you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The problem is that she is trying to reconcile truth (biology, hard science, she's objectively female) with self-identification (feelings of inferiority, she wants to be seen as a man, i.e. male). That's why "trans women" are not women and "trans men" are not men. We cannot reconcile incompatible things.

[–]justagaydude123 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're really comfortable calling Buck "she"?

[–]Lapis_Lazuli 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Countless genderists have invoked Buck Angel as proof that TMAM. "Would you be comfortable sharing a restroom with someone who looks like Buck Angel?" they demand. "Would you, as a lesbian, be attracted to someone who looks like Buck Angel?" When I first waded into the GC vs. QT fray, I didn't have a clear mental picture of Buck Angel, so I did a Google Image search, which means that I have seen quite a bit of Buck Angel's vulva. So yup, I'm pretty darn comfortable calling her "she."

[–]notdelusionalbased faggot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes. Why lie?