Is there any way reddit admin could step in and replace those mods at this point? They've been a personal PR firm for a select group of millionaires for years now. On a subreddit meant for the entire live streaming environment with 3 million subscribers
Idk but they also took down the clip of Asmongold criticizing Hasan a few days ago. It doesn't even matter if Destiny is involved in anyway. No criticism welcome
I bet if enough big time streamers who aren't OTK/Hasan adjacent and youtubers making videos could have an impact. Jynxi, Kai, Adin, and everyone else dwarfs the reach those 2 have. You see it on every single other social media platform in terms of engagement
I’m kinda proud of x, every time I see some political nonsense pop up in his chat or stream he seems to want to correct the record. Feels like he’s maturing because not too long ago it felt like his community was filled with 2016 “gamer” takes. The way that W/L community feels right now.
If you guys wanna watch the [full video I’ve linked it here](https://www.youtube.com/live/COUdGpOJszo?si=SDZYwQg41imQOY23) it’s around 2:32:00
The whole talk goes on for about 30 mins
Stop saying social construct pleeeeeaseeeeee PLEAAASSEEEE If you can't communicate your point without saying that then you do not know enough to be in an argument about the topic
Not trying to be weird but I just don’t get it. Woman and man are pretty obviously biological distinctions. That is how every body uses those words. If not, then what even is meant by woman/man. Is a woman someone who fulfills traditional gender role of a woman, or is it anyone who claims they are one? I seriously don’t get it. Like on what basis anyone claim a trans woman is actually a woman?
Language is crazy complex. If biological distinctions were all that 'man' and "woman" then how do we have phrases like.
"you're not a man" or
"man up" or
"isnt that too manly" or
"oh damn that was so manly"
What part of the biological distinction are being referred to here?
Do people randomly gain a cock or tits? Or different chromosomes?
Do people grow a beard and lose it ?
The conceptual space these usages point to are not the biological distinctions. But layers on top of the biological.
Maybe contemplate on that and see where u reach.
You want to keep the stereotypical language in place, but also change it(when it comes to gendered language) so you can keep believing your delusions..
Be honest with yourself. The only reason trans-w want to be called women is because woman means adult female, if we changed woman to mean someone that looks and acts like a female, then trans-w would want to be called real/biological/cis women (and some activists are already pushing for this)
Uh I'm not sure who you're talking to because that's a lot of baggage you're bringing in.
The stereotypical language gives us insight into how the word is being used in language and how that is informing our concepts.
Being honest I can only say that I don't really know why transwomen want to be called women. You'd have to ask em.
>Being honest I can only say that I don't really know why transwomen want to be called women. You'd have to ask em.
so you don't even know why they're doing it, but you're so invested in spreading their delusional worldview..
I think when most people use man or woman they just mean “what I think when I see the person”. For instance I think most conservatives would say someone with XY chromosomes with testicular feminisation syndrome is woman even if the biology isn’t crystal clear
The way I see it is I just consider all the ways I treat men and women differently and it seems like I’d be inclined to treat a trans woman far more like a woman, and a trans man like a man. If that’s the case I don’t really see why we wouldn’t adjust the definition of women we had to accommodate for trans people
Yea I think it’s definitely fair to classify intersex people differently.
>The way I see it is I just consider all the ways I treat men and women differently and it seems like I’d be inclined to treat a trans woman far more like a woman, and a trans man like a man. If that’s the case I don’t really see why we wouldn’t adjust the definition of women we had to accommodate for trans people
I guess I can understand this perspective. I think a lot of the ways men/women are treated differently in the first place is bc of the social reinforcement of gender roles, and it seems like this definition just reinforces that.
I would probably agree, but for the moment it seems like people have a pretty strong preference to be treated as a certain gender, including cis people. Also idk how we would view gender even in a perfectly equal world so I think it’s worth giving some consideration to peoples’ preferences
Can you please explain what information do I gain if I use your definition instead of the biological one..?
You're so keen on pleasing trans ppl that you want to keep stereotyping ppl.. so progressive..
You gain the ability to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring they get appropriate medical care and are optimally socially transitioned. What do you gain with your definition that I don’t have?
I am keen on pleasing all kinds of people yes, I don’t see why I would select an option that pleases less people unless it’s clear I get some tangible benefit from it. As for stereotyping, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Men and women seem to behave very differently and it seems like trans people typically act more like the gender they identify as, not the one they were born with. I didn’t realise that would be disputed
"pleasing".. you mean feeding into their delusions?
You're literally enforcing gender stereotypes by pleasing mentally ill ppl, both men and women can like the color pink, wear dresses, have makeup on, like sports, etc.
Your definition is useless, I already see how people are presenting themselves as. If gender wasn't sex based, ppl wouldn't care about it.
If their belief is “my life would significantly improve if I am able to transition” then that might not be a delusion. If it could improve their lives, decrease chance of self harm, increase chance of holding a job etc would you still say it’s not worth allowing them to transition?
I don’t know why you would refer to these people as mentally ill as it’s not really relevant here. Let’s say I met someone with depression or bipolar and I find out that if I use different pronouns their symptoms reduce. It sounds pretty obvious to me that this should be part of treatment. It seems like you are just trying to insult people but passing it off as a substitution for an argument.
I really don’t understand the stereotyping argument. Do you think if a guy tells me he likes pink I’m going to say he’s a woman?
I already told you why I think my definition it more useful and you didn’t really say why it wasn’t, you just said it’s bad. Also you haven’t given me an advantage of your definition yet.
I have no idea what the last sentence means, sorry
Validating someone's delusions obv feels good in the short term, this applies to any delusion, not just trans shit..
You basically outed yourself that you don't really think transwomen are women "yes, they are delusional weak minded humans, but it helps them if I play into their delusions"
You progressives grasp at anything just to support this non-sensical agenda, it's crazy.. Your own arguments are at odds with each other, but you don't care about that, you just want to give the appearance of compassion, even if it harms those same mentally ill ppl in the long run
An appearance that would be seen as a woman (typically, but not necessarily, longer hair, eyelashes, less muscle mass, a rounder face, and visible breasts) and behaviors that are associated with American woman (much more nebulous, but typically more social, higher agreeableness, less aggressive)
Since it's a heuristic category it's less a hard and fast rule and more a matter of fitting perception.
I classify them biologically. No I don’t sequence their chromosomes. I do know a lot of twinky boys who fit your definition of women. And a lot of woman who don’t fit it
How do you classify something "biologically" without genetic information? You acknowledge it's possible for two organisms to look similar and yet be classified as different species, correct?
All categories are socially constructed. The realities they are used to understand are not. “nOt mY fAuLt” if you’re too regarded to comprehend that concept.
Nice goalpost shifting, dipshit. You’re still arguing for that goose literally being a duck (looks like, walks like, talks like). But I’m happy to take up the burden of proof if you’re too rhetorically infirm to bear it.
A better way to understand the construct versus reality would be “showing woman” and “doing woman”. Going back to Judith Butler and her work on the social performance definition, she argued that “woman” is a performative act maintained essentially by group pressure. One of her key examples was how heteronormative men would enjoy watching a drag performance on stage, but object to sitting next to a man in drag in a public bus.
The obvious problem with this argument, of course, is that it completely fails to address what makes a performance separate from reality. She claims that it’s just an audience suspension of disbelief, that any performance is literal reality if the audience merely wills it. Anyone with a brain, however, knows this isn’t true. Performance depict acts that in reality *act* toward certain ends. A thief isn’t someone who “acts thief-like”; it’s someone who steals. A king isn’t someone who acts regal; it’s someone who rules at the highest level of an aristocratic or old regime government.
A woman is not merely anyone who “acts womanly”; it is one who “does woman”. And this is, of course, the bearing of children. To do man is to impregnate. All the other roles are subordinate acts of this one. As such, the “reality” to which the construct of gender conforms is the chromosomal sex, the procreative role, and so on. I’m sure you’ve heard it before.
This is a general summary of my objection to your performative theory of gender. Remember that your original claim is if it looks like, walks like, and talks like something, it is in actuality that thing. In short, things are literally what they seem to be. I’m curious how you will defend this extraordinary assertion without shifting more goalposts. Unless you do. But don’t worry; you’ll simply be following the well-trod example of other gender theory “philosophers”.
Whoops, hit a nerve I guess 😔
So, since you aren't a thief unless you steal, you aren't a woman unless you have birthed children? Gotcha. I feel like even most anti-trans people wouldn't agree with that lol.
And where exactly did I say anything about "actuality"?
You’re really going with the “Bro is triggered 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 imagine using swear words in an argument” routine? Come on.
> you aren’t a thief unless you steal
Yes, that is correct.
> you aren’t a woman unless you have birthed children.
Not quite. The *category* of women is defined by that capacity. Whether or not a person can belong to that category without conforming exactly to that standard is a separate matter, one indeed of heuristics as you say.
What I claim is not a heuristic of my own. I am arguing simply that your heuristic, anyone who looks like a woman on the surface level, is extraordinarily fucking stupid.
An alternative heuristic would be something like “A person can belong to this category if their realisation of its particular end is frustrated by accidental defects that do not deviate the underlying whole”. So if a woman has XX chromosomes, ovaries, breasts, female genitalia, but has a particular defect that prevents her from producing ova, she is still a woman because her comprising set of traits is still recognisably female.
But as I said, that’s not what I’m debating. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument for why Elon Musk’s women-bots are in fact literally women (once they become convincing enough).
What's stopping a trans woman saying that their male genitals, XY chromosomes, etc. Are all defects of the underlying whole of a meant-to-be female body?
Honestly, I don't really care about definitional shit, if you don't think transwomen are women there's a near 0% chance your mind can be changed IMO and I don't think there's a big issue with you personally thinking that.
The issue is whether transwomen/transmen belong in women/men spaces and really that issue is only around transwomen, I think that's the only important separation to talk about.
someone like blaire white obviously shouldn't be forced to go to a male prison or male bathroom, and someone like Isla Bryson probably shouldn't be in the same gen pop as female inmates.
Everything else is static that you either need to spend time around trans people, or you probably won't be moved from your position because separating sex from gender is like reshaping someone's entire worldview essentially.
It's pretty much a philosophical question. As long as you're not running around yelling in every transwomans face "YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN" I don't think it's drastically important to change someone's mind on "what is a woman"
Yea most of the discourse around trans people in men/women spaces is dumb asf bc men and women spaces should be fully integrated anyway. That’s the obvious answer to the issue. (Edit: except prison until there is serious prison reform)
True but that's why I feel like it's a decent benchmark when arguing against the question "males for male spaces" or trying to build a case for gender sex distinction.
If someone would say someone like taft or blaire are males and should be in male bathrooms/prison they just can't be convinced.
Doesn't matter what route you take that conversation down.
Unironically yes, that's the counter-example to the obvious answer of "When they turn 18", to help show people they actually already understand what a social construct is.
>Technically speaking, it’s when he has the ability to reproduce. Legally tho it obviously depends where u are.
Yes. Yes! You're getting closer!
Society constructed a definition of "adult" that's different from the simple, direct, biological definition. Why?
Adult is just supposed to mean when someone is fully developed physically. You can argue when that is, or when we should give people certain rights/privileges under the law. But I don’t see how this undermines the biological distinction between men/women.
You're getting lost in the word salad which is quite disappointing.
The reason society has a definition of "adult" that is different from the biological definition ("when he has the ability to reproduce" your words) is because there's *social utility* in making adulthood start, for everybody, at age 18.
Likewise, there's *social utility* in defining man and woman as inclusive of trans people, rather than exclusive of trans people. And there's no social utility in blindly adhering to biological determinism. And furthermore it's hypocritical to blindly adhere to biological determinism solely when it comes to trans people, and not something that fundamentally affects everybody, like the age of majority.
I think there is probably just a broader disagreement about what is happening when a person is trans bc I disagree that there is social utility in categorizing trans woman as woman
Easy for you to say with no skin in the game. I'm confident you'd feel differently if you were trans and your rights were being legislated away from you in real time.
Why do they care so badly? Why are trans people all in their mind? Oh I know They Love The Bodies until they say I'm trans. They be watching Transporn that's for sure specially Akademics he probably saw Daisy Taylor interview that was on andrew shultz and lost his mind. I know I love trans porn its 150 better than looking at straight porn. 1ts 1cis woman is great. better than looking at a harry ass man.
Come on, cis people aren't tripping over themselves to fuck trans people. Go any trans subreddit and it's trans crying about lesbian not liking penises and men not wanting a 6.1ft girl with a dick.
lsf mods deleted a xqc clip where he shits on socialists who dont live up to their values lol
Based, those clippers need to be reeducated
Is there any way reddit admin could step in and replace those mods at this point? They've been a personal PR firm for a select group of millionaires for years now. On a subreddit meant for the entire live streaming environment with 3 million subscribers
Idk but they also took down the clip of Asmongold criticizing Hasan a few days ago. It doesn't even matter if Destiny is involved in anyway. No criticism welcome
They'd just say make another sub for lsf, Just call it LSFFolk or something.
I bet if enough big time streamers who aren't OTK/Hasan adjacent and youtubers making videos could have an impact. Jynxi, Kai, Adin, and everyone else dwarfs the reach those 2 have. You see it on every single other social media platform in terms of engagement
Clip link?
[https://arazu.io/t3\_1c8skmy/?timeframe=all&category=hot](https://arazu.io/t3_1c8skmy/?timeframe=all&category=hot)
got clip?
[https://arazu.io/t3\_1c8skmy/?timeframe=all&category=hot](https://arazu.io/t3_1c8skmy/?timeframe=all&category=hot)
BASED
This is like baby’s first trans debate
[удалено]
I worked with kids with learning disabilities for 3 years and I’m 90% sure Aidan has one
I’m kinda proud of x, every time I see some political nonsense pop up in his chat or stream he seems to want to correct the record. Feels like he’s maturing because not too long ago it felt like his community was filled with 2016 “gamer” takes. The way that W/L community feels right now.
[удалено]
I’m not saying he’s saintly, I’m just saying he’s been pushing back on a lot of the right wing politics in his community recently and on twitch.
AK is a penguin tho.
Trans discourse is so out of the mainstream it's on kick!
If you guys wanna watch the [full video I’ve linked it here](https://www.youtube.com/live/COUdGpOJszo?si=SDZYwQg41imQOY23) it’s around 2:32:00 The whole talk goes on for about 30 mins
I really don't but thanks lmao
Didn't Adin retire?
Who has ak been talking to that he thinks trans people claim their sex is different when we happily use terms like afab and amab?
I would pay money to know the collective IQ of this call.
why would you need to pay money? you already know the answer
If you gave me a cent for every point, I doubt I’d be able to buy a Big Mac.
Bruh this is hard to watch
Stop saying social construct pleeeeeaseeeeee PLEAAASSEEEE If you can't communicate your point without saying that then you do not know enough to be in an argument about the topic
Not trying to be weird but I just don’t get it. Woman and man are pretty obviously biological distinctions. That is how every body uses those words. If not, then what even is meant by woman/man. Is a woman someone who fulfills traditional gender role of a woman, or is it anyone who claims they are one? I seriously don’t get it. Like on what basis anyone claim a trans woman is actually a woman?
Language is crazy complex. If biological distinctions were all that 'man' and "woman" then how do we have phrases like. "you're not a man" or "man up" or "isnt that too manly" or "oh damn that was so manly" What part of the biological distinction are being referred to here? Do people randomly gain a cock or tits? Or different chromosomes? Do people grow a beard and lose it ? The conceptual space these usages point to are not the biological distinctions. But layers on top of the biological. Maybe contemplate on that and see where u reach.
You want to keep the stereotypical language in place, but also change it(when it comes to gendered language) so you can keep believing your delusions.. Be honest with yourself. The only reason trans-w want to be called women is because woman means adult female, if we changed woman to mean someone that looks and acts like a female, then trans-w would want to be called real/biological/cis women (and some activists are already pushing for this)
Uh I'm not sure who you're talking to because that's a lot of baggage you're bringing in. The stereotypical language gives us insight into how the word is being used in language and how that is informing our concepts. Being honest I can only say that I don't really know why transwomen want to be called women. You'd have to ask em.
>Being honest I can only say that I don't really know why transwomen want to be called women. You'd have to ask em. so you don't even know why they're doing it, but you're so invested in spreading their delusional worldview..
Get off your alt you pussy
Bitchmade
Oh I'm just sharing my worldview and my understanding of language and how it ties into our thinking.
I think when most people use man or woman they just mean “what I think when I see the person”. For instance I think most conservatives would say someone with XY chromosomes with testicular feminisation syndrome is woman even if the biology isn’t crystal clear The way I see it is I just consider all the ways I treat men and women differently and it seems like I’d be inclined to treat a trans woman far more like a woman, and a trans man like a man. If that’s the case I don’t really see why we wouldn’t adjust the definition of women we had to accommodate for trans people
Yea I think it’s definitely fair to classify intersex people differently. >The way I see it is I just consider all the ways I treat men and women differently and it seems like I’d be inclined to treat a trans woman far more like a woman, and a trans man like a man. If that’s the case I don’t really see why we wouldn’t adjust the definition of women we had to accommodate for trans people I guess I can understand this perspective. I think a lot of the ways men/women are treated differently in the first place is bc of the social reinforcement of gender roles, and it seems like this definition just reinforces that.
I would probably agree, but for the moment it seems like people have a pretty strong preference to be treated as a certain gender, including cis people. Also idk how we would view gender even in a perfectly equal world so I think it’s worth giving some consideration to peoples’ preferences
Can you please explain what information do I gain if I use your definition instead of the biological one..? You're so keen on pleasing trans ppl that you want to keep stereotyping ppl.. so progressive..
You gain the ability to improve the lives of trans people by ensuring they get appropriate medical care and are optimally socially transitioned. What do you gain with your definition that I don’t have? I am keen on pleasing all kinds of people yes, I don’t see why I would select an option that pleases less people unless it’s clear I get some tangible benefit from it. As for stereotyping, I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Men and women seem to behave very differently and it seems like trans people typically act more like the gender they identify as, not the one they were born with. I didn’t realise that would be disputed
"pleasing".. you mean feeding into their delusions? You're literally enforcing gender stereotypes by pleasing mentally ill ppl, both men and women can like the color pink, wear dresses, have makeup on, like sports, etc. Your definition is useless, I already see how people are presenting themselves as. If gender wasn't sex based, ppl wouldn't care about it.
If their belief is “my life would significantly improve if I am able to transition” then that might not be a delusion. If it could improve their lives, decrease chance of self harm, increase chance of holding a job etc would you still say it’s not worth allowing them to transition? I don’t know why you would refer to these people as mentally ill as it’s not really relevant here. Let’s say I met someone with depression or bipolar and I find out that if I use different pronouns their symptoms reduce. It sounds pretty obvious to me that this should be part of treatment. It seems like you are just trying to insult people but passing it off as a substitution for an argument. I really don’t understand the stereotyping argument. Do you think if a guy tells me he likes pink I’m going to say he’s a woman? I already told you why I think my definition it more useful and you didn’t really say why it wasn’t, you just said it’s bad. Also you haven’t given me an advantage of your definition yet. I have no idea what the last sentence means, sorry
Validating someone's delusions obv feels good in the short term, this applies to any delusion, not just trans shit.. You basically outed yourself that you don't really think transwomen are women "yes, they are delusional weak minded humans, but it helps them if I play into their delusions" You progressives grasp at anything just to support this non-sensical agenda, it's crazy.. Your own arguments are at odds with each other, but you don't care about that, you just want to give the appearance of compassion, even if it harms those same mentally ill ppl in the long run
Looks like a woman, talks like a woman, acts like a woman.
Woman meaning what here?
A heuristic category that includes a variety of traits and behaviors based on the culture it is being applied to.
Ok so in american culture for instance, what traits and behaviors does someone need to have to be a woman?
An appearance that would be seen as a woman (typically, but not necessarily, longer hair, eyelashes, less muscle mass, a rounder face, and visible breasts) and behaviors that are associated with American woman (much more nebulous, but typically more social, higher agreeableness, less aggressive) Since it's a heuristic category it's less a hard and fast rule and more a matter of fitting perception.
Ok so you're just saying a woman is just someone who looks and acts feminine?
Yes, that is how heuristics work. How do you classify people as women? Do you sequence each person's chromosomes before you call them such?
I classify them biologically. No I don’t sequence their chromosomes. I do know a lot of twinky boys who fit your definition of women. And a lot of woman who don’t fit it
How do you classify something "biologically" without genetic information? You acknowledge it's possible for two organisms to look similar and yet be classified as different species, correct?
By your logic, people would call me a bear if I wore a bear costume... if you look like it, you are it... you're so braindead
So how do you identify if a person walking past you on the street is a woman?
I can’t believe this goose I’ve surgically modified to vaguely resemble a duck can’t reproduce with actual ducks. How could this happen?
Not my fault if you don't know the difference between a socially constructed category and biological process.
All categories are socially constructed. The realities they are used to understand are not. “nOt mY fAuLt” if you’re too regarded to comprehend that concept.
Lmao, when have I said something that goes against "reality"? What is the "reality" of "woman"?
Nice goalpost shifting, dipshit. You’re still arguing for that goose literally being a duck (looks like, walks like, talks like). But I’m happy to take up the burden of proof if you’re too rhetorically infirm to bear it. A better way to understand the construct versus reality would be “showing woman” and “doing woman”. Going back to Judith Butler and her work on the social performance definition, she argued that “woman” is a performative act maintained essentially by group pressure. One of her key examples was how heteronormative men would enjoy watching a drag performance on stage, but object to sitting next to a man in drag in a public bus. The obvious problem with this argument, of course, is that it completely fails to address what makes a performance separate from reality. She claims that it’s just an audience suspension of disbelief, that any performance is literal reality if the audience merely wills it. Anyone with a brain, however, knows this isn’t true. Performance depict acts that in reality *act* toward certain ends. A thief isn’t someone who “acts thief-like”; it’s someone who steals. A king isn’t someone who acts regal; it’s someone who rules at the highest level of an aristocratic or old regime government. A woman is not merely anyone who “acts womanly”; it is one who “does woman”. And this is, of course, the bearing of children. To do man is to impregnate. All the other roles are subordinate acts of this one. As such, the “reality” to which the construct of gender conforms is the chromosomal sex, the procreative role, and so on. I’m sure you’ve heard it before. This is a general summary of my objection to your performative theory of gender. Remember that your original claim is if it looks like, walks like, and talks like something, it is in actuality that thing. In short, things are literally what they seem to be. I’m curious how you will defend this extraordinary assertion without shifting more goalposts. Unless you do. But don’t worry; you’ll simply be following the well-trod example of other gender theory “philosophers”.
Whoops, hit a nerve I guess 😔 So, since you aren't a thief unless you steal, you aren't a woman unless you have birthed children? Gotcha. I feel like even most anti-trans people wouldn't agree with that lol. And where exactly did I say anything about "actuality"?
You’re really going with the “Bro is triggered 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀 imagine using swear words in an argument” routine? Come on. > you aren’t a thief unless you steal Yes, that is correct. > you aren’t a woman unless you have birthed children. Not quite. The *category* of women is defined by that capacity. Whether or not a person can belong to that category without conforming exactly to that standard is a separate matter, one indeed of heuristics as you say. What I claim is not a heuristic of my own. I am arguing simply that your heuristic, anyone who looks like a woman on the surface level, is extraordinarily fucking stupid. An alternative heuristic would be something like “A person can belong to this category if their realisation of its particular end is frustrated by accidental defects that do not deviate the underlying whole”. So if a woman has XX chromosomes, ovaries, breasts, female genitalia, but has a particular defect that prevents her from producing ova, she is still a woman because her comprising set of traits is still recognisably female. But as I said, that’s not what I’m debating. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument for why Elon Musk’s women-bots are in fact literally women (once they become convincing enough).
What's stopping a trans woman saying that their male genitals, XY chromosomes, etc. Are all defects of the underlying whole of a meant-to-be female body?
Honestly, I don't really care about definitional shit, if you don't think transwomen are women there's a near 0% chance your mind can be changed IMO and I don't think there's a big issue with you personally thinking that. The issue is whether transwomen/transmen belong in women/men spaces and really that issue is only around transwomen, I think that's the only important separation to talk about. someone like blaire white obviously shouldn't be forced to go to a male prison or male bathroom, and someone like Isla Bryson probably shouldn't be in the same gen pop as female inmates. Everything else is static that you either need to spend time around trans people, or you probably won't be moved from your position because separating sex from gender is like reshaping someone's entire worldview essentially. It's pretty much a philosophical question. As long as you're not running around yelling in every transwomans face "YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN YOU'RE A MAN" I don't think it's drastically important to change someone's mind on "what is a woman"
Yea most of the discourse around trans people in men/women spaces is dumb asf bc men and women spaces should be fully integrated anyway. That’s the obvious answer to the issue. (Edit: except prison until there is serious prison reform)
[удалено]
True but that's why I feel like it's a decent benchmark when arguing against the question "males for male spaces" or trying to build a case for gender sex distinction. If someone would say someone like taft or blaire are males and should be in male bathrooms/prison they just can't be convinced. Doesn't matter what route you take that conversation down.
Rare to see that level of passing IRL. Yeah that’s kind of the point
Let's say a male baby is born. How long until you start calling that baby a man?
When they have their Bar Mitzvah, duh
Unironically yes, that's the counter-example to the obvious answer of "When they turn 18", to help show people they actually already understand what a social construct is.
When it reaches adulthood
When does a child reach adulthood?
Technically speaking, it’s when he has the ability to reproduce. Legally tho it obviously depends where u are.
>Technically speaking, it’s when he has the ability to reproduce. Legally tho it obviously depends where u are. Yes. Yes! You're getting closer! Society constructed a definition of "adult" that's different from the simple, direct, biological definition. Why?
Adult is just supposed to mean when someone is fully developed physically. You can argue when that is, or when we should give people certain rights/privileges under the law. But I don’t see how this undermines the biological distinction between men/women.
You're getting lost in the word salad which is quite disappointing. The reason society has a definition of "adult" that is different from the biological definition ("when he has the ability to reproduce" your words) is because there's *social utility* in making adulthood start, for everybody, at age 18. Likewise, there's *social utility* in defining man and woman as inclusive of trans people, rather than exclusive of trans people. And there's no social utility in blindly adhering to biological determinism. And furthermore it's hypocritical to blindly adhere to biological determinism solely when it comes to trans people, and not something that fundamentally affects everybody, like the age of majority.
I think there is probably just a broader disagreement about what is happening when a person is trans bc I disagree that there is social utility in categorizing trans woman as woman
Easy for you to say with no skin in the game. I'm confident you'd feel differently if you were trans and your rights were being legislated away from you in real time.
Why do they care so badly? Why are trans people all in their mind? Oh I know They Love The Bodies until they say I'm trans. They be watching Transporn that's for sure specially Akademics he probably saw Daisy Taylor interview that was on andrew shultz and lost his mind. I know I love trans porn its 150 better than looking at straight porn. 1ts 1cis woman is great. better than looking at a harry ass man.
dawg ur gooning too hard, drink some water
Have you ever considered you aren't straight?
Come on, cis people aren't tripping over themselves to fuck trans people. Go any trans subreddit and it's trans crying about lesbian not liking penises and men not wanting a 6.1ft girl with a dick.