QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology

submitted by Chronicity from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It has a number of closely related meanings. If someone doesn't get it you can just explain.

As long as there's understanding then it's totally fine.

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

There is no understanding if one word is used to convey opposing information.

You say they are closely related ideas but they aren’t.

Imagine someone needs to buy shoes. They go to a store and say ‘hello I need shoes in x size please’ and they are handed a small pile of handkerchiefs.

Do they say ‘Thankyou for the shoes’ and pay, wrapping hankies on your feet and being surprised when they don’t keep out the mud?

Or would they perhaps say “sorry I said shoes. These are handkerchiefs”?

The clerk argues with them, telling the customer that these hemmed cotton squares and footwear are the same thing because the clerk defines each as “a thing that is worn”

Did the clerk who gave them hankies use a word that refers to one thing to refer to something else that’s vaguely related (an item one wears)? Was it effective communication?

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

It's not opposing information, transness implies some identification with an incongruence with gender roles or sexed attributes, that can take many forms. It's like going to the shoe store and when you ask for shoes they ask if you mean converse or vans. Both are shoes.

[–]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.