you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Chronicity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it is a trollish thing to play dumb about. But it further underscores how contradictory trans identity is.

If sex isn’t perceptible, then why are we talking about trans people? It is as if there is a material difference between a transwoman and a woman who isn’t trans. Obviously the transwoman knows there is something about them that qualifies them as trans, or they wouldn’t be calling themselves trans. How have they perceived this thing about themselves? Could it be that they, just like every other human being on the planet, know that they are male? Of course they do.

So to turn around and act like we only guessing at this stuff is bullshit. But somehow they think the “no one really knows what sex anyone really is” helps the trans position.

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

I see rubber has backtracked and is now saying something totally the opposite of what she or he originally said:

When I said that people cannot perceive sex what I meant was that there is no way to reliably know the sex of a person that is 100% accurate in all scenarios.

So we're supposed to believe that when rubber typed out "people cannot perceive sex" at all ever, what s/he really was saying is that every once in a while a situation will occur where someone doesn't correctly discern another person's sex - perhaps because the person being perceived has gone to great lengths to disguise his or her sex, or the perceiver has impaired or dulled senses and cognition.