1) Being more biologically similar in some ways does not mean biologically and physically identical in all ways.

2) I'm referring to an article which you continue to misinterpret and reduce to calling biological sex a social construct.

3) I answered "no" to a question. It wasn't "that" question though.

5) Again, it is just more complicated than that. What is a "woman"? If a transgendered individual is at a doctor, they need to address the fact that they are a transgendered individual. Depending on the context, different information is relevant. There is also a difference between "saying" you are something and "identifying" as something.

I wonder, how many kids have committed suicide due to people like you...

1) "Being more biologically similar in some ways does not mean biologically and physically identical in all ways."

but obviously its the case with the ways that count otherwise there'd be no problem right?

2) " I'm referring to an article which you continue to misinterpret and reduce to calling biological sex a social construct."

i quoted the heading of the article directly

3) "I answered "no" to a question. It wasn't "that" question though."

ok i'm glad that has been clarified

4) "Again, it is just more complicated than that. What is a "woman"?"

lol well i suppose i figured i knew, since i appear to be wrong what is a woman in your view? and how can they be distinguished from men? is there even a difference between the two?

5) "If a transgendered individual is at a doctor, they need to address the fact that they are a transgendered individual."

can you elaborate on this? why would you have to do so?

6) "There is also a difference between "saying" you are something and "identifying" as something."

yes but that's not relevant to this discussion, since the idea being presented is that identity should be affirmed

You are a meanie.

That sort of post happens when you willfully engage with tripe for an entire weekend while constantly trying your best to maintain your composure. Eventually something slips in response to a completely different person.

1) No

2) Wow, if only there were text below that header. That would be crazy though, right? An article actually explaining and providing context for the title in the actual article? That would be something, wouldn't it? I'm glad we live in a world where nothing exists beyond the header. An article having an actual body would make me have to actually read more than ten words in order to understand something, and that frightens me.

4) Depends on the context.

5) Risk levels for certain diseases such as prostate cancer vary based on biological factors.

At some point, people need to acknowledge that all of their fear mongering and nonsense is having very real negative consequences. That said, I probably shouldn't have made that post...

"1) No"

so why do they need to transition if their biology when it comes to the parts that matter is in alignment?

2) "An article having an actual body would make me have to actually read more than ten words in order to understand something"

i understood what this article would say long before i ever read it, do you know why?

because the philosophy at play is painfully shallow... its the idea that inclusion and equality must be the paramount principles we use to guide our perception

it is informing just about every point you are making until you appear to see the contradictory aspects and then begin to dial them back such as when you cant actually give me a clear answer for what a man and a woman are even though you've said that we shouldn't let biology deny trans people their identity

the truth is that our perception of the world is inherently hierarchical and differentiated, you literally could not make sense of what you see if that was not the case and that's why this ideology is so fundamentally stupid

you are not going to be able to ever stop people from recognising and acting in accordance with patterns they see in the world around them

3) "Depends on the context."

can you elaborate? when is a man who identifies as a woman not a woman? or is this some type of mystical problem like the concept of god?

4) "Risk levels for certain diseases such as prostate cancer vary based on biological factors."

can a woman have prostate cancer?

You really cannot teach one without the other.  So the school tells the kids about same sex couples and families but if they just left it there then the child will go home asking their parents about same sex couples and their families.  You cannot just make a child aware of such situations and not explain how everything came to be.  You cannot talk about gender on this level and not explain why some kids may view themselves as another gender even though they were born male or female.  At 5 years old, I will say that the innermost details for these conversations are to complex and it does put pressure on the parents to fill in the gaps.  If anything I would say around 15 on up would be way better for these type of conversations and discussions.

1) Being more biologically similar in some ways does not mean biologically and physically identical in all ways.

2) Nop. 0/10

3) Already did.

4) Prostate cancer is extraordinarily rare in XX individuals.

Let's take a brief look at what you had to deal with these past couple of days:

Uh-huh...

1) "Being more biologically similar in some ways does not mean biologically and physically identical in all ways."

ok how are the biological differences manifesting themselves?

2) "Nop. 0/10"

really? you don't think inclusion and equality are the dominant influences for this philosophy? and you don't think our perception is inherently hierarchical and differentiated?

3) "Already did."

you said it depends on context, what is the context? or is that something you can't elaborate on?

4) "Prostate cancer is extraordinarily rare in XX individuals."

i thought women didn't have to have XX chromosomes in your view?