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 →

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

The problem with this is no one believes you actually do this. Because human beings don’t operate in the world in this way. When I describe someone as a woman or man, child or adult, tall or short, etc. I’m not basing my description on their self-identification. Identity is irrelevant. I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does; it’s how our species has managed to survive for eons.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height? You are treating height as a objective trait but not the status of being female or male/woman or man.

How do you not see you are erasing women’s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from men? What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us? Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does;

So am I, I thought that went without saying.

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height?

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

How do you not see you are erasing {adult human female}'s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from {adult human males}?

Because I'm not. Those two classes don't stop existing because we don't use particular mouth noises to refer to them.

What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us?

I'm not redefining anything. I don't get to choose how words are defined. I'm just describing the world as I experience it.

Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

I really don't see how it is dystopian. Maybe you can help me understand.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why is woman an identity but tall isn’t? What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You might as well ask "why is a cat an animal but a government isn't?" Those words refer to different things. Why would they be the same?

What indicates a persons gender identity, given that feelings are invisible?

Lots of things. The way they present themselves, how they self describe, etc.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

How on earth am I asking something so ridiculous? What makes one descriptor so different from another?

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So gender is half made up of clothes, hairstyles, and internet pronouns?

No, gender is identity. Those are examples of things that might be indicative of a person's identity. As I said.

What makes one descriptor so different from another?

They're two different words. There isn't any reason that they should be similar.

How can you imply that nobody has ever identified themselves as tall with such certainty? What makes this an absurd concept?

When I use the word "tall" I am not describing an identity, so it is not possible for a person to identify as the thing that I mean when I say "tall". It's not absurd, just a logical impossibility.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Like talking at a brick wall. I give up with this pomo bs

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you didn't want to talk semantics this is the wrong thread for you I'm afraid. Personally I find this kind of thing interesting.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It would be great if you’d stop using semantics to mean nothing