i have not lied, i am not upset, and you got 1 warning point because you ignored a verbal warning to cease personal attacks, which is pretty standard procedure.
Don't lie and you won't get called out on it?i have not lied, i am not upset, and you got 1 warning point because you ignored a verbal warning to cease personal attacks, which is pretty standard procedure.
you need to get out of university bro its rotting your mindSomeone explained Hegel's master-slave dialectic to me some time ago, I think it sorta applies here.
Wow. I can't believe you're going to make me explain you words. Why the **** do you think you can insert an implication when everything is written in explicit terms and in accordance with the literature.1. by saying "Some men aren't cut to operate according to the expectations that we've constructed as a society of men".
this is transphobic, because:
-you are implying trans women are "men who aren't cut to operate according to the expectations that we've constructed as a society of men" and are trans as a result. do i really have to explain further?
You know what MTF trans before their transitions are called? Men. This isn't difficult.2. by saying "some men want to feel pretty or express femininity".
this is transphobic, because:
-you are implying trans women are "men who want to feel pretty or express femininity".
again. they aren't men. they aren't trans as a result of wanting to express femininty. "some men want to express femininity" has literally nothing to do with the subject.
Blablabla please spare me your virtue signalling. I care about achieving mutual understandings. MadVader pretty much opened his legs to being corrected and you took advantage of it to call him transphobic because you can't engage with the subject beyond that. Nothing I said was transphobic and you haven't demonstrated anything except formulating ''that's transphobic'' using more characters.neither "some men want to feel pretty and express femininity" nor "some men aren't cut to operate according to the expectations that we've constructed as a society of men" are appropriate responses to "why are there more trans women than trans men". they are both deeply transphobic in this context. obviously, blatantly transphobic even at the most basic level, because no, trans women are not men. but also because of the deeper problems within both statements. it doesn't help that the original question was asked in a transphobic way.
What the ****? Feeling dissonance as to your gender expression is part of gender dysphoria.perhaps you really just didn't read at all the post you responded to but you can't claim innocence by pointing at a gender expression wiki article and "i was just saying it's ok for men to dress feminine if they want". it's completely besides the point. a beautiful goalpost shift. as a respone to "why are there more trans women than trans men" it is still deeply transphobic.
It was on a philosophy channel. Philosophy is rotting my mind. But seriously though, it's a good, relevant way of invoking Hegel, imo.you need to get out of university bro its rotting your mind
MEN [NOT necessarily transwomen YET]
this is not in fact correct and a very big mistake to make. i thought you said you knew what you were talking about?You know what MTF trans before their transitions are called? Men. This isn't difficult.
this is objectively incorrect. my first response was to explain that the numbers he based his question on were changing. i in fact very explicitly did not immediately call out the transphobic way the question was asked, and merely pointed it out after he got pissy at some mild ribbing.and you took advantage of it to call him transphobic becauseyou can't engage with the subject beyond that.
deeply comical.Blablabla please spare me your virtue signalling.
"please remember" implies i said i would. i in fact said i would not spend time doing the legwork for a bad faith question. please do keep up.Please remember to link sources how the things I've argued ''have been long debunked'', btw.
His reaction was completely justified when he was asking a question out of interest and in good faith and was met with posturing by someone not any better informed than him. You did not attempt to explain anything that would've been accepted by anyone. Please don't have conversations you can't have.this is objectively incorrect. my first response was to explain that the numbers he based his question on were changing. i in fact very explicitly did not immediately call out the transphobic way the question was asked, and merely pointed it out after he exploded at some mild ribbing.
if you can't even accurately portray the events as they occurred, how are we to trust your judgement of the interaction? tut tut.
which remains true.Special mention goes to the have long been debunked thing
Ok but that doesn't really make for a good case when you decline to provide sources to back it up when asked. I say this as someone who usually agrees with you on most things.which remains true.
Then stop being such a lazy useless piece of **** and go on google
long debunked and deeply transphobic assumptions like "some men aren't cut to operate according to the expectations" or "Some men want to feel pretty or express themselves along feminine lines" are not, in fact, part of the explanation
What am I googling exactly?
Seems to actually work pretty well as a starting point."Index of Transphobic Claims (debunked)"
Seems to actually work pretty well as a starting point.