The Problems with Trans-ideology

#7,051
#7,051
NashVol11 said:
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”
Click to expand...
Lol, YOU are the one focused on that. You keep trying to drive the entire conversation to that. I have asked questions around it but childbirth ability in no way is the only thing that defines a woman. The last half of your post is a demented rant and indicates you may need professional help.
 
#7,052
#7,052
82_VOL_83 said:
Lol, YOU are the one focused on that. You keep trying to drive the entire conversation to that. I have asked questions around it but childbirth ability in no way is the only thing that defines a woman. The last half of your post is a demented rant and indicates you may need professional help.
Click to expand...

All he tries to do is make simple discussions complex to push an insane agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and 82_VOL_83
#7,053
#7,053
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lot of words to say nothing. The fact that you think we need more children doesn’t make bearing children what defines womanhood, and I think you know that. Gay men and women aren’t less than if they aren’t contributing to “literally the most important thing to our species” either
 
#7,055
#7,055
82_VOL_83 said:
Lol, YOU are the one focused on that. You keep trying to drive the entire conversation to that. I have asked questions around it but childbirth ability in no way is the only thing that defines a woman. The last half of your post is a demented rant and indicates you may need professional help.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t. Grover thought he had some revolutionary idea that “no one posits” that trans women can’t bear children, and I pointed out that plenty of people have “posited” that and drawn the ire of cis women who also can’t bear children. Then you showed up 3 weeks later with a dumb and irrelevant question
 
#7,056
#7,056
Yeah, I read his post and you literally are the one that equated bearing children to womanhood. He was making an example that dudes trying to make you believe they are women can't have kids.
 
#7,057
#7,057
82_VOL_83 said:
Yeah, I read his post and you literally are the one that equated bearing children to womanhood. He was making an example that dudes trying to make you believe they are women can't have kids.
Click to expand...
The idea that “trans women can’t have kids, that settles it” is exactly what that equates, and “no one posits this” was always stupid
 
#7,058
#7,058
NashVol11 said:
Lot of words to say nothing. The fact that you think we need more children doesn’t make bearing children what defines womanhood, and I think you know that. Gay men and women aren’t less than if they aren’t contributing to “literally the most important thing to our species” either
Click to expand...
I have said this. why do you keep making up arguments for me?

LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

its also not a "less than" argument. never has been. its simply a "different" argument. something else you are completely making up. remember I am talking about generalities, you are trying to make an example out of specific women who can't have children to say that generally transwomen are women.

a transwoman is different than a woman. ONE of those differences is childbearing. its a pretty basic and objective difference as a GENERALITY.

a woman can also be different from another woman. one of those differences could be childbearing. its a pretty basic and objective differences as a SPECIFIC instance.

a woman can also be the same as another woman. one of those similarities could be childbearing. its a pretty basic and objective difference as a SPECIFIC instance.

its not the ONLY difference, but its a pretty big general one, that until addressed its not worth getting into the specifics. this is how discussions go, you start at the broader levels of generality, and then progress. if you can't get past the generalities there is no point in discussing the specifics. you want to ignore the generalities.

trying to hide behind tl;dr proves how unserious you are. try actually addressing the points, or breaking down 'a lot of words' to show how I said nothing if you want to actually make that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and MemphisVol77
#7,059
#7,059
NashVol11 said:
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
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand what you're saying. The ability to carry and birth a child is uniquely female. If it’s not mentioned when describing women in general then the respondents are idiots. The requirement to do so in order to be considered a woman is a whole different discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, just bob, MemphisVol77 and 3 others
#7,061
#7,061
utvolpj said:
Not sure I understand what you're saying. The ability to carry and birth a child is uniquely female. If it’s not mentioned when describing women in general then the respondents are idiots. The requirement to do so in order to be considered a woman is a whole different discussion
Click to expand...

they've lost me in this too, the only humans capable of conceiving, birthing a child is a female.

You can be a woman and transition but you're still biologically a female, the doctor's delivering said child will treat you as a woman not a male with a fetus.

I'm starting to wonder who has the biggest mental disorder, the trans ppl or the ppl who buy into men can have and carry babies..... what the actual ****
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321, 82_VOL_83, CobbVol and 1 other person
#7,062
#7,062
utvolpj said:
Not sure I understand what you're saying. The ability to carry and birth a child is uniquely female. If it’s not mentioned when describing women in general then the respondents are idiots. The requirement to do so in order to be considered a woman is a whole different discussion
Click to expand...

That’s the entire problem with this entire ideology. Because categorizing anything is difficult, they believe we should throw out all requirements for the category. And simply state a woman is someone who says they’re a woman
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Behr, LSU-SIU and 3 others
#7,064
#7,064
utvolpj said:
Not sure I understand what you're saying. The ability to carry and birth a child is uniquely female. If it’s not mentioned when describing women in general then the respondents are idiots. The requirement to do so in order to be considered a woman is a whole different discussion
Click to expand...
The “whole different discussion” is the one we’ve been having, with me pointing out that that requirement excludes plenty of cis women and people trying to argue (subjectively, but pretending it’s objective) that that requirement is essential
 
#7,066
#7,066
NashVol11 said:
The “whole different discussion” is the one we’ve been having, with me pointing out that that requirement excludes plenty of cis women and people trying to argue (subjectively, but pretending it’s objective) that that requirement is essential
Click to expand...
Objectively, the reasons you can't carry a child should not include having a penis and testicles. I think that's essential to the discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#7,070
#7,070
NashVol11 said:
Your opinion on the most important criteria for womanhood is 100% subjective. Plenty of trans women don’t have “a penis and testicles” either, so you’ll need new subjective goalposts for them. Plenty of scientists make a boat load of money disagreeing with you too
Click to expand...
Fixed your post
 
#7,072
#7,072
NashVol11 said:
Yeah sure, all part of some shadowy agenda driven by George Soros or whoever the newest boogeyman is
Click to expand...
Nah, there’s always somebody willing to pay for science (physical or psychological) because it’ll make them money, avocado growers, cereal manufactures, egg growers, textbook printers, even televangelist
 
#7,074
#7,074
utvolpj said:
Not sure I understand what you're saying. The ability to carry and birth a child is uniquely female. If it’s not mentioned when describing women in general then the respondents are idiots. The requirement to do so in order to be considered a woman is a whole different discussion
Click to expand...
The absence of a Y chromosome ends the entire argument.
 
#7,075
#7,075
NashVol11 said:
The “whole different discussion” is the one we’ve been having, with me pointing out that that requirement excludes plenty of cis women and people trying to argue (subjectively, but pretending it’s objective) that that requirement is essential
Click to expand...
It's essential but not required. The absence of a Y chromosome is required.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top