|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 10 2023 13:02 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2023 12:22 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.) Not at all. Not all females are adult or human. Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The addition of female does not provide the key information that we're all debating about. No one has a problem with the adult or human descriptors; it's everything else (that Razyda simply repackaged as "female") that we're debating, that makes a woman a woman. Inside "female" may or may not include a vagina or XX chromosomes or a uterus or the sincere belief that they are a woman or anything else that may differentiate trans or cis women. It is simply you saying you are rejecting the idea that female refers to a particular subset of sexually dimorphic species that produce one gamete instead of the other. Or you are rejecting the idea that this truth does not apply to humans, despite humans being a sexually dimorphic species. Words are like pointers in programming languages. In the non-trans advocacy space, the word woman is a pointer to a subset of humans. In the trans advocacy space, it is not, instead it is a recursive function that only refers to itself. It destroys the value proposition of having the word woman.
If you can't define "female", just say so.
|
On July 10 2023 13:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 13:02 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2023 12:22 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.) Not at all. Not all females are adult or human. Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The addition of female does not provide the key information that we're all debating about. No one has a problem with the adult or human descriptors; it's everything else (that Razyda simply repackaged as "female") that we're debating, that makes a woman a woman. Inside "female" may or may not include a vagina or XX chromosomes or a uterus or the sincere belief that they are a woman or anything else that may differentiate trans or cis women. It is simply you saying you are rejecting the idea that female refers to a particular subset of sexually dimorphic species that produce one gamete instead of the other. Or you are rejecting the idea that this truth does not apply to humans, despite humans being a sexually dimorphic species. Words are like pointers in programming languages. In the non-trans advocacy space, the word woman is a pointer to a subset of humans. In the trans advocacy space, it is not, instead it is a recursive function that only refers to itself. It destroys the value proposition of having the word woman. If you can't define "female", just say so.
I did? Its a member of a sexually dimophic species that produces the ova or egg.
|
On July 10 2023 13:07 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 13:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2023 13:02 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2023 12:22 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.) Not at all. Not all females are adult or human. Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The addition of female does not provide the key information that we're all debating about. No one has a problem with the adult or human descriptors; it's everything else (that Razyda simply repackaged as "female") that we're debating, that makes a woman a woman. Inside "female" may or may not include a vagina or XX chromosomes or a uterus or the sincere belief that they are a woman or anything else that may differentiate trans or cis women. It is simply you saying you are rejecting the idea that female refers to a particular subset of sexually dimorphic species that produce one gamete instead of the other. Or you are rejecting the idea that this truth does not apply to humans, despite humans being a sexually dimorphic species. Words are like pointers in programming languages. In the non-trans advocacy space, the word woman is a pointer to a subset of humans. In the trans advocacy space, it is not, instead it is a recursive function that only refers to itself. It destroys the value proposition of having the word woman. If you can't define "female", just say so. I did? Its a member of a sexually dimophic species that produces the ova or egg.
And so that disqualifies any woman who cannot produce an egg. Old women aren't female? Women with related surgeries aren't female? Do you see the problem here? This is the same problem we've been discussing: your definition excludes cis individuals that you know shouldn't be excluded, just because you want to exclude trans women 
|
Someone hasn't learned about all the edge cases of people that that don't fit into the traditional human sexual dimorphism. You can provide a definition of "female" and say everyone is either "female" or "not female". You can provide a definition of "male" and say everyone is "male" or "not male".
But when you provide two separate definitions for "male" and "female", you don't get two mutually exclusive categories that encompass all of humankind.
You can say
On July 10 2023 13:07 cLutZ wrote:
[Female is] a member of a sexually dimophic species that produces the ova or egg.
But then female humans going through menopause don't count. Little girls don't count as female before going through puberty. People who used to be female stop being female after their uterus gets removed.
You might also provide a definition of male as "a member of a sexually dimophic species that produces sperm", but then people with a penis that don't produce sperm aren't male. People cease to be male if they have their testes removed.
You also get the rare case of male + female people, that produces valid sperm and valid ova in a single body.
All of these edge cases point to a simple truth: it's not as simple as a sexual dichotomy. It might work for 95% of people. It might even work for 99% of people. But any biologist (or thinking human) that has actually studied the subject can tell you it's not that simple for everyone in our 8 billion person world.
---
Of course, chuds don't care about any of that nuance. They learned in their 2nd grade biology that there's male and female, and everybody is either one or the other. Facts bounce right off their thick skulls and they refuse to learn anything new as adults or accept that the world simply isn't that simple.
Nothing of value comes out of these chud's mouths, and they refuse to learn. Not because they are incapable of learning, but because they like the idea that there is hatred in their hearts. They don't care what the facts are, they want to make the lives of anyone who doesn't conform to gender norms miserable.
|
On July 10 2023 13:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:And so that disqualifies any woman who cannot produce an egg. Old women aren't female? Women with related surgeries aren't female? Do you see the problem here? This is the same problem we've been discussing: your definition excludes cis individuals that you know shouldn't be excluded, just because you want to exclude trans women
Women are actually born with all the eggs they will ever have. Even women who never ovulate or can't have children or had hysterctomies produced eggs at some point. There exists a tiny number of individuals who violate this rule, but using that to shoehorn in a whole new subset of people into the definition is a classic bad faith argument plus it is simply a delusional understanding of the world and language where things never fit into perfectly drawn lines
For example, wolves, dogs, and coyotes are different species...yet they can mate and hybridize and those can often be sexually fertile as well (as opposed to mules, although some mules actually are, I digress, another definition that shows how general pointers are useful even if there exists edge cases that are difficult to adjudicate).
On July 10 2023 13:31 jrkirby wrote:
Someone hasn't learned about all the edge cases of people that that don't fit into the traditional human sexual dimorphism. You can provide a definition of "female" and say everyone is either "female" or "not female". You can provide a definition of "male" and say everyone is "male" or "not male".
But when you provide two separate definitions for "male" and "female", you don't get two mutually exclusive categories that encompass all of humankind.
Yes. The fact that we have general categories is good. The fact that there exist confusing edge cases of these is a natural consequence of nature's foibles. None of those questions actually apply to trans people.
But then female humans going through menopause don't count. Little girls don't count as female before going through puberty. People who used to be female stop being female after their uterus gets removed.
All false. These people always produced eggs. Girls have all the eggs they ever will. Menopausal women have produced eggs. See, you foolishly thought I said fertile females = females. But if you had simply saw above that I said lioness = sexually mature female lion you would have been disabused from offering this foolish rebuttal.
You also get the rare case of male + female people, that produces valid sperm and valid ova in a single body.
I do not object to an intersex category. This would still not include trans people.
All of these edge cases point to a simple truth: it's not as simple as a sexual dichotomy. It might work for 95% of people. It might even work for 99% of people. But any biologist (or thinking human) that has actually studied the subject can tell you it's not that simple for everyone in our 8 billion person world.
Sure? But none of it applies to trans people, so it is just a dishonest attempt to camel's nose the tent.
Of course, chuds don't care about any of that nuance. They learned in their 2nd grade biology that there's male and female, and everybody is either one or the other. Facts bounce right off their thick skulls and they refuse to learn anything new as adults or accept that the world simply isn't that simple.
Nothing of value comes out of these chud's mouths, and they refuse to learn. Not because they are incapable of learning, but because they like the idea that there is hatred in their hearts. They don't care what the facts are, they want to make the lives of anyone who doesn't conform to gender norms miserable.
Except I know all that, its not nuance, its an attempt at snowing and special pleading. It is like going back to 1900 and looking at a dictionary that says "females birth the children" and then saying, "LMAO those troglodytes didn't know about seahorses!" It is incredibly juvenile.
I also do not care if people conform to gender norms. A tomboy was, in my youth, an incredibly awesome friend. We would go catch frogs. That doesn't mean she wasn't, ten years later, a hot woman that happened to wear khakis. And then an accountant, and then a mother.
|
On July 10 2023 14:01 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 13:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:And so that disqualifies any woman who cannot produce an egg. Old women aren't female? Women with related surgeries aren't female? Do you see the problem here? This is the same problem we've been discussing: your definition excludes cis individuals that you know shouldn't be excluded, just because you want to exclude trans women Women are actually born with all the eggs they will ever have. Even women who never ovulate or can't have children or had hysterctomies produced eggs at some point. There exists a tiny number of individuals who violate this rule, but using that to shoehorn in a whole new subset of people into the definition is a classic bad faith argument plus it is simply a delusional understanding of the world and language where things never fit into perfectly drawn lines For example, wolves, dogs, and coyotes are different species...yet they can mate and hybridize and those can often be sexually fertile as well (as opposed to mules, although some mules actually are, I digress, another definition that shows how general pointers are useful even if there exists edge cases that are difficult to adjudicate).
A day or two ago, there was an in-depth discussion on having a formal, perfect, exception-less definition vs. a general description of certain words. Most women produce eggs. Most women have vaginas. Most women have XX chromosomes. But if you want to allow for any exceptions, you need to understand that you're not the only one who gets to make those definition/description exceptions. Your allowance of certain cis women who aren't female (not producing eggs, your definition) is just as legitimate as the allowance of trans individuals who sincerely identify as women.
|
A male biologist extracts a stem cell culture line from their body. They induce differentiation in that stem cell until it becomes an ova. Congratulations! The biologist has become female, in addition to male. They are now intersex, because a cell from their body has produced an ova!
They don't identify with femininity, they don't act, look, or behave any different. They are female because cLutZ figured out the gold standard for gender: "Has the body ever produced an egg?"
---
You had a a benign tumor. Before that tumor was annihilated by your immune system, it happened to produce a single ova from your cell line. You are now female and intersex! It doesn't matter that no one observed this occurrence and that it will never happen again.
---
Of course, you couldn't possibly be transphobic. You see, you had a friend who was gasp a tomboy who caught frogs! Hours of debating whether trans people deserve rights doesn't compare to how extremely accepting of your tomboy friend you once were.
---
How do you know that the trans women you're working so hard to gatekeep from their gender never produced an egg? Do you know their medical history? Track every cell in their body and determined that there was never a time any cell ever became an egg?
---
Oh, and btw, you switched up your definitions, too. First it was
a member of a sexually dimophic species that produces the ova or egg
Then it was
a member of a sexually dimophic species that has ever produced the ova or egg
I wonder where the definition will shift to next, so you can still exclude trans people.
|
On July 10 2023 14:01 cLutZ wrote:
The fact that there exist confusing edge cases of these is a natural consequence of nature's foibles.
On July 10 2023 14:01 cLutZ wrote:
None of those questions actually apply to trans people.
Why are you accepting one set of 'confusing edge cases' as being natural but dismiss the very real edge case being discussed here?
Is it perhaps because you want to pretend that trans people aren't just "natural consequences of nature's foibles"?
|
Bottomline, why does it even matter if trans women are truly and genuinely 'female womens'? If they aren't 'real female womens' and are just pretending, who the fuck cares? What about a guy makebelieving that he is a woman offend your sensitivities so much? And please, don't tell me 'danger for real ladies in bathrooms' or 'muh fair sports', both of those are extreme fringe cases that are A) being looked at, B) far less damaging to the society as a whole than transphobia and anti-trans violence is.
If someone wants to roleplay being a woman, why can't you just let them be? You don't have to interact with them, you don't have to have sex with them; literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? You don't have to agree in everything those damn lefties believe in, you don't have to think it's right -- but why do you feel the need to aggressively oppose them?
Personally, I don't believe in Jesus or Allah, but you don't see me going around telling every Christian and every Muslim how damn idiotic their beliefs are and how they need to educate themselves on the realities of our world. Why can't we all at the very least extend the same courtesy towards the LGBTQ community?
|
On July 10 2023 17:09 Salazarz wrote:
literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? To be fair, who advocates for hating and attacking trans-folks here?
I don't remember a single person here saying they hate trans-folks and want to attack them, or that they think it's ok to do so.
|
Examples are not formal definitions. They're more akin to informal definitions, which are those that we use to describe something with everyday language in a quick and easy manner. This language is more concise than comprehensive, hence why it uses examples - and not complete formal definitions - to give a rough idea of what is being meant.
"Adult human female" is an example of a type of "woman". It is not an encompassing formal definition that includes all types of women. It is only useful insofar that it references the most common type of woman while excluding non-women.
Another type of woman is "transgender woman". They're not biologically equal to cis women, but they're women nonetheless because one part of the essence of their existence is that of womanhood. A complete formal definition of "woman" would include a description of transgender women.
|
On July 10 2023 17:19 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 17:09 Salazarz wrote:
literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? To be fair, who advocates for hating and attacking trans-folks here? I don't remember a single person here saying they hate trans-folks and want to attack them, or that they think it's ok to do so.
I agree with you that no one is literally saying "I hate trans people and we ought to hate them", but rejecting one's identities and rights can also be seen as hate. For example, "I don't hate women; I just don't think they deserve to vote" or "I don't hate black people; I just don't think they should use my white bathrooms and schools".
|
On July 10 2023 17:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
rejecting one's identities and rights can also be seen as hate. For example, "I don't hate women; I just don't think they deserve to vote". There was so much arguing about words meaning in this channel, so maybe we can define "hate" as well.
Some people redefine hate as "every opinion I don't agree with" and everyone who doesn't agree with them is hating and attacking them. I feel this doesn't lead to effective communication.
I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people here who think that I'm a transphobe who hates trans-folks just because I ask questions, even though I have zero ill feelings towards them and always try to be polite in everything I say.
|
On July 10 2023 17:09 Salazarz wrote:
Bottomline, why does it even matter if trans women are truly and genuinely 'female womens'? If they aren't 'real female womens' and are just pretending, who the fuck cares? What about a guy makebelieving that he is a woman offend your sensitivities so much? And please, don't tell me 'danger for real ladies in bathrooms' or 'muh fair sports', both of those are extreme fringe cases that are A) being looked at, B) far less damaging to the society as a whole than transphobia and anti-trans violence is.
If someone wants to roleplay being a woman, why can't you just let them be? You don't have to interact with them, you don't have to have sex with them; literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? You don't have to agree in everything those damn lefties believe in, you don't have to think it's right -- but why do you feel the need to aggressively oppose them?
Personally, I don't believe in Jesus or Allah, but you don't see me going around telling every Christian and every Muslim how damn idiotic their beliefs are and how they need to educate themselves on the realities of our world. Why can't we all at the very least extend the same courtesy towards the LGBTQ community?
Thing is almost no one have issue with trans people, people have issue with:
Books like "this book is gay" being in school libraries
Lower ranked male athletes transitioning and suddenly winning in woman categories
Teachers supporting secondary school girl claim that she is a cat and calling her classmates despicable for questioning that then telling them they should change school.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/23/child-identifying-as-cat-controversy-from-a-tiktok-video-to-media-frenzy
Guardian article with link to recording so judge for yourself:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22735585/fury-teacher-scolded-pupil-identify-cat/
Teacher telling students “you can’t be Canadian. You don’t belong here.” for skipping school during pride events
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton-school-distances-itself-from-recording-of-teacher-lecturing-students-for-skipping-pride-themed-activities
Sexual offenders changing their gender and getting jailtime in woman prison:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11677219/Trans-rapist-female-prison-proves-legal-sacrificed-vulnerable-women-Julie-Bindel-says.html
"Of the 230 inmates in the UK currently living under a different gender identity, 97 — some 42 per cent — are in jail for sex crimes"
"Among these jailed inmates living under a different gender identity are 44 who have been convicted of rape and 14 who forced underage children into sexual activity."
Aren't people allowed to have issue with situations like that? Does having issue with this make them transphobes?
I would say that this things require discussion, otherwise they will remain unsolved.
|
On July 10 2023 18:10 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 17:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
rejecting one's identities and rights can also be seen as hate. For example, "I don't hate women; I just don't think they deserve to vote". There was so much arguing about words meaning in this channel, so maybe we can define "hate" as well. Some people redefine hate as "every opinion I don't agree with" and everyone who doesn't agree with them is hating and attacking them. I feel this doesn't lead to effective communication. I'm pretty sure there's at least a couple of people here who think that I'm a transphobe who hates trans-folks just because I ask questions, even though I have zero ill feelings towards them and always try to be polite in everything I say.
To your point, I think it's most meaningful to talk about as specific of a topic as possible, as not everyone is as equally critical of / against the rights that the trans community (or the gay community, or women, or the Black community, etc.) is asking for.
|
On July 10 2023 18:19 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 17:09 Salazarz wrote:
Bottomline, why does it even matter if trans women are truly and genuinely 'female womens'? If they aren't 'real female womens' and are just pretending, who the fuck cares? What about a guy makebelieving that he is a woman offend your sensitivities so much? And please, don't tell me 'danger for real ladies in bathrooms' or 'muh fair sports', both of those are extreme fringe cases that are A) being looked at, B) far less damaging to the society as a whole than transphobia and anti-trans violence is.
If someone wants to roleplay being a woman, why can't you just let them be? You don't have to interact with them, you don't have to have sex with them; literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? You don't have to agree in everything those damn lefties believe in, you don't have to think it's right -- but why do you feel the need to aggressively oppose them?
Personally, I don't believe in Jesus or Allah, but you don't see me going around telling every Christian and every Muslim how damn idiotic their beliefs are and how they need to educate themselves on the realities of our world. Why can't we all at the very least extend the same courtesy towards the LGBTQ community? Thing is almost no one have issue with trans people, people have issue with: Books like "this book is gay" being in school libraries Lower ranked male athletes transitioning and suddenly winning in woman categories Teachers supporting secondary school girl claim that she is a cat and calling her classmates despicable for questioning that then telling them they should change school. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jun/23/child-identifying-as-cat-controversy-from-a-tiktok-video-to-media-frenzyGuardian article with link to recording so judge for yourself: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22735585/fury-teacher-scolded-pupil-identify-cat/Teacher telling students “you can’t be Canadian. You don’t belong here.” for skipping school during pride events https://edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton-school-distances-itself-from-recording-of-teacher-lecturing-students-for-skipping-pride-themed-activitiesSexual offenders changing their gender and getting jailtime in woman prison: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11677219/Trans-rapist-female-prison-proves-legal-sacrificed-vulnerable-women-Julie-Bindel-says.html"Of the 230 inmates in the UK currently living under a different gender identity, 97 — some 42 per cent — are in jail for sex crimes" "Among these jailed inmates living under a different gender identity are 44 who have been convicted of rape and 14 who forced underage children into sexual activity." Aren't people allowed to have issue with situations like that? Does having issue with this make them transphobes? I would say that this things require discussion, otherwise they will remain unsolved.
That cat student thing was in the UK, not the US, and it wasn't even a cat thing. Your article states :
"All this, despite the school itself saying no children had identified “as a cat or any other animal”. The controversy began when a student secretly recorded the discussion involving year 8 pupils at Rye college in East Sussex. In the excerpt posted to TikTok, a pupil describes the idea of another pupil identifying as a cow or cat as “crazy” and extends her remarks to include biological sex and gender as binary."
If you want to talk about that non-issue in the UK, post it in a UK thread please.
Edit: A lot of your issues/links aren't about the US.
|
I easily can understand someone being called racist or misogynist for saying "Blacks/women should not be allowed in white/male spaces".
I cannot understand someone being called racist / misogynist for saying "I don't think affirmative action is a good thing" - but this happens pretty often.
For many there's no spectre of opinions, you either support everything we say or you're a hateful bigot (or stupid libtard).
This is equally frustrating regardless of the topic or position.
|
On July 10 2023 17:09 Salazarz wrote:
Bottomline, why does it even matter if trans women are truly and genuinely 'female womens'? If they aren't 'real female womens' and are just pretending, who the fuck cares? What about a guy makebelieving that he is a woman offend your sensitivities so much? And please, don't tell me 'danger for real ladies in bathrooms' or 'muh fair sports', both of those are extreme fringe cases that are A) being looked at, B) far less damaging to the society as a whole than transphobia and anti-trans violence is.
If someone wants to roleplay being a woman, why can't you just let them be? You don't have to interact with them, you don't have to have sex with them; literally all they want from you is to not be hated and attacked. Is that too much to ask? You don't have to agree in everything those damn lefties believe in, you don't have to think it's right -- but why do you feel the need to aggressively oppose them?
Personally, I don't believe in Jesus or Allah, but you don't see me going around telling every Christian and every Muslim how damn idiotic their beliefs are and how they need to educate themselves on the realities of our world. Why can't we all at the very least extend the same courtesy towards the LGBTQ community?
I also don't go around telling Christians or Muslims their beliefs are idiotic but I have no problem saying as much on an internet forum if the topic of religion came up? Why would you assume that anyone having a debate on an internet forum with voluntary participants also goes around harassing people about their beliefs in real life?
|
I noticed we moved on from arguing about the definition of woman to arguing about the definition of female. As far as I know female is used pretty exclusively to talk about sex and not gender. Even if you want to argue that man/woman are gendered terms and basically anyone can adopt them, I've never heard anyone argue the same about male/female. So unless people are arguing that trans people can change their biological sex as well I don't even see the purpose over nitpicking at what a female is. We should save at least 1 word that refers exclusively to the XY people and XX people.
|
On July 10 2023 18:32 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I easily can understand someone being called racist or misogynist for saying "Blacks/women should not be allowed in white/male spaces".
I cannot understand someone being called racist / misogynist for saying "I don't think affirmative action is a good thing" - but this happens pretty often.
For many there's no spectre of opinions, you either support everything we say or you're a hateful bigot (or stupid libtard).
This is equally frustrating regardless of the topic or position.
What about "I don't think trans women should be allowed in cis women's spaces"? Because that's the same thing with bathrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
