you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm against it.

  1. I don't have a "gender identity". I'm a woman because of my body. I refuse to be defined by a bunch of sexist stereotypes.

  2. This would only benefit the QT position as we would be adopting their language.

  3. There is no compromise to be made. QT have made quite clear that they don't want any kind of compromise and they won't forgive any wrong thinking. Instead they keep demanding more and more each day. Give them a inch and they will take a mile.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes unfortunately I think you're especially on the mark with point 3 :(

And I personally agree about gender ideology, but I was thinking for those who believe it strongly, at least these terms would make them acknowledge and state sex-based reality alongside gender identity. But it is all word games and somehow I doubt they want to state the sex-based side of things, similar to how GC don't want to give credence to genderism.

Though I haven't received any replies from QT yet so I'm just speculating.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

IME arguing with QT, they mostly want to be viewed as the opposite sex. A few may acknowledge their sex, but they will still insist their sex is irrelevant.

[–]comradeconradical[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's been my experience as well. Even the few who do admit it downplay the reality of the immutability of sex.