Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
You’re deceptive too. The motivations of this law are not purely transphobia and you damn well know that. This isn’t that black and white. There’s scientific conjecture on both sides of this issue. Not having a strong opinion on some things us what this society needs. Not outraged mobs like you.
What part of my comments were deceptive? I didn’t comment on the law, or the scientific “conjecture” on both sides. I encouraged a user to be upset that someone told them an obvious lie; I even pointed out that they don’t have to be pro-trans to be angered by that.
I’m not a mob, I’m not outraged, I’m irked on principle that obvious claptrap is being used as a tool to bamboozle those with less time to think about things. If the strength of scientific conjecture was so strong surely the debate could rest on actual science, not proposing disingenuous sub-ethical studies. I didn’t comment on any of what you’ve accused me of…until now.
The reason it can’t is stand on its own scientific merits is because, though it would be great for anti-trans campaigners if it did, the science doesn’t really back their view-point of “gender realism”. It’s not a scientific debate, it’s one of social and emotive balance. I think that trans-men are men, and trans-women are women; both as it costs me nothing to recognise this, and because the science of “gendered brains” doesn’t slightly support the notion that gonad sex, and gender, are 1:1 aligned.
Frankly the irony of you coming in and accusing me of being an outraged mob is ridiculous. The only mob antics on display are yours, strawmanning and accusing me of things simply not present in my post.
You’re deceptive too. The motivations of this law are not purely transphobia and you damn well know that. This isn’t that black and white. There’s scientific conjecture on both sides of this issue. Not having a strong opinion on some things us what this society needs. Not outraged mobs like you.
What part of my comments were deceptive? I didn’t comment on the law, or the scientific “conjecture” on both sides. I encouraged a user to be upset that someone told them an obvious lie; I even pointed out that they don’t have to be pro-trans to be angered by that. I’m not a mob, I’m not outraged, I’m irked on principle that obvious claptrap is being used as a tool to bamboozle those with less time to think about things. If the strength of scientific conjecture was so strong surely the debate could rest on actual science, not proposing disingenuous sub-ethical studies. I didn’t comment on any of what you’ve accused me of…until now.
The reason it can’t is stand on its own scientific merits is because, though it would be great for anti-trans campaigners if it did, the science doesn’t really back their view-point of “gender realism”. It’s not a scientific debate, it’s one of social and emotive balance. I think that trans-men are men, and trans-women are women; both as it costs me nothing to recognise this, and because the science of “gendered brains” doesn’t slightly support the notion that gonad sex, and gender, are 1:1 aligned.
Frankly the irony of you coming in and accusing me of being an outraged mob is ridiculous. The only mob antics on display are yours, strawmanning and accusing me of things simply not present in my post.