I don’t think so. Seems like KTI was talking specifically about trans women being neurologically female (and neurology is part of biology). I’m talking about the rest of the body also being female.
My interpretation is that they were saying that the argument of trying to force people into the gender roles assigned to them based on some sort of physical attribute is dumb. And that the argument could easily be used against itself because trans people being the gender they feel is correct simply because their need to be such is a part of their physiology.
I think the example of trans women was not an attempt to limit this logic simply to them, but was just a method of communicating the idea.
I could be wrong, though. I may have just been reading it optimistically in how I’d want it to be.
I wasn’t disagreeing with that part of the argument or suggesting that were limiting the discussion to trans women for nefarious reasons. I was only disagreeing with the quoted part. Biological sex is also a social construct, so the whole topic of physically being a man or woman biologically is still in the same realm of thought as race science, so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all. But even if we want to follow that logical, some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.
I’m also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women. Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake), then even if you excluded neurological biological reasons, then biological sex should still allow those that meet the transmeds/truscums BS ideas at least, yet transphobes still take issue. Biological here is just a dog whistle.
Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.
I don’t think so. Seems like KTI was talking specifically about trans women being neurologically female (and neurology is part of biology). I’m talking about the rest of the body also being female.
My interpretation is that they were saying that the argument of trying to force people into the gender roles assigned to them based on some sort of physical attribute is dumb. And that the argument could easily be used against itself because trans people being the gender they feel is correct simply because their need to be such is a part of their physiology.
I think the example of trans women was not an attempt to limit this logic simply to them, but was just a method of communicating the idea.
I could be wrong, though. I may have just been reading it optimistically in how I’d want it to be.
I wasn’t disagreeing with that part of the argument or suggesting that were limiting the discussion to trans women for nefarious reasons. I was only disagreeing with the quoted part. Biological sex is also a social construct, so the whole topic of physically being a man or woman biologically is still in the same realm of thought as race science, so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all. But even if we want to follow that logical, some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.
I’m also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women. Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake), then even if you excluded neurological biological reasons, then biological sex should still allow those that meet the transmeds/truscums BS ideas at least, yet transphobes still take issue. Biological here is just a dog whistle.
Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.