you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Shinjin_Nana 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I mean, I get it, but immigrants exist?

You don't have to have French lineage from Roman times to move to France, get citizenship via their laws, and voila! be french.

For this analogy to hold up to biological womanhood you'd have to think that French citizenship was only open to people of French heritage, and that non-french people can't go to France.

[–]yousaythosethings 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The idea would be that you can become a French citizen under the law but you are never truly French and always distinguishable from other people born and raised there and who did not come from some other background. In the west, governments are allowing men to change their legal sex to female, but it's a legal fiction and we all know that. It didn't make them female as a practical or factual matter. It should also not be taboo to point out that there are differences between natal males who change their legal status to female.

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

What if I was part French via my family but happened to be born elsewhere? If I moved back to France after being born abroad would I still not be 'French' as I was not raised there? What if someone from Nigeria happened to be born in France and raised there with Nigerian customs in a Nigerian neighborhood in Paris - do they get to be French while someone born in the US with French blood is not french?

What does it actually mean to 'be French'.

This analogy falls apart because it's conflating legal nationality or blood ethnicity with men changing their sex to women. Men can't be 'part woman' or have a connection to womanhood the same way someone can be connected to a country or ethnicity in multiple ways.