you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chronicity[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

By your own admission, you think transwomen can be anyone who calls themselves a transwoman—even if they are biologically female.

Another person might define transwomen as biological males who want to be female.

These two definitions cannot both be true. The only way you can consider them equally valid is if you don’t care about logic. It’s like saying you believe in God and the holy trinity while also professing to be an atheist.

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

These two definitions cannot both be true

Why not? Words can mean different, even contradictory things. "Cleave" can mean either to split or to unite, for example

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

Call me when “cleave” denotes a group of people who insist on being a protected class in the eyes of the law.

If the group can’t even decide the basic parameters of membership beyond self-ID, then “trans” lacks sufficient meaning.

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

Trans people aren't a monolith, glad we both understand that. The group still exists without having an appointed "leader" lol. It's not for you to decide if trans has "sufficient meaning" or not; there's still plenty of trans ppl who have a right to transition care and protection from discrimination (everyone does)

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

I live in a democracy, so of course it’s up to me (and every other voting person) to decide if trans has sufficient meaning to merit status in the eyes of the law.

If all you want to do is call yourself trans without the expectation of special privileges or accommodations, knock yourself out.