Trans women are women

if

class TransWomen extends Women

then

new TransWomen() instanceof Women // true

but not

Women.class.equals(TransWomen.class) // false

@glowFX That's a very good way to put it.

lol

@glowFX but what if: Composition over inheritance?

Makes more sense for this anyways.

Since TransWomen want to be treated as Women and casted back and forth, composition would only be possible if "Women" is an interface - but we all now, they are their own class... :-P

...to be precise TransWomen are composed of a Men extending the class Women. :)

I mean, not really, no. TransWoman extends Man.

Can't even say its a composition pattern because it doesn't even have the complete set or Woman methods. At most it partially implements some sort or woman interface with a lot of NotImplemented() exceptions thrown

@glowFX i disagree on the second one.

I'm not sure if true at all, but i knew someone who was female at birth, transitioned to male, and then back?

Implemeting woman and man as an interface sounds to broad tbh. Implementing traits as interfaces makes more sense, then afterwards you can classify someone as woman or man based on implemented traits. But that's where the specifics get really complicated and messy.

@glowFX No, a transwomen is a women who wants to be a men. Don't mess up the language. It has women in the word because it is a women. A women is a women even when she pretends to be a men, this is why "transwomen are women" is correct.

A men who acts like a women or wants to be a women is a transman, and it will be a men even when he cut off his thingy or pays someone else to do it or let someone other pay someone else to cut of his thingy.

No

news flash:

nobody cares.

ALL people equal shit. (especially those who get pissed about how other people feel about themselves)

@tosensei the only right answer

this whole trans thing and stuff i will never get it. to complex termings for my brain hah. anyhow no need to tell us all the time. identify as what you want idgaf.

@glowFX what if it's
TWoman implements IWoman instead? 😤

@tosensei true. People are shit anyway

@glowFX @thebiochemic @Hazarth people are not computers

Do tell me how transwomen have the power to turn XY chromosomes to XX

@joewilliams007 this should be a more popular stance than outright hatred/disgust. it's not like it matters to anyone other than that person

@happygimp0 both your transphobia and grammar are incorrect

@darksideofyay they are cumputers 🤌

@darksideofyay Yes, you are right. People are not computers. And behind each person is a story that is highly individual. Computers don't have scars.

Additional programming language is superior in defining things. And as far as I understand, trans-people mostly fight with the definitions others put on them. So maybe "computer language" can help. With my definition I wanted to declare that transwomen are women in one sense even if not identical to women.

@darksideofyay People are also not Clownfish and change their sex mid life, but here we are.

@darksideofyay English isn't my main language, i hope it doesn't bother you too much.

Ok, because i say women are women even when they pretend to be men i am transphobic? Quite an extreme position.

I mean, i don't have any problem when someone labels me as transphobic, i am thankful for that, but then it should be for the other views i have about it where such a label is justified, not about this very small point.

@happygimp0 trans woman is a person assigned male at birth who then identifies as a woman. what you're thinking about is trans men.

also, it's a bit much to say they're "pretending" if they go through life for decades as their preferred gender. it's not a costume if you can't take it off

@darksideofyay what can you expect of chimps pretending to be people?

@darksideofyay well obviously people are not computers.

And obviously we're not serious.
But just in case here a free disclaimer:
We're not serious.

@thebiochemic or are we? 🤔