GC: I believe if features are sexed, and secondary sex characteristics are innate to a man or a woman, then sex is determined by secondary sex characteristics and the gender essentialism that tras believe in is true. If you disagree, then tell me your reasons

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MissDimples 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

You edited your comment and I didn't see the longer text below the first few lines. Even if I am qt, and not on the fence like I consider myself to be, I came here because I am interested in being convinced by GC to change my position.

I get lazy sometimes due to the depression, and don't wish to write a whole essay to explain my reasoning, excuse me but I barely care about getting out of bed, don't see how you can expect me not to be lazy, so I linked posts from tqs that would do the job well enough and said the same things I would, which you didn't like. So I wrote an essay explaining myself like you wanted here. But you still don't like it.

I'm female and aware of trans women getting in women spaces and sports, but I don't really care about being "dehumanized". I'm an animal, not anything special, and don't believe I can be "dehumanized". The reason I came to be convinced of GC is because I feel there's something missing. I only know the tq arguments and don't understand GC, but wish to, but if tq wanted to debate me, they would win the argument and I would lose because I only know their line of thinking.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

/1. You don’t have to write an essay to be clear about your views.

/2. Didn’t say I didn’t like it lol. Said you come across as full of shit. Depression made you lazy but not too lazy to find those comments, bring them here and ask? But then you went back to being lazy? So lazy you couldn’t bother to respond to something that so obviously interested you? But again you found ways to not be that lazy and find more comments from other subs to bring here? Odd. But okay.

Also odd that you can’t respond on your posts but can make a whole new one declaring your stance but now you can’t defend your stance you just defend yourself against... nothing really. Didn’t accuse you of anything but willful ignorance.

/3. Look up what dehumanized means. It doesn’t mean men in sports and bathrooms.

/4. Sounds like you’re saying you know gc is right and you would lose a debate so you don’t engage but you can’t help but try to point out gotchas. QT AF.

/5. You don’t want them to get in your space but you’ll see them as women?

/6. There’s not much to understand about gc. Gc is most people. Sex can’t be changed. TW are men. TM are women. It’s super simple. It’s qt that’s complicated.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Finding those comments were so much easier than trying to explain myself in a second language when those comments already did the job for me yep

I am defending my position, maybe you need to wash your eyes.

Most people are not GC, show me stats that most people are GC and then I will believe you.

As I said, dehumanization means objectification or seeing someone less than a human or whatever else you want to add to it, I'm an animal, consisted of a bunch of atoms. I am an object, and don't care about being "objectified" when I am clearly an object

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your position is I’m too lazy to articulate how I think but I came to a space intended for people to articulate how they think? Got it.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't really see most of the posters in this sub, or any other GC sub, being articulate, so ...

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well you’re comments have proven that you struggle with reading comprehension, so maybe it’s not that gc isn’t articulate. Maybe it’s you. Didn’t mean that as an insult I just don’t know how else to word that. GC people say the same things as each other for the most part. If you can’t grasp what just one of us is saying (though your comment history indicates that at one point you understood two of us quite well) that’s more you than us.

Actually- if you can understand qt but not gc then that’s because you want to side with them. They can’t even agree with each other.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This was my first comment on this sub: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/70fm/gc_thoughts_on_xenogenders_and_neopronouns_why/qmdu

Yes I get GC say the same things, isn't that every debate? I can guarantee you, if you talk to any tq they will say the same things "if sex is just reproduction, what about people that don't reproduce, are they sexless? What about people that have no gametes and genitals, are they sexless?"

All the discussions with tqs will be the same thing, should we have no debates then?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is that gc always has a ready response for QT’s whatabouts. People who don’t reproduce or can’t reproduce are still born with a sex. That’s been explained so many times. There is always a way to determine sex. There are plenty of trans people who disagree with each other. Transmed does not represent the whole trans community. There’s so many different ways people define woman and man or what it means to be trans or who qualifies as trans. They do not have a cohesive stance.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get lazy sometimes due to the depression, and don't wish to write a whole essay to explain my reasoning, excuse me but I barely care about getting out of bed, don't see how you can expect me not to be lazy

Lots of people posting on social media are clinically depressed, some to the point of near-catatonia; many are dealing with severe physical disabilities and diseases; some are even terminally ill. But that doesn't change the fact that anyone posting on debate subs - and especially starting debate threads - should be expected to put the time and effort in to explain their reasoning.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I did put time and effort in to explain myself like the first post I made here, again, so can we stop talking about what I did a few days ago when now you don't see me doing that? Also, wow, all these people on social media are disabled and depressed but have so much energy to explain themselves, almost makes it look like they are lying about their depression and disability or they are just not as depressed and disabled as they claim

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

wow, all these people on social media are disabled and depressed but have so much energy to explain themselves, almost makes it look like they are lying about their depression and disability or they are just not as depressed and disabled as they claim

I didn't say that lots of people posting on social media are saying they are depressed, disabled, seriously ill; I said they actually are. Distinctions seems to be lost on you.

[–]MissDimples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My bad then. But how do you know they are actually depressed, disabled, or seriously ill? Do they post photos of themselves? I don't know. If they are depressed and disabled, but have the energy to write anything longer than two sentences, then more power to them. Today I listened to your and lovesloane's advice. I was trying not to be lazy and actually put effort and time in my post, I did well don't you think?