Yes, some men - which is to say some transmen - can have babies.
Great. Wonderful. It's not the historic definition of "men", but whatever. "Men" is just a word. We can change definitions. Very well.
But....here's where that runs into some difficulty, with the "clarification" part.
As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition.
Ok. Being transgender is a valid, lived, condition. I'm going to switch my gender example, just because it will be easier to describe what I'm thinking.
A person with functioning penis and testicles can identify as a woman. That's a valid, lived, condition. Ok. So far, so good. However, what if that person identifies as someone who can have a baby? Well that certainly isn't a valid, lived, condition. And, jumping in before someone says something stupid, it isn't specifically about fertility. It's about being the sex and sharing all or most of the anatomy that would make having babies possible. I think in this thread, we can still say "female". If you have functioning penis and testicles, you can have an identity as a woman and that is a valid, lived, condition, but an identity as a female would not be a valid, lived condition.
We're all on the same page, aren't we? There's nothing controversial above, is there?
The author of the rejoinder essay posted earlier recognized the problem of doing that. If we stop using the word "woman" to mean "female", there will still be people who insist on treating females different than males, instead of treating men differently than women. People will still insist that biological sex matters, and so the woman who wrote the essay declares that they will fight back against any attempt to have any word that would imply that there is some significant shared traits among cisgender women and transgender men, that is different than the shared traits among cisgender men and transgender women.
Unfortunately for her wishes, that division along biological sex is still significant, and try as she might, she won't be able to convince people to ignore that division. Not only will they not ignore that division, they will insist on naming it.
And therefore, for example, transmen are men. Transmen are not females pretending to be men. Transmen are not delusional or defective females whose mental illness makes them think they're men.
Fine. Although, there's some more definition that we can discuss, but nothing we haven't been through before. I don't object to the above.
And in the present day, anyone who wishes to debate or deny this point is by no means necessarily "an idiot, a bigot, or both" (nice strawman though). However, people holding that point of view are likely to be ignorant and misinformed.
Hmmm....they aren't idiots, but they are ignorant and misinformed. And saying "idiot" is a strawman.
Oh, wait. You didn't say that they are ignorant and misinformed. You said that they are
likely to be ignorant and misinformed. So it is possible that the people who say that might possibly not be ignorant and misinformed. I'm glad that's cleared up. (Emphasis modified from original.)
ETA: And importantly, it's hard to see which point "that point of view" was meant to refer to. Was it the point of view that transmen are females pretending to be men, or the point of view that men can't have babies? Or that transmen aren't men? There was some sort of shift there.
Science and progressive governments/legislatures are - fortunately - capable of a better and deeper understanding.
I'm not sure "science" has weighed in on the subject completely. I think science agrees partially with your points, and you want to carry the general agreement beyond what science actually says. For example, what does science say about where Lia Thomas should swim, where Terry Miller should run, or which section of the spa Darren Merager ought to use? What does science say about who gets to go into the girls' bathroom? Does science have anything to say about whether it would be appropriate to hang a new sign that says "females", and only allow females into that space?
Ain't it strange how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe - sincerely believe - that black people were by definition inferior. And how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe that gay people were either deluded or mentally ill. By 2040, those of us still kicking around will note how strange it was that large swathes of the general public used to hold views like "transwomen are men in skirts" or "transmen are just females pretending to be men".
*yawn*. See previous responses.
