the-pi-guy said:
I don't, someone else might. In that particular instance, people don't genuinely declare themselves to be trans just to break a record, only to genuinely declare themselves not afterwards.
That if = "if all that matters is identity".
>some men are more apparent than others because their features more prominently display sexual dimorphism Suggesting that there's some kind of scale, with either their genetic features of how they choose represent themselves. Did you read that twitter chain I shared? It mentions that even biologically there is a scale, and two peaks. The peaks with the surrounding areas are generally what people consider male/female, but it's still difficult to write concrete lines.
Traits don't guarantee someone being of a certain biological sex. There are women who naturally grow more hair on their face than some men.
>are you a feminist? Yes. >do you believe women need greater assistance than men from society? I'm pretty sure you're going to argue that in order for feminism to exist that society needs a solid definition of women in order to protect women to help them.
There aren't solid boundaries. Most people are pretty close to the male or female peak, which is why we have those categories, they are useful approximations, but it isn't really possible to have distinct unambiguous boundaries that capture every single individual.
>you are literally telling me that biology is so messy that a woman can have a penis, a full beard etc etc etc Correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome Genetic female (XX) and yet they have testes.
>so with that being said what are you actually using to maintain the distinction between male and female? The way you/I identify someone as male or female works 99.999% of the time. Most people are happy with their "categories", and most of the people that identify as transgender male/female are going to be trying to fit in with the category they identify with. |
"Traits don't guarantee someone being of a certain biological sex."
"There are women who naturally grow more hair on their face than some men."
ok ok so therefore the categories don't exist because of the 0.0001%
with those odds I better give up driving since there's the minuscule chance i'll be decapitated
"you would've seen that its actually a lot harder than you think to establish there are two categories. "
look i'd appreciate it if you guys didn't pretend as if I don't understand this nonsense... just a couple pages ago people were still trying to argue that this isn't about denying biology
a little humility on your side would go a long way
"are you a feminist?
Yes."
what? how?
"The reality is, you get the same result by treating people equally regardless of what category they exist in or don't."
do you really believe that? what are you going to do for example about women's passivity with regards to taking on the harder physical aspects of keeping society running?
I sincerely don't understand how a grown person can believe this kind of stuff, we don't treat each other equally to some extent because of factors which can be controlled but a lot of it is subconscious and driven by factors out of our control
what are you going to do about the preferential treatment attractive people get? what about those with special skills? celebrities? inherent in group bias women have towards other women? women's fear of men because men are larger on average? I could keep going on all day with this
this utopian idea that we can just get people to police their behavior entirely rationally is a joke dude, its becoming really popular in the left but its unbelievably delusional
"but it isn't really possible to have distinct unambiguous boundaries that capture every single individual. "
it doesn't have to capture every individual, categories always have exceptions... we went through this already
so we just pretend that males and females don't exist because of the 0.0001% of exceptions... ok
