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 →

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Do you really think that just because you didn't detail what that "social class" entails, we cannot tell what you meant by that? Once you reject a biology based definition of the word woman, all that is left are sex-based roles and stereotypes. If not, then what did you mean by "social class"? What do characterize the "social class" of "women"? And why would anyone choose willingly to be second class citizen?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Let's imagine that by "social class" I literally only meant sexist stereotypes.

How would that make the above a sexist statement?

I feel like this is just people processing that statement in a different way than I intended. If I had instead said:

A momo is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

Would you still consider that to be a sexist statement?

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term. I can see how that could be unclear when you remove the sentence from its original context.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Stop dodging the questions. You have been doing this for days now. You claim women cannot be defined by biology but, when you are called out for being sexist, you insist you didn't mean anything sexist while still refusing to explain anything. If you trully are not defining women based on sexist stereotypes, then tell us explicitly with great detail what do you mean by "social class". Also, do not forget telling us why would anyone choose willingly to be a second class citizen?

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term. I can see how that could be unclear when you remove the sentence from its original context.

LOL How can you not talk about a group of people when you are defining said group?

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

You claim women cannot be defined by biology

I have repeatedly said that the word has multiple meanings, one of which (adult human female) is solely defined by biology.

If you trully are not defining women based on sexist stereotypes

Sexist stereotypes have a good deal to do with what defines the usage of the word "woman" that I am talking about. It's not sexist to acknowledge the existence of sexist stereotypes.

LOL How can you not talk about a group of people when you are defining said group?

Well if the only statement you're making about that group is "can be referred to by mouth noise X" you're not saying anything about them, are you?