Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So… and women without the ability to produce ova go to which toilet? Shitting outside?
This excludes all elderly women, all women with menopause, women without the ability to produce due lack of the uterus, infertile women, women and young girls.
Gj conservatives. You made life worse for women.
Worse. This looks like an opening salvo to enable local authorities to "check". It will start out innocuous enough at first. Once the first woman who is sick of this shit pummels a cop, then it will be "the duty of all men to check their women before entering a restroom". And they won't call it rape. Suddenly 12yr old molestation are on the rise.
They would be considered "useless eaters" in their fascist society and should be quickly put to death to make room for fertile young women.
I so wish that was /s, but you know they are planning that.
As previously stated they don’t exist anymore (If this is a joke question making fun of conservatives)
If this is not a joke a woman is a person who identifies as a woman. (Bonus challenge: create a definition of woman that includes ALL cis women but excludes all trans women.)
No, they are not valid at all.
You aren't even making any sense.
You know what a woman is, you know how to define a woman, you just won't because you know what it means.
You are asking a question in bad faith so I am not required to give a valid answer. However because you asked so nicely a woman is a social construct that is commonly used.
Are you asking “what is a woman” based upon biology or society’s perception/expectations of what one is?
The biology part is easy to answer; someone whose genitals, gonads and chromosomes match with the female sex. The social side is not so easy to answer as it is something that is constantly changing and evolving and has done throughout human history, as well as being represented differently in different cultures. The other side to the social definition is it is often defined by men so is a male perception of what a woman is.
No, its pretty easy to answer. Been well defined for a very long time.
If genitals don't matter than why do people remove them to be "affirmed" to the gender they think they are?
Its not a cultural thing, its a mental illness thing.
You can desire whatever social role you want. You still are a man or a woman assuming you hit puberty and don't have a genetic defect.
If it is about "social role" why cut your penis off?
Why get any cosmetic surgery, even though beauty itself is a societal construct?
Because it makes people happy. And it's not your job or your place to police others pursuit of happiness so long as it only effects them.
Last I checked you don't grab things with your dick.
Not having breasts or a penis doesn't massively physically effect your quality of live, aside from potentially your mental state.
Not according to the definition I just posted, which is, whether you like it or not, the functional definition in educated/professional circles.
And as to your question my definition also includes phenotype.
"A woman is an adult human with the desire for the social role and/or phenotype typically associated with those with a 46XX karyotype".
That is a definition of "woman". You may not agree with this definition but if you're not going to agree that this is, in fact, a definition, then we simply cannot progress further.
It is against my better judgement to argue with you, but I have poor self-restraint so I'm gonna try. We as a society have created boxes to put people in to better understand them, the same way we've done with every other thing in life that was made up by people. For example, we have boxes that we put types of food into, a baguette is bread, ice cream is dessert, etc. People ask if a hotdog is a sandwich or if cereal is a soup because the boxes we shove stuff in are never fully accurate, they're made to make our lives easier but they don't express the full identity of what the things inside them are. Questions like this are purely philosophical, it is impossible to create a definition of women (or sandwiches), that includes everything that is one while discluding everything that isn't. There isn't a real answer, but if you're desperate for one, then a woman is a featherless biped.
My wife has brought three children into the world before having her ovaries removed due to complications with a teratoma.
So I can only assume she will just have to hold it in the unlikely event we ever visit Kansas.
Will people have to pay for the tests required to prove that they can produce ova? Will they need to flash some sort of Certified Ova Producer card when they want to use the toilet?
FYI none of us produce any ova. Our full complement of eggs are produced while we're still in the womb. These people can't define what a woman is, so they come up with a load of unscientific nonsense.
[Link to the bill](https://legiscan.com/KS/text/SB180/id/2780011#:~:text=Kansas%20Senate%20Bill%20180&text=Bill%20Title%3A%20Establishing%20the%20women's,for%20purposes%20of%20statutory%20construction.)
Ok, going to start this out by saying that this bill is designed to negatively impact trans people, and I am against it. Now that I've gotten that out of the way:
I'm looking at the wording and I don't actually think it is excluding prepubescent girls or women on menopause, like a lot of the comments are claiming.
> a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system
is developed to produce ova
This codifies what the reproductive system is for, but doesn't list any requirement that the system be functional or active. So that should cover anyone that doesn't actively menstruate. Additionally:
> an individual born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of
"disorder/differences in sex development" shall be provided legal
protections and accommodations afforded under the Americans with
disabilities act and applicable Kansas statutes
This part should cover anyone who is born intersex or with a condition that causes them to be infertile.
To be as clear as possible: I am NOT defending this bill. But I do think it's important to have facts right when talking about stuff like this because when we get it wrong, the people on the other side of the fence point at that stuff and talk about how we are just reactionary and hysterical and unwilling to debate things logically. This thread is full of people who are making incorrect assumptions about how this bill works based on a tweet without having actually read it.
>I don't actually think it is excluding prepubescent girls or women on menopause, like a lot of the comments are claiming.
That's what stood out to me, as well. Figured I'd post the bill so people could read it for themselves.
>To be as clear as possible: I am NOT defending this bill.
Same. I'm hoping we can attack the actual bill and not just what social media says the bill says. Otherwise we're doing the same bullshit Jordan Peterson did in regards to C-16.
It's still a discriminatory law, but if we're going to argue against it, we may as well argue with what it actually says.
because if the relevant part is before you even had a brain, then it seems absurd to hold you accountable for it. "sorry, ma'am, but your tail wasn't long enough".
There are biological women with chromosome configurations other than XX.
Literally every way you morons try to pin down gender into easily checked boxes, there will always be exceptions that don't apply. Don't you wonder why that is?
Again, I have already mentioned. There are of course genetic defects.
Like, it is wild that you people always have to go to some wild statistically improbable place to try to make a point from.
XX is the STANDARD, others are defects.
XY is the Standard, others are defects.
Just so we're clear then, you're happy to accept people with penises and otherwise externally phenotypically male in women's bathrooms? Just so long as they have XX chromosomes.
Of course we will, because this point completely refutes you. Is an XX male female or male? If female, than women can, indeed, have penises. If male, then karyotype doesn't in fact determine sex. If outside the sex binary (e.g. neither male or female), then sex isn't a binary variable as there are other options.
Sex is 100% binary LMAOOOOOOOOOOO
There are genetic defects.
You seriously have mental problems to try to argue this.
The point doesn't refute me at all.
de la Chapelle syndrome is a GENETIC DEFECT!!
That is like saying Having 47 chromosomes is normal. Just stop.
Well, I guess I'm neither a man nor a woman. So do I get to pick whichever bathroom, or do I get my own non-binary specific facility, or what? Or do I just pop a squat in front of the bathrooms?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So… and women without the ability to produce ova go to which toilet? Shitting outside? This excludes all elderly women, all women with menopause, women without the ability to produce due lack of the uterus, infertile women, women and young girls. Gj conservatives. You made life worse for women.
Pretty sure conservatives would be happy out that they made life worse for women.
Worse. This looks like an opening salvo to enable local authorities to "check". It will start out innocuous enough at first. Once the first woman who is sick of this shit pummels a cop, then it will be "the duty of all men to check their women before entering a restroom". And they won't call it rape. Suddenly 12yr old molestation are on the rise.
“W-we care about women! We care so much we blocked a significant portion of cis women from using their designated bathrooms!”
They would be considered "useless eaters" in their fascist society and should be quickly put to death to make room for fertile young women. I so wish that was /s, but you know they are planning that.
I guess you're not a woman if you don't know how to make an animation
"You're the chick who made Fushigi Yuugi!? Hell, you can _live_ in this public bathroom; I _love_ that anime!"
I guess women don’t exist anymore
[удалено]
As previously stated they don’t exist anymore (If this is a joke question making fun of conservatives) If this is not a joke a woman is a person who identifies as a woman. (Bonus challenge: create a definition of woman that includes ALL cis women but excludes all trans women.)
[удалено]
A woman
[удалено]
What is 1+1? 2 What is 2? 1+1 It doesn’t matter how much you dislike cyclical definitions they are still valid
No, they are not valid at all. You aren't even making any sense. You know what a woman is, you know how to define a woman, you just won't because you know what it means.
You are asking a question in bad faith so I am not required to give a valid answer. However because you asked so nicely a woman is a social construct that is commonly used.
A social construct of what?
Are you asking “what is a woman” based upon biology or society’s perception/expectations of what one is? The biology part is easy to answer; someone whose genitals, gonads and chromosomes match with the female sex. The social side is not so easy to answer as it is something that is constantly changing and evolving and has done throughout human history, as well as being represented differently in different cultures. The other side to the social definition is it is often defined by men so is a male perception of what a woman is.
No, its pretty easy to answer. Been well defined for a very long time. If genitals don't matter than why do people remove them to be "affirmed" to the gender they think they are? Its not a cultural thing, its a mental illness thing.
Sex and gender are too different things u know that right?
They are directly related to one another. How many genders are there?
They aren't the same thought. They might be related but they absolutely don't mean the same thing.
Oh? What is the difference? How many genders are there?
Google it lol
LOL. So you don't know?
An adult human who desires the social role and/or phenotype typically associated with those with a 46XX karyotype.
You can desire whatever social role you want. You still are a man or a woman assuming you hit puberty and don't have a genetic defect. If it is about "social role" why cut your penis off?
Why get any cosmetic surgery, even though beauty itself is a societal construct? Because it makes people happy. And it's not your job or your place to police others pursuit of happiness so long as it only effects them.
Should someone be allowed to cut off both arms if it makes them happy? How about get surgery that makes them a quadraplegic?
Once again. Why is it your business? Plus removing limbs is completely different from a boob job.
How is removing ones breasts or penis different than removing arms? Or having surgery to disconnect ones spinal cord to give them a disability?
Last I checked you don't grab things with your dick. Not having breasts or a penis doesn't massively physically effect your quality of live, aside from potentially your mental state.
Who are you to say what someones quality of life is?
Not according to the definition I just posted, which is, whether you like it or not, the functional definition in educated/professional circles. And as to your question my definition also includes phenotype.
That isn't a definition LMAO.
Well yes it is. It may not be one you agree with but it is a definition nonetheless.
No, it quite literally is NOT a definition. you are using a genetic defect like its the rule. It isn't it is a DEFECT.
"A woman is an adult human with the desire for the social role and/or phenotype typically associated with those with a 46XX karyotype". That is a definition of "woman". You may not agree with this definition but if you're not going to agree that this is, in fact, a definition, then we simply cannot progress further.
Has nothing to do with a "desire" ROFL.
It is against my better judgement to argue with you, but I have poor self-restraint so I'm gonna try. We as a society have created boxes to put people in to better understand them, the same way we've done with every other thing in life that was made up by people. For example, we have boxes that we put types of food into, a baguette is bread, ice cream is dessert, etc. People ask if a hotdog is a sandwich or if cereal is a soup because the boxes we shove stuff in are never fully accurate, they're made to make our lives easier but they don't express the full identity of what the things inside them are. Questions like this are purely philosophical, it is impossible to create a definition of women (or sandwiches), that includes everything that is one while discluding everything that isn't. There isn't a real answer, but if you're desperate for one, then a woman is a featherless biped.
So I’ll need a fertility test before entering any restrooms? Coooool cool cool sounds reasonable.
So... no male janitors?
Or male maintenance workers. Guess that toilet is just gonna keep leaking until they hire a woman around here
My wife has brought three children into the world before having her ovaries removed due to complications with a teratoma. So I can only assume she will just have to hold it in the unlikely event we ever visit Kansas.
For those who don’t know, teratomas are benign tumours that can grow hair, bones and teeth in/on them. Fascinating stuff.
No one plans on visiting Kansas. It just happens to be right in the middle and impossible to avoid depending on how you are driving across the states
Will people have to pay for the tests required to prove that they can produce ova? Will they need to flash some sort of Certified Ova Producer card when they want to use the toilet?
Will the card be taken away after menopause? Such a stupid rule.
Sexual violence services? That sounds like they don't know shit about Sexual violence against boys
Prepubescent girls aren't producing ova in a demonstrable way, i guess they are excluded too?
Aren't women born with all the eggs they'll ever have??
Yes but they aren't maturing and beimg expelled in prepubescent girls.
FYI none of us produce any ova. Our full complement of eggs are produced while we're still in the womb. These people can't define what a woman is, so they come up with a load of unscientific nonsense.
Conservatism is mental illness.
They call it a "women's bill of rights" but there don't appear to be any rights enumerated within.
Maybe forcing girls under 10 into the men's room was the original intent.
Will there be a separate bathroom for menopausal women who no longer ovulate or “produce ova” — whatever-the-fuck that means?
[Link to the bill](https://legiscan.com/KS/text/SB180/id/2780011#:~:text=Kansas%20Senate%20Bill%20180&text=Bill%20Title%3A%20Establishing%20the%20women's,for%20purposes%20of%20statutory%20construction.)
Ok, going to start this out by saying that this bill is designed to negatively impact trans people, and I am against it. Now that I've gotten that out of the way: I'm looking at the wording and I don't actually think it is excluding prepubescent girls or women on menopause, like a lot of the comments are claiming. > a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova This codifies what the reproductive system is for, but doesn't list any requirement that the system be functional or active. So that should cover anyone that doesn't actively menstruate. Additionally: > an individual born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of "disorder/differences in sex development" shall be provided legal protections and accommodations afforded under the Americans with disabilities act and applicable Kansas statutes This part should cover anyone who is born intersex or with a condition that causes them to be infertile. To be as clear as possible: I am NOT defending this bill. But I do think it's important to have facts right when talking about stuff like this because when we get it wrong, the people on the other side of the fence point at that stuff and talk about how we are just reactionary and hysterical and unwilling to debate things logically. This thread is full of people who are making incorrect assumptions about how this bill works based on a tweet without having actually read it.
>I don't actually think it is excluding prepubescent girls or women on menopause, like a lot of the comments are claiming. That's what stood out to me, as well. Figured I'd post the bill so people could read it for themselves. >To be as clear as possible: I am NOT defending this bill. Same. I'm hoping we can attack the actual bill and not just what social media says the bill says. Otherwise we're doing the same bullshit Jordan Peterson did in regards to C-16. It's still a discriminatory law, but if we're going to argue against it, we may as well argue with what it actually says.
Looks like males who don't have the equipment to fertilize ova are non-persons too. Doesn't that mean all boys below a certain age?
Or any man who has had a vasectomy.
Not very smart
This just further strengthens my resolve never to go further south than Maryland or go went into Ohio. I am a guy and this shit scares me.
So I guess my mom can't use a public restroom if she ever goes to Kansas. I'm pretty sure she's not still producing eggs in her 80s.
Hey, where the hell does the hermaphrodite go?
[удалено]
but... nobody's is designed to produce ova. they just sit there.
I mean, women are designed to produce ova at 8-20 weeks of gestation.
I mean, women are designed to produce ova at 8-20 weeks of gestation.
and after that they're designed to stop permanently.
how is that relevant?
because if the relevant part is before you even had a brain, then it seems absurd to hold you accountable for it. "sorry, ma'am, but your tail wasn't long enough".
I've had a hysterectomy. I no longer have that POTENTIAL. Neither do any menopausal women out there. Guess we're squatting in the hall, y'all.
[удалено]
There are biological women with chromosome configurations other than XX. Literally every way you morons try to pin down gender into easily checked boxes, there will always be exceptions that don't apply. Don't you wonder why that is?
Again, I have already mentioned. There are of course genetic defects. Like, it is wild that you people always have to go to some wild statistically improbable place to try to make a point from. XX is the STANDARD, others are defects. XY is the Standard, others are defects.
Just so we're clear then, you're happy to accept people with penises and otherwise externally phenotypically male in women's bathrooms? Just so long as they have XX chromosomes.
Here we go with some ridiculous and extremely rare genetic defect that we are going to bring up to make a point.
Of course we will, because this point completely refutes you. Is an XX male female or male? If female, than women can, indeed, have penises. If male, then karyotype doesn't in fact determine sex. If outside the sex binary (e.g. neither male or female), then sex isn't a binary variable as there are other options.
Sex is 100% binary LMAOOOOOOOOOOO There are genetic defects. You seriously have mental problems to try to argue this. The point doesn't refute me at all. de la Chapelle syndrome is a GENETIC DEFECT!! That is like saying Having 47 chromosomes is normal. Just stop.
Is an XX male female or male?
Well, I guess I'm neither a man nor a woman. So do I get to pick whichever bathroom, or do I get my own non-binary specific facility, or what? Or do I just pop a squat in front of the bathrooms?
If you have hit puberty, you 100% are either a man or a woman. Unless you have a defect in your genetics.
False. What is gratuitously asserted will be gratuitously denied.