all 3 comments

[–]CleverFoolOfEarth[S] 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Note: said Twitterite does not actually know the words polyphyletic and morphological due to having studied whatever crap troons learn instead of biology.

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

It should ask an arborist or a botanist, and not a generic biologist.

All the mental gymnastics they have to do to justify their BS. Would they rather have a world where we stop speaking because words mean nothing? No, they wouldn't because they wouldn't be able to say TWAW or any of the other bs they say.

If a biologist can't say what a woman is, then why should anyone else accept when a tranny says they're a woman? If they say it is not a real tangible thing then OK, but why accept their notion that it is an identity? It's not. They can't tell what it is either, they just put it behind some sense of identity and we have to take their word for it on faith. Saying a woman is someone who can bear children is a better definition than theirs even if we openly exclude post menopausal women and anyone else who can not, because at least it is real.

What is easy to do is say what is not a woman: I'm not, and "trans women" are not. Finding it difficult to define something is not the same thing as being able to easily rule out things are not that something. What is a woman? Well, it ain't someone with functioning male genitalia ie the kind that is designed to produce small mobile gametes, ergo: trans women ain't women, trans women ain't a thing, trans women do not exist because they are men lying about what they are.

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

If a woman is an arbitrary social construct then why do they wanna be one so badly?