of society defines women, but it's logically consistent, at least.

[Anonymous No.14540004]

>>14539350
A woman is an adult human female, where female is defined by production of ova gamete, and adult is defined by being post pubescent

[Anonymous No.14540003]

>>14539989
>semantic precision
Irrelevant, words are social constructs, reality is not, despite your attempt to invert the two, tranny, it doesn't fucking matter if you don't like a definition of a woman, women are still women either way

[Anonymous No.14540005]

>>14539996
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. No amount of lying and denial can save your nuked position. :^)

[Anonymous No.14540008]

>>14540000
>it doesn't quite fit with how the rest of society defines women
It doesn't matter what the rest of society defines things as. They can define inflation as something good for all I care even if in reality they can't buy anything

[Anonymous No.14540010]

>>14539997
My genes determined that I'm a /sci/entist? I think the analogy kind of escaped you there.

The point is, Anon, that even if it were true that 99% of this board is retarded, that doesn't mean that being retarded is a defining feature of a /sci/entist, because exceptions exist, and the only way we can recognise those exceptions is if we have a separate working definition of /sci/entist that isn't "retarded person with shit opinions". In this case it's obvious: a /sci/entist is someone who posts on the /sci/ board of 4channel dot org. And 99% of them are retarded, incidentally.

See how my definition of a /sci/entist there actually captures the concept perfectly without tautologically excluding anyone who posts on this board from being one?

[Anonymous No.14540012]

>>14540003
>Semantic precision is irrelevant to definitions of words
LMAO
Ultimate cope
>it doesn't fucking matter if you don't like a definition of a woman, women are still women either way
But what is a woman? You have thus far been unable to answer this question.

[Anonymous No.14540013]

>>14540005
Mummy, I broke this toy, can I have a new one?

[Anonymous No.14540014]

>>14540012
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. No amount of lying and denial can save your nuked position. :^)

[Anonymous No.14540016]

>>14540010
>My genes determined that I'm a /sci/entist?
I don't give a shit about your strawman, you can speak about round squares and quadrangular triangles you fucking want, it's irrelevant to the discussion you sofist nigger

[Anonymous No.14540018]

>>14540012
>Semantic precision is irrelevant to definitions of words
Word are symbols to actual concepts, it is irrelevant how you call a woman or how you define it, the conceptual object in reality does not depend on the existence of words, their definitions, or your fellings about them, is that too hard for you to understand nigger?

[Anonymous No.14540020]

Why do 110 IQ drones put so much faith in verbal shart? How do you grow so stupid that you believe babby's verbal abstractions define reality instead of trying to approximate it? Do these NPCs have qualia? Are they real people?

[Anonymous No.14540021]

>>14540012
>But what is a woman?
I know one when I see it, much like all my ancestors who fucked women before written language even existed

>You have thus far been unable to answer this question
You are unable to understand the answer and thus believe you're not the retarded one

[Anonymous No.14540024]

>Here's my definition
>That definition is shit
>All definitions are shit!
>Can you prove that in any way?
>no
compelling

[Anonymous No.14540028]

>>14540024
How come all people who share your opinions are demonstrably subhuman by all objective metrics? I can tell you have a deformed face just from the opinions you spout online. Is it a coincidence?

[Anonymous No.14540029]

>>14540024
>>Can you prove that in any way?
Yeah
The word car is not the actual car

Nigger

[Anonymous No.14540034]

>>14540016
>I don't give a shit about your strawman
It's not a strawman, my intellectually challenged pal. It's an analogy. And speaking of squares, would you say that 99% of squares are rectangles with sides of equal length suffices as a definition?
>>14540018
>the conceptual object in reality does not depend on the existence of words, their definitions, or your fellings about them
All well and good, but

What is a woman?

It seems to me that there is a concept of "woman" that exists entirely outside of your poor attempt to capture it in words :^)

[Anonymous No.14540035]

>>14540034
How come I can tell you're a physically deformed manlet and that you've never had sex just from your asinine rhetoric?

[Anonymous No.14540037]

>>14540020
>>14540021
>>14540029
Wow all of you are really fucking mad lol
You've just given up on attempting to define anything at all
Words aren't real! Everything is meaningless! I'll know it when I see it!

[Anonymous No.14540040]

>>14540037
How come I can tell you're a physically deformed manlet and that you've never had sex just from your asinine rhetoric?

[Anonymous No.14540041]

>>14540028
I'll have you know that I've been called handsome by random strangers on several separate occasions and I'm fucking a nude model who could have her pick of men
>>14540035
Projection

[Anonymous No.14540043]

Adult human person with XX chromosomes

[Anonymous No.14540045]

>>14540040
Turn on your monitor

[Anonymous No.14540046]

>>14540041
How come I can tell you're a physically deformed manlet and that you've never had sex just from your asinine rhetoric? Why haven't you killed yourself yet? I think you're starting to sense that you're not cut out for the "intellectualism" you indulge in to give your worthless life a false sense of purpose.

[Anonymous No.14540047]

>>14540037
I defined woman here >>14540004

>>14540040
Small men are physically superior to large ones and large ones will not exist in ~10 years

[Anonymous No.14540050]

>>14540047
>I defined woman here
A logically coherent definition, you pass

[Anonymous No.14540053]

>A logically coherent definition, you pass

[Anonymous No.14540057]

>>14540046
lmao, this much projection.

I don't think you're cut out for 4chan. You NEED to assume things about my identity because you can't argue with words alone. You have to attack the man, and you can't do that here, so you're impotently flailing. Oh, if only this were reddit, right? So you could look up my post history and see my embarrassing posts in r/BigDickProblems about how my cock tore yer ma's anus all the way down to her cunt?

[Anonymous No.14540059]

>>14540057
Why are you seething and projecting so hard, incel?

[Anonymous No.14540060]

>>14540053
Amazing, not even agreeing with you is enough to soothe your butthurt.

[Anonymous No.14540064]

>>14540060
That anon isn't me, who gave the definition.

[Anonymous No.14540067]

>>14540060
lmao, have sex incel

I don't think you're cut out for 4chan.

[Anonymous No.14540069]

>>14540059
>n-no u
Might I remind you that you people haven't had a logical argument in ages?

[Anonymous No.14540070]

>>14540034
>It's an analogy
https://effectiviology.com/false-equivalence/

[Anonymous No.14540072]

>>14540064
Fair enough, shame that these people are completely unhinged and incapable of rational thought, and now their butthurt is dominating the conversation.

[Anonymous No.14540073]

>>14540034
>would you say that 99% of squares are rectangles with sides of equal length suffices as a definition?
yes, because 1% of them are what is called in mathematics "degenerate squares"

[Anonymous No.14540074]

>>14540069
Okay, but how come people who sound like you are almost always dysgenic-looking and suffer from various mental/physical illnesses?

[Anonymous No.14540075]

>>14540072
Few if any of the definitions in the dictionary actually capture 100% of the things that fall into the category they attempt to define. You lost the argument. No amount of lying and denial can save your nuked position.

It's too bad you are unable to simply admit reality and have a rational and civilized conversation. :^)

[Anonymous No.14540079]

>>14540070
It's a perfect equivalence, in fact. Here, allow me to explain it to you, because apparently it's not clear enough yet:
If you say "my definition of A fits 99% of A" that's logically incoherent. "Some A are A" is an invalid proposition. Thus it follows, logically speaking, that the definition is flawed. What you're actually saying is "most B are A", which doesn't define A. When you start off by saying that your definition is incomplete and inaccurate, you're fighting a losing battle from the start. All A are A, and some A are B.

[Anonymous No.14540082]

>>14540079
>If you say "my definition of A fits 99% of A" that's logically incoherent.
Why not?

[Anonymous No.14540085]

>>14540074
I don't think that's right, it doesn't apply to me anyway, and it has no bearing on the argument.

[Anonymous No.14540090]

>>14540085
>I don't think that's right
It's an empirical observation.

>it has no bearing on the argument.
It does. A position that is only shared by deformed subhumans is not to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.14540093]

>>14540079
>"Some A are A" is an invalid proposition.
Real life isn't propositional logic you fucking idiot, in real life people are able to say "i am always a liar" without spontaneously combusting

[Anonymous No.14540097]

>"Some A are A" is an invalid proposition
Hahahaha. Holy shit. This cretin actually thinks he's some kind of intellectual while being unable to grasp logic in its most basic form.

[Anonymous No.14540099]

it is like a batman or spiderman, but with a womb instead of a bat or spider

[Anonymous No.14540104]

>>14539444
Faggot post

[Anonymous No.14540109]

>>14540082
All right, let's try shapes again.

If I define a "rectangle" as a figure with four right angles and sides of equal length, you would be right to point out that there are rectangles which have sides of unequal lengths. So then we would have to say that it's a flawed definition. If you preface your definition by saying "this definition of rectangles fits most but not all rectangles" it doesn't make it any better of a definition. It fails to properly define rectangles, and what's more, the preface itself acknowledges that. It admits that there are rectangles with unequal sides which therefore do not fit the definition, and the logical consequence of that is therefore that we are forced to conclude that we can, in fact, identify rectangles through some other defining feature entirely outside of the given definition. And if I persist in my definition of a rectangle despite implicitly already acknowledging that I myself have a different working definition of a rectangle, well, that's just intellectually dishonest.

Please note that this argument is based on pure logic.

[Anonymous No.14540112]

>>14540090
>It's an empirical observation.
The only thing you're observing is words on a screen, nigga.
>>14540090
>A position that is only shared by deformed subhumans is not to be taken seriously.
That's a contradiction, given that you're a projecting deformed subhuman. Can I take you seriously or not?

[Anonymous No.14540117]

>>14540109
>let's try shapes again
No, because we weren't not talking about mathematical definitions. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14540119]

>>14540112
>t. dysgenics poster boy
Your mother should have been sterilized. Your birth was a moral offence.

[Anonymous No.14540120]

>>14540117
Cop-out. A definition is supposed to be accurate and precise.

[Anonymous No.14540125]

>>14540072
My definition captures all women in a reductionist way. This ends the conversation the thread shouldn't have continued from there. I don't know why you guys are still talking.

[Anonymous No.14540128]

>>14540120
>A definition is supposed to be accurate and precise
Why? Non-mathematical, real-world concepts are not accurate and precise in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14540132]

>>14540093
>Real life isn't propositional logic
No shit? A dictionary isn't real life either. A definition isn't real life either. I am able to call myself a woman without combusting, too. I guess that means I am one. After all, definitions are meaningless to reality and we can make them whatever we want. That's what you're saying, right?
>>14540097
I should specify, because unlike all of you cretins, I can admit to making a mistake. Of course if all A are A then some A are also A. The logical inconsistency is saying "ONLY some A are A" because its corrolary is "some A are not A".

[Anonymous No.14540135]

>>14540132
>"Some A are A" is an invalid proposition

[Anonymous No.14540136]

>>14540119
You incels wish you had my good looks and superior intellect.

[Anonymous No.14540140]

>>14540136
Empirically speaking, people who sound like you are almost never attractive, but they also lie constantly, so it's safe to say you are an incel.

[Anonymous No.14540142]

>>14540125
We're still talking because I pointed out a logical contradiction in one guy's definition and, whether because of pride or ulterior motives, he's unable to let it go but neither is he able to refute me.

[Anonymous No.14540144]

>>14539350
>we are now at the point where people are trying to erase your own personal lived identity
Let me tell you something sweetheart, not only will you never be a woman, but unless you actually have medically certified gender dysphoria and a doctor can confirm your brain has the structure and chemical behaviour of a woman's brain (note that the doctors have no trouble doing this, btw), then you don't even FEEL like a woman.
What you are, is a man who feels like a man's idea of a woman. You have never felt like a woman. Ever. You don't know what being a woman actually feels like organically, so you try to resort to semantics to erase the identity of actual women, who never need to ask themselves how they might define being a woman, since they just are. You're a man who has been overexposed to sexualised images of women, and that's why you go out in ridiculous outfits, looking like a clown, making an absolute mockery of real women, who never need to even try to do what you so desperately attempt to mimic. And then when you can't, you throw your toys, and have a tantrum and declare that women don't really exist at all. Ironically, that temper tantrum is the closest you'll ever be to behaving like a real little girl.
Call me when you can give birth you vile inhuman little gremlin.

[Anonymous No.14540146]

>>14540142
>he's unable to let it go but neither is he able to refute me.
not him but all i can see is you losing the argument

[Anonymous No.14540148]

>>14540128
The definitions I posted are accurate and precise.
>>14540135
Oh look, another microcephalic incel who's incapable of reading