TRAs compare sex to height, "gender identity" surgeries to leg lengthening surgeries, and I'm confused 🤨

submitted by YallHoes from self.GenderCritical

I recently found this thread of comments: https://imgur.com/a/NabqklC

To sum their comments up in my own words: "a woman that can not give birth is a woman. A man can not give birth, therefore a man is a woman"

"People who have leg lengthening surgeries transition from 160 cms to 170 cms. You don't claim they are still the height they were before surgery. A man undergoing surgery transitions to and becomes a woman too"

"Man and woman, boy and girl, are social constructs"

"Noone cares about chromosomes. Noone can see your genitals. And noone can clock a "trans" individual that perfectly passes, so it doesn't matter what determines sex. Appearance is what matters"

I'm confused. What do you think? I might have lost brain cells reading those comments

all 1 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's always the same post: "here's something stupid but I'm confused, help me out".

Height in the example is precisely measurable. Is "man" or "woman" precisely measurable in their example? If not, then they are not making an analogy but making a distraction. If it is precisely measurable, as team GC holds, then they know they did not change sex the way someone changes height.

How the change in height happened might matter. What was added to add the height? Some substance foreign to the original body? If so, then the person is not a different height any more so than a person in platform shoes is not a taller person because of the shoes.

If you're confused by such a weak argument, you really need to go back and study logic and grammar and rhetoric and all that. Read sentences precisely and see if what they say when strung together support the flow of ideas or not. Do not read "posts" or paragraphs, read sentences first. Pick the sentences apart, and make sure you are not letting subsequent sentences sneak in ideas as if they were established by previous sentences when they are not.

Keep your mind coherent in order to see when the world around you and those in it are not coherent. Make Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas great again, even if you don't agree with them because that is not the point at all (the point is to follow good arguments as see bad ones, and even those three make bad ones. Some say Plato often does not believe what he was writing and wanted his readers to see above and beyond it) and see through all this bs.