you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fuck_reddit 30 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

I saw that and it really creeped me out. Because if they think of "boy" and "man" as distinct genders and not biologically-set developmental stages... that makes "fem boys" an extremely pedophilic "identity."

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Not to mention how much trans-identified males use “girl” not woman for themselves and for the unfortunate external targets of their desires. “Girldick” just got more barftastic than it already is.

Again, if woman, girl, men, and boy are merely social roles and not sex-based realities then no wonder no lesbian thinks she’s a woman anymore and is in line to chop her tits off because instead they’re trans men/non-binary/transmasc/someone who occupies the social role of not having breast tissue?? Exactly what social role of “woman” am I playing? Funny how they never define what those “social roles” are because things would get hella sexist real quick. Their selfish crusade of dismantling gay rights and women’s rights marches onward.

[–]fuck_reddit 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've been reading a lot of Aristotelean logic for a class I'm in, and their definitions of "boy," "man," "girl," and "woman" would be absolutely obliterated by any half-educated Medieval pre-teens. It's just astounding how they can accept the most recursive and blatantly-false ideas, and all they gain is a very temporary and extremely precarious sense of moral superiority. It's honestly baffling that they've managed to make the definitions of words a moral issue at all... As you've said, they base their definitions of words off of "social norms" and "roles," but they can't give a solid definition that applies to all women or all men, etc.