you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 2 insightful - 12 fun2 insightful - 11 fun3 insightful - 12 fun -  (4 children)

Because we’re women

[–]BiologyIsReal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What is a woman? A social construct? Ok, then can you tell us what characteristics define the social construct of womanhood?

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

In a previous thread, you defined women as

A social construct

By their sex spectrum status

XYZ definition

I mean, they’re not inherently anything.

You also said

I just can’t bring myself to commit to the effort of educating you all on nominalism when it will achieve nothing. It just seems like wasted effort

I submit that this isn't "nominalism," it's intellectual dishonesty. You cannot simultaneously refute and argue for materialist categories while maintaining the integrity of your position.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nominalism doesn’t say so and either does biology. What makes trans women supposedly the same as actual women?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope women don't exist according to you. :)