Intention of holding eggs

In this economy?
There's gotta be at least six figures worth of eggs in this photo
- 4 x 3 containing 30 eggs = 360 x 6 layers per pallet = 2160 x 4 pallets = 8640 / 12 per dz = 720 dozen eggs x $5 a dz = $3600. Considering these are brown eggs, they may be selling as free range organic bullshit for like $10 / dz so maybe $7200.
  
  Nothing makes a joke funnier than using math to poke holes in it lol
  
  So it's six figures if you include the places after the decimal then ;-)

Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn't work... but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?

A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn't have to be any more complex than that.
Like Jiminy Cricket said, "Let your conscience be your guide"
- That's what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It's rare, but it does happen, and I'm not going to argue with them about it.
  If you say you're a woman, then you're a woman, and it shouldn't be any more complex than that.
  
  Unless you're underage, in which case you're a girl. Women must be sapient adults.

I'm having trouble finding anyone born with intention. Neither biology nor evolution have plans or intentions. We are fundamentally lipid based sacks of water.
- Just being the devil's advocate here, but do instincts count as intentions? They're powerful and we're born with a lot of them. Like, we're all born to not starve, but also some birds are compelled to pick up large stones and roost them as eggs indefinitely, and others to perform migrations. "Born to survive and reproduce" is biology's motto but I think it goes beyond that to "born to do as others do". And if we extend that to gender roles, I can see how with the inherent variation in biology some people will be born to perform an alternative gender role just like I'm compelled to pursue the same gender.
- They're arguing from a religious perspective that understands God as providing intentionality
  
  Which is a self-defeating argument, because if it were true, then women who don't have eggs are functioning exactly as "intended," and don't fit this definition of "woman"

They said "without excluding" not "without including"
- Oh, believe me, they don't want this egg selling man to be called a woman.
  
  I know, but that's on them. They should've been more specific.

Ah, I can see Diogenes has made an impact on people.

My understanding was that current consensus was that humans with ovaries are born with all of the eggs already created - waiting to be released - and no more are created after that. So you're either born holding eggs or you ain't, and intention and capability don't come into it.
- But that still doesn't define "woman" though
  
  It also excludes women with certain kinds of infertility.
  The social/political definition of women should just be believe what people say they are because otherwise you're creating a genital/dna inspector.
  As for the biological definitions, we should teach more people biology. There are like 6 definitions of species so biology has trouble answering "what is a human"

A woman is when a guy crosses the line. You say "Wo! Man!"

I find the phrase “Born with the intention” in itself worthy of head-scratching.
- I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn't have the ability to "hold eggs" (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that's to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).
  
  Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway
  
  Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.
  Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.
  I suppose it's wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that's the misogynists' fault.
  For the religious: "Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn't match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn't make mistakes, it's us He's testing."
  
  You're right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.
- Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n' Roll.
  
  I was born with the intention to be wild, but I got busy and haven't had the time.
  
  AND I'M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM

Diogenes would be proud here
- My first thought too.
  To anyone unaware, plato defined man as "a featherless biped" so Diogenes brought a plucked chicken
  
  You can't spell genius without Diogenes
  
  I wonder how Plato would have defined man if he knew kangaroos existed.
  
  Why does it always come back to chickens?

There's hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you'll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.
Hormonal woman with XY ("male") chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity
Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)
Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html

That man is moments away from financial disaster
- That man is 100% in Germany. He's fine.
- I once dropped 6 eggs while working and cried

One internet search later:
https://patient.info/forums/discuss/born-without-ovaries-634173
There are cis women born without ovaries.
Thus Lea the bigot is disproven.
- Bigots will just say they're not true women. That goalpost has legs.
  
  But what's between the goalposts legs? If it's got legs then it's somehow my business what's going on between them.
- I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).

From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it's really not that hard.
Many people apparently just don't like the answer.
- Actually more complicated than that. Sex is broken up into a bunch of factors. Phenotype is the word used to mean the grouping of characteristics we associate with either male or female. So that roughly covers genitals, secondary characteristics (boobs, body hair, build differences etc)... But it's actually wild.
  Chromasomal sex - On it's own means very little. If you have say an XY chromasome but for the sake of example an androgen insensitivity you develop as (phenotypically) female in the womb.
  Horomonal Sex - Is the mix of horomones that impact development. Whether you develop to appear male or female starts in the early stages of development in rhe womb and then kicks into high gear as puberty and can change unexpectedly. This means for example that there's people who were born appearing entirely female and yet naturally develop along male lines later and vice versa.
  Internal reproductive Anatomy - This one gets crazy where individuals don't always have internal organs that match their chromosomes. You can have opposite, none, both.
  The precursor of trans medicine involved a lot of case studies seeing how naturally occuring variation in biological sex worked and the more it was studied the more scientists began to panic because they realized that the model of sorting into two strict sexes was flawed. There's a lot of people out there who live practically their entire lives only to realize at the doctor's office that they have surprise characteristics quietly existing hidden just below the skin. This lead to scientists realizing that for the most part the idea of phenotype and indeed a strict definition for biological sex is actually pretty wishy-washy.
  The reason you weren't taught this in high school is more or less that they just don't prioritize it because they have to coach a group of students, many of whom are not scholarly material, through an overview of stuff. High school biology is basically all technically wrong because it's been simplified to give you a taste of the discipline. If you start going to med school the first thing they do is tell you to light everything you think you know about the body on fire, throw it in the trash and start from scratch because half the stuff you were taught is going to need be unlearned. "Chromosome = sex" is one of the things that goes in the burn bin.
- Ther is literally no definition you give that will not exclude any cis women at all.
  
  I don't even think they have a definition. The closest they've gotten to one in this thread was "males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children," but then later in that same comment they said that there are exceptions. It's an even worse definition than the adult human female thing, because that at least tries to make a box that every woman fits in
- Why do I get the feeling the "answer" you're talking about is just chromosomes
- This is such an insane statement. In biology almost any kind of sexual behavior has been observed including male species who carry the young in their body (sea horses), species that are both male and female, species that change gender during a lifetime, species without gender etc etc. Literally anything goes in the biological world.
  
  Literally anything goes in the biological world.
  While true, there are some established standards. And amongst mammals, the standard is always that males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the "safer" jobs, like childcare of gathering.
  Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut. The only reason why we argue about this is because we have evolved to a point where we're no longer that reliant on biology - that does not change the fundamentals tho.
- That's female, not woman, but it was a nice try
  
  I know you probably don't want to hear this, but from a biological standpoint, it's the same thing. Different female animals have their "own" names aswell, like Ewe (female sheep), Sow (female Pigs), Hen (female Chicken), Doe (female goat), Mare (female horse) etc. Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones "Woman".

It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it's meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can't.
Challenge for anyone, define "to eat". Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn't everything.
- It shouldn't be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
  There's a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about "why we must defend icky speech".
  Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
  These issues aren't just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
  Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can't accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn't want targeted.
  Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool's errand
  
  What shouldn't be confusing?
  In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.
  The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren't women, and that's why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it's confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you're not.
  
  Honestly, I don't know what you are trying to tell me. I am not trying to be rude, I just don't understand. But I have a point that I understood and disagree with.
  Defining words isn't the "challenge" of lawmakers. Most words used in most legal systems are undefined within it and the rest are defined by words which aren't defined. E.g. the American legal system is built on that acknowledgement. That is why they work with case law. (Also I wasn't talking about defining words in a legal setting. So not sure why we talk about it like this)
- That's because historically what we call drinking has less to do with the contents and more to do with the container
  
  I am not disagreeing with you (while I am not convinced by your claim) but can you imagine how the "what is a woman?" Crowd would lose their marbles when you would say "whether it is eating or drinking, depends on the container and we 100% artificially decided what container is for eating or drinking" they would 100% claim that you don't know what it means to eat.
  
  When I was a kid and got hungry before dinner was ready, my solution was to pour a bowl of water to eat it with a spoon. I don't know why I put some things on the internet.

Do republicans think we're gineapigs? Born completely formed with no developmental years?

Is this the kind of picture millionaires take these days?
- Or anyone from, you know, the rest of the world.

There’s a deep insecurity in recognizing that there aren’t “objective right answers” to a lot of things. Language is not a law, it’s a negotiated thing. Being a trans man doesn’t sunder me completely from the existence of living as a girl, and there are contexts in which my “assigned” sec does matter. The fact that abortion is utterly illegal in my state is just as harmful and terrifying to me as it is to the cis women I know.
These are people who desperately want to feel in control of the world, and the idea that they would not be able to put a person into a category based on their immediate evaluation of their sex makes them feel a loss of control. It’s attacking something of their ways of knowing, it’s an epistemological challenge that sends them reeling.
With lesbians - it’s the gold star lesbian types. They find joy in their identities as lesbians, which is great, but they treat penis in vagina sex as a contagion. It almost “horseshoe theory”‘s back into sounding like conservative Christians. They squint at some actually good critiques of porn and the way that human sexuality is marketed, and turn into a Holy War against the Y chromosome. This is not common - but it’s a very marked type of pathology. The TERFs are the type to actually be manhaters - to post things like “it’s a girl or it’s an abortion.”
- Is that really common among terfs?
  I’ve seen some truly toxic female tictokers where every second video is about how men are the worst and we don’t need them for anything and I was wondering how someone gets to that point.
  
  Often by an instance or history of abuse and lacking the tools to cope in a healthy manner, so they protect themselves in hate.

- "A trans person is only valid if they live in a region where they can get gender affirming care, and also can afford it" is honestly one of the worse takes I've seen
  
  Where is that quote from?
- that seems to be the most popular think are the sex organs.
  That doesn't really work, though, since chicks with dicks are a thing.
  
  Well not by their definition

"capability of holding eggs" covers the vast majority of humankind. Hands are useful like that.
- Welcome to the joke.
- Limes, on the other hand...
  
  Why can't I,
  
  You put the lime in the coconut

Trying to categorize people into strict definitions for the purpose of determining their responsibilities without considering feedback from the people themselves about how they want to categorize themselves violates Kant's categorical imperative, also known as Granny Weatherwax's definition of sin as “when you treat people as things”:

Worthy of Diogenes
- Diogenes was the fucking man.

It's funny, but it's not really a rebuttal, since the claim is that it doesn't exclude any cis women. A better rebuttal would be antinatalist women who are also born with defective ovaries. (I'm sure there'd be at least one person like that.)
- at least one person
  I recently learned that 1 in 5000 women are born entirely without a uterus.

https://youtu.be/koud7hgGyQ8
- Great share, thank you

The concept is worthless because its hard to define