Since moderator closed this thread we have to continue the off-topic here.
What defines a woman? Can anybody be a woman?
Does the appearance of female characteristics define a woman?
Is a monk who is allowed the same preceptor, same rains-retreat, same ordination as a bhikkhuni called a bhikkhuni?
At one time the characteristics of a woman appeared on a monk. They told the Master. He said: “Monks, I allow that very discipleship, that very ordination, those years as a monk, to be transferred to the nuns. The monks’ offenses that are in common with the nuns are to be dealt with in the presence of the nuns. For the monks’ offenses that are not in common with the nuns, there’s no offense.”
1531V_153At one time the characteristics of a man appeared on a nun. They told the Master. He said: “Monks, I allow that very discipleship, that very ordination, those years as a nun, to be transferred to the monks. The nuns’ offenses that are in common with the monks are to be dealt with in the presence of the monks. For the nuns’ offenses that are not in common with the monks, there’s no offense.”
Formally a woman is an adult female human being.
A transitioned woman is exactly that a “transitioned woman”
There is no such thing as a “cis woman” formally, that would be slang or common tongue.
User13866 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 8:27 pm
Since moderator closed this thread we have to continue the off-topic here.
What defines a woman? Can anybody be a woman?
Does the appearance of female characteristics define a woman?
Is a monk who is allowed the same preceptor, same rains-retreat, same ordination as a bhikkhuni called a bhikkhuni?
At one time the characteristics of a woman appeared on a monk. They told the Master. He said: “Monks, I allow that very discipleship, that very ordination, those years as a monk, to be transferred to the nuns. The monks’ offenses that are in common with the nuns are to be dealt with in the presence of the nuns. For the monks’ offenses that are not in common with the nuns, there’s no offense.”
1531V_153At one time the characteristics of a man appeared on a nun. They told the Master. He said: “Monks, I allow that very discipleship, that very ordination, those years as a nun, to be transferred to the monks. The nuns’ offenses that are in common with the monks are to be dealt with in the presence of the monks. For the nuns’ offenses that are not in common with the monks, there’s no offense.”
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
...
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
...
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
AN 7.48
It isn't a difficult question. You know a woman if you see her. Most of the time. It seems like it is happening more often that I can't tell for sure, but it is more annoying than anything else. I know there are a lot more men trying to become women. I just want to know who has to pay for the drugs and surgeries. If they feel they should be castrated, especially before puberty, then maybe they shouldn't have viable reproductive systems. A supreme court candidate was in trouble recently when she refused to answer this question. You'd expect that a woman would be able to say what it is like to be a woman, having inside knowledge, but she didn't want to say anything that could exclude trannies like Lia Thomas. When I was growing up, you could say whatever you wanted even if it offended people. Now you can't even think it, even if it is true, just because someone wants things to be different. Sure, you might take a punch to the face, but that is better than being unemployable decades later.
SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 5:35 am
It's not a definition but maybe relevant for one:
The Blessed One said: "A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she attends outwardly to masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voices, masculine charms. She is excited by that, delighted by that. Being excited & delighted by that, she wants to be bonded to what is outside her, wants whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Delighting, caught up in her femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
...
"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties... feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not attend outwardly to masculine faculties... masculine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that... does not want to be bonded to what is outside her, does not want whatever pleasure & happiness that arise based on that bond. Not delighting, not caught up in her femininity, a woman does not go into bondage with reference to men. This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
...
"This is how there is lack of bondage. And this is the Dhamma discourse on bondage & lack of bondage."
AN 7.48
A more interesting and appropriate question is this: one in every 1000 people born are born with both sex organs. In the United States alone that is 350,000 people who had both sets of sex organs at birth. Often the doctor makes the decision via castration.
How would you define those 350,000 americans? And secondly, don't they have the right to choose the sex they feel is right rather than an anonymous doctor?
A womb obviously. If you had a womb once at any point of time in the past, you're a woman.
money is worthless toilet paper • the tongue has no bone (a person might say one thing but it cannot be further from the truth) • you cannot teach a goat math as in you cannot teach the dhamma to a dumb person
Eharp wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:57 am
one in every 1000 people born are born with both sex organs.
one in 83,000 births
From Wikipedia
There is evidence from therigatha that a woman called Isidasi (a bikkhuni during buddastime) was born a woman for violating sexual misbehavior long ago many lifespans before ) Volating third precept is a reason to be born a woman.
Even Buddagosa has shown that kamma decides womanhood by term itthi bhava. Isidasi is mentioned to have been gone to avici naraka for her misconduct and later received births as females in aanimal world.
Cula kamma vibanga sutta too is clear to explain that kamma is a reason to decide on gender.
The common aspect of commonness in kusala is brahmacari (metta , mudita , karuna, upekka) for gender for male or female.
Eharp wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:57 amA more interesting and appropriate question is this: one in every 1000 people born are born with both sex organs. In the United States alone that is 350,000 people who had both sets of sex organs at birth. Often the doctor makes the decision via castration.
How would you define those 350,000 americans? And secondly, don't they have the right to choose the sex they feel is right rather than an anonymous doctor?
How many people are deformed or cripples in the US alone? How many are blind or deaf? Or paralyzed since birth or missing a limb or more? I'm not talking about war victims or car accidents. I bet their reproductive organs aren't developed or function like with normal people. Can't you determine someone's sex through genetic tests?
money is worthless toilet paper • the tongue has no bone (a person might say one thing but it cannot be further from the truth) • you cannot teach a goat math as in you cannot teach the dhamma to a dumb person
Eharp wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:57 amA more interesting and appropriate question is this: one in every 1000 people born are born with both sex organs. In the United States alone that is 350,000 people who had both sets of sex organs at birth. Often the doctor makes the decision via castration.
How would you define those 350,000 americans? And secondly, don't they have the right to choose the sex they feel is right rather than an anonymous doctor?
How many people are deformed or cripples in the US alone? How many are blind or deaf? Or paralyzed since birth or missing a limb or more? I'm not talking about war victims or car accidents. I bet their reproductive organs aren't developed or function like with normal people. Can't you determine someone's sex through genetic tests?
Can you address the question: how do you classify people who have ambiguous or both genitals. People have focused on defining a woman. How about defining a man. How about defining those who have ambiguous genitals?
And why are so many so called Buddhists obsessed with right wing propaganda?
