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 disagree with this conceptualization. I would argue that biological sex has a relevant social construct to aid it’s conceptualization. Gender norms and roles would be an extension of this.
I think biological sex is a function of the human organism.
so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all.
maybe, but i’m operating strictly in a philosophical sense here, so it’s not like i’m arguing that people don’t physically exist at all or anything, essentially just making the argument that the physical existence is irrelevant to the argument because there is a much better argument in the form of this conceptualization.
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.
while this is true, i question the relevancy in making this as a logical argument, i could argue that a human has more in common with a banana than with a meteor for example. I’m just not convinced that the physical existence matters all that much in this case.
I’m also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women.
i don’t think you are, but i question whether or not this provides some level of subconscious restriction to the concept at hand. Relevant or not, it may not even matter at the end of the day. That’s not really something i’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, logically though, it heavily restricts how you can conceptualize things. Which you could argue is the human framework i suppose. We are humans at the end of the day.
Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake)
i’m not, there’s not point, i’m essentially arguing that their entire conception of the issue is fundamentally flawed and cannot work. And that people spend too much time missing the forest for the tree in front of them.
Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.
i always appreciate in depth discussion about things, it’s a good way to learn things.
As for limitation of bounds, it’s a way to communicate the idea without bloating the workings of it heavily (i could get into the weeds, but those are irrelevant when talking about a macro-system)
as for trans women specifically, it was probably just cuz the thread was based on women lmao.
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 disagree with this conceptualization. I would argue that biological sex has a relevant social construct to aid it’s conceptualization. Gender norms and roles would be an extension of this.
I think biological sex is a function of the human organism.
maybe, but i’m operating strictly in a philosophical sense here, so it’s not like i’m arguing that people don’t physically exist at all or anything, essentially just making the argument that the physical existence is irrelevant to the argument because there is a much better argument in the form of this conceptualization.
while this is true, i question the relevancy in making this as a logical argument, i could argue that a human has more in common with a banana than with a meteor for example. I’m just not convinced that the physical existence matters all that much in this case.
i don’t think you are, but i question whether or not this provides some level of subconscious restriction to the concept at hand. Relevant or not, it may not even matter at the end of the day. That’s not really something i’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, logically though, it heavily restricts how you can conceptualize things. Which you could argue is the human framework i suppose. We are humans at the end of the day.
i’m not, there’s not point, i’m essentially arguing that their entire conception of the issue is fundamentally flawed and cannot work. And that people spend too much time missing the forest for the tree in front of them.
i always appreciate in depth discussion about things, it’s a good way to learn things.
this is pretty much exactly my thinking.
As for limitation of bounds, it’s a way to communicate the idea without bloating the workings of it heavily (i could get into the weeds, but those are irrelevant when talking about a macro-system)
as for trans women specifically, it was probably just cuz the thread was based on women lmao.