Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby
I don't think you can really discriminate against those with the most power within a society based on structural inequality that has historically benefited them.
Obviously, you're confusing biology with gender. Gender is the performance we do, as an expression of our identity in the world, not the reproductive organs someone is born with. Not to mention that a lot of cis women also can't have children for a host of reasons. Are they less women because like trans women they don't birth a child? Furthermore, you clearly missed in my initial post how taking hormones for gender affirming care has drastic changes on someone's body like muscle mass etc. Also, no cis man is pretending to be a trans woman to have an easier time in prison. That's a silly straw man argument.
I highly encourage you to look up Jessie Gender on YouTube as she has a extensive video episode discussing some of the Matt Walsh talking points you're using (not say you're a Matt Walsh fan necessarily they are just similar positions)
Yeah, I think the quasi self-righteousness and mental gymnastics of Reimer's post probably made things worse.
|
I didn't miss your point about hormones. That's why I brought biology into it. The point I was trying to make was that hormones augment the physiology but don't change it completely. As good as science is it can't change the biology completely. That's why I advocate for separate divisions in sports, or staying in the original division. As in, if you were born as a male and you want to be a professional athlete you have to compete against other males, regardless of if you consider yourself a woman or not.