The Problems with Trans-ideology

[85SugarVol]

Bigot!

You just made the list.

 

[hog88]

You just made the list.

Oh no, another one?

 

[LouderVol]

2 dumb Bs telling each other "exactlyyyy" lol. The question was whether ability to have children determines womanhood or lack thereof, whether or not men have children has nothing to do with that. You had weeks to figure that out yourself and still didn't

women existing that can not physically have babies for whatever reason isn't really a gotcha in the argument of "is a transwoman a woman because they claim to be a woman even though they can't have a kid." its the square vs rectangle argument. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square. All people capable of bearing a child are women, but not all women can have children.

in the general discussions of "a woman" vs "a trans woman" you are speaking in generalities, and not specifics. if there is some want/desire of equality, acceptance, or whatever treatment, they need to meet the generalities of womanhood, not the specifics of a particular woman. a "real" woman if healthy and everything working as it "should" "can" have a child. the fact that some women are not healthy enough, or have something else going on, to have children doesn't change the facts of a trans woman's (mans) inability to also have a child.

as a man that trans"woman" could also not have a child. no matter the circumstances, health or other various factors. surgery, hormones, and the like don't change that regardless, so its a moot point imo.

also always seems a bit sick/twisted to me to point to "crippled", for lack of a better word, women in the trans discussion.

 

[85SugarVol]

Oh no, another one?

Yea, that’s 3, just that I keep.

 

[NashVol11]

women existing that can not physically have babies for whatever reason isn't really a gotcha in the argument of "is a transwoman a woman because they claim to be a woman even though they can't have a kid." its the square vs rectangle argument. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are square. All people capable of bearing a child are women, but not all women can have children.

in the general discussions of "a woman" vs "a trans woman" you are speaking in generalities, and not specifics. if there is some want/desire of equality, acceptance, or whatever treatment, they need to meet the generalities of womanhood, not the specifics of a particular woman. a "real" woman if healthy and everything working as it "should" "can" have a child. the fact that some women are not healthy enough, or have something else going on, to have children doesn't change the facts of a trans woman's (mans) inability to also have a child.

as a man that trans"woman" could also not have a child. no matter the circumstances, health or other various factors. surgery, hormones, and the like don't change that regardless, so its a moot point imo.

also always seems a bit sick/twisted to me to point to "crippled", for lack of a better word, women in the trans discussion.

“Sick/twisted” to say a woman is not defined as such by her ability to give birth, not sick/twisted to reduce womanhood to offspring to exclude people you don’t like. Fun rationalization there

 

[NashVol11]

A simple yes or no would suffice but you have to squirm like a worm on hot concrete. You are simply a pawn being used by a party the despises you.

I answered it already, you just can’t comprehend what you read which we’ve established. You’re acting like it’s some gotcha when it’s irrelevant and doesn’t advance the conversation at all beyond where it was in late September, other than you wasting everyone’s time taking an entire day to comprehend this

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[LouderVol]

“Sick/twisted” to say a woman is not defined as such by her ability to give birth, not sick/twisted to reduce womanhood to offspring to exclude people you don’t like. Fun rationalization there

Not even sure what you are arguing here, because neither of those reflect what I said.

and you are falling into the same fallacy here that I pointed out in the argument. You are arguing for the general condition of a trans person being the same as the general condition of womanhood, based on specific conditions inside that womanhood. it doesn't make sense.

those are two separate issues.

its also an oversimplification, by both sides, to try and boil the "ability" of childbirth down to different single factors that support their argument, while ignoring the parts that don't.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Nobody chooses to use my preferred name, SuperCaptian Coolman.

Give me some joy!

Shut up "they"

 

[82_VOL_83]

I answered it already, you just can’t comprehend what you read which we’ve established. You’re acting like it’s some gotcha when it’s irrelevant and doesn’t advance the conversation at all beyond where it was in late September, other than you wasting everyone’s time taking an entire day to comprehend this

I pretty much think everyone got it immediately. It just took you an entire day to figure out how to dance through back quoting it 2 or 3 times before you actually kinda answered it. what a joke.

 

[NashVol11]

Not even sure what you are arguing here, because neither of those reflect what I said.

That’s what the discussion was. If you are fighting a strawman that’s on you.

and you are falling into the same fallacy here that I pointed out in the argument. You are arguing for the general condition of a trans person being the same as the general condition of womanhood, based on specific conditions inside that womanhood. it doesn't make sense.

those are two separate issues.

its also an oversimplification, by both sides, to try and boil the "ability" of childbirth down to different single factors that support their argument, while ignoring the parts that don't.

I said bearing children isn’t what defines someone as a woman or not a woman. That’s not complicated and not “a fallacy.” The idea that trans women need to give birth “if there is some want/desire of acceptance” is stupid

 

[NashVol11]

I pretty much think everyone got it immediately. It just took you an entire day to figure out how to dance through back quoting it 2 or 3 times before you actually kinda answered it. what a joke.

“Ability to fly isn’t what determines whether or not an animal is a bird; there are birds that don’t fly but are still birds”
You: “Oh yeah??? How many animals do you see flying that aren’t birds??”
*repeats 10 times*

Willing to bet you still haven’t figured out why that’s a stupid question that doesn’t address, refute, or have anything to do with the original point

 

[82_VOL_83]

“Ability to fly isn’t what determines whether or not an animal is a bird; there are birds that don’t fly but are still birds”
You: “Oh yeah??? How many animals do you see flying that aren’t birds??”
*repeats 10 times*

Willing to bet you still haven’t figured out why that’s a stupid question that doesn’t address, refute, or have anything to do with the original point

No, my question would be more like, how many elephants do you see flying since you say a bird can be an elephant by plucking it's feathers and sticking a hose on it's face.

 

[NashVol11]

No, my question would be more like, how many elephants do you see flying

Which would also be a stupid question that doesn’t address the below even a little bit. One day you’ll get there (I hope)

“Ability to fly isn’t what determines whether or not an animal is a bird; there are birds that don’t fly but are still birds”

 

[Sea Ray]

Which would also be a stupid question that doesn’t address the below even a little bit. One day you’ll get there (I hope)

Let's get specific here. What does a person have to do to change sex? Let's use Lia Thomas. What does this male have to do to where you consider this person a female?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Let's get specific here. What does a person have to do to change sex? Let's use Lia Thomas. What does this male have to do to where you consider this person a female?

Be prepared for the best non answer in the history of non answers.

 

[Sea Ray]

Be prepared for the best non answer in the history of non answers.

Kamala has me well trained on spotting that

 

[LouderVol]

That’s what the discussion was. If you are fighting a strawman that’s on you.

I said bearing children isn’t what defines someone as a woman or not a woman. That’s not complicated and not “a fallacy.” The idea that trans women need to give birth “if there is some want/desire of acceptance” is stupid

I would agree if they just wanted to be considered Transwomen.

some percentage of them don't want to be considered "just" transwomen.

they want to be considered women.

at some point their own argument is that there is still some inherent difference between being a woman and being a transwoman, or else they would be fine being a transwoman if that was actually the same thing. but it isn't, even to them. one of the bigger differences is some ability to give birth.

even in the women that can't give birth there is generally something not working, that makes them incapable of giving birth. that something being broken doesn't make them less of a woman.
in the case of transwomen there isn't something inside them that isn't working properly that makes them incapable of giving birth. there isn't anything wrong inside them to blame on not being able to give birth. it is a pretty big difference. ignoring that is literally just playing make believe.

its not the only difference between womanhood and transwomanhood. but it is one of the basic concepts that need to be addressed first.

 

[hndog609]

Kamala has me well trained on spotting that

Was Lia brought up in a middle class family?

 

[NashVol11]

its not the only difference between womanhood and transwomanhood. but it is one of the basic concepts that need to be addressed first.

That’s completely subjective. One could easily define a woman based on breasts, vaginas, periods, clothes or any number of other things. The focus on birthing children as the end-all and be-all is an example of what I described earlier as actually sick and twisted, where at some point the definition of woman becomes “wherever I need to move the goalposts to exclude those people I don’t like”

 

[PEPPERJAX]

That’s what the discussion was. If you are fighting a strawman that’s on you.

I said bearing children isn’t what defines someone as a woman or not a woman. That’s not complicated and not “a fallacy.” The idea that trans women need to give birth “if there is some want/desire of acceptance” is stupid

A trans woman is just another word for a dude Nash.

 

[LouderVol]

That’s completely subjective. One could easily define a woman based on breasts, vaginas, periods, clothes or any number of other things. The focus on birthing children as the end-all and be-all is an example of what I described earlier as actually sick and twisted, where at some point the definition of woman becomes “wherever I need to move the goalposts to exclude those people I don’t like”

breasts, vagina, periods all stem from the genetic predisposition to have children. so like I said, a pretty basic function that needs to be addressed.

lothes is just laughable to bring up, talk about minimizing womanhood, I bet you are also going to argue its based on how much time they spend in the kitchen and cleaning too.

 

[NashVol11]

breasts, vagina, periods all stem from the genetic predisposition to have children. so like I said, a pretty basic function that needs to be addressed.

lothes is just laughable to bring up, talk about minimizing womanhood, I bet you are also going to argue its based on how much time they spend in the kitchen and cleaning too.

This doesn’t change what I said even a little bit. You are trying to spin a subjective focus on childbearing into an objective requirement, which will never be the case.

If you asked me and probably many others to define womanhood even 20 years ago, I wouldn’t mention pumping out children at all, but now it’s everything because it allows people to rationalize excluding people they don’t like

 

[Sea Ray]

This doesn’t change what I said even a little bit. You are trying to spin a subjective focus on childbearing into an objective requirement, which will never be the case.

If you asked me and probably many others to define womanhood even 20 years ago, I wouldn’t mention pumping out children at all, but now it’s everything because it allows people to rationalize excluding people they don’t like

Excluding them from what? Yes, I seek to exclude Lia Thomas from women's locker rooms and participating in women's sports. Lia Thomas is not a female. If you think otherwise, I'd love to hear your rationale

 

[LouderVol]

This doesn’t change what I said even a little bit. You are trying to spin a subjective focus on childbearing into an objective requirement, which will never be the case.

If you asked me and probably many others to define womanhood even 20 years ago, I wouldn’t mention pumping out children at all, but now it’s everything because it allows people to rationalize excluding people they don’t like

it is an objective requirement.

as a species we objectively NEED to survive, its about the only objective truth we have. it is what has driven us, and our evolution. the fact that society has developed in a way to get away from the objective need aspect, doesn't actually invalidate it. and just because the subjective wants in society are different than the objective needs doesn't change the objective needs of our species.

so in order to survive our species needed to evolve to be able to determine which of our potential partners made the best mate that gave the best chance of their combined offspring to survive.

breasts, hips, vaginas, and periods have all evolved with us as a species as outward facing identifiers that this woman can probably bear healthy children. we as a species objectively needed that information. there are several periods where our ancestors got down to the several thousands numbers after various disasters. we NEEDED to know who was healthy long before health care was around to tell us. if we didn't have those identifiers, bigger breasts and hips, at those critical times in our history it is very likely we are extinct today.

it is quite literally an objective need in human history to know who we should breed with. it still is today. like if dudes just started banging no one but people incapable of bearing children, we would go extinct. that's not a subjective opinion, its a cold hard basic fact of life.

and its playing out in modern society. birth rates have PLUMMETTED in the developing world which has created huge economic and societal issues. child birth and the ability to raise those children is literally the most important thing to our species. not sure how you can call it subjective.