Can a man get pregnant

[fhtagn]

No (sane, literally normal)

[fhtagn]

Just so we're clear, nobody voting No actually believes trans people are the gender they say they are.

Is this supposed to make those who voted no change their mind?

[fhtagn]

Just so we're clear, nobody voting No actually believes trans people are the gender they say they are.

Is this supposed to make those who voted no change their mind?

My point is that I doubt that a majority of No voters consider themselves transphobic; probably, a good chunk would vote Yes in a poll asking if they consider trans people to be the gender they say they are. I hope any No voter who would vote Yes in such a poll recognizes that they don't actually support trans people.

And what does calling them transphobic accomplish?

[fhtagn]

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I don't care if I put people off by calling them an ist-o-phobe. The definition of a racist is someone who thinks a person is inferior because of their race. The definition of a transphobe is someone who thinks a trans person is not the gender they say they are. Anyone who votes No in this poll is a transphobe.

All I'm doing is noting how many transphobes there are here, based on the poll, and questioning how many of them would recognize that they are transphobic. If snowflakes get offended or worry that trans people will lose the midterms of the Dems, then that's their problem.

imagine thinking they're a significant enough number to actually matter in elections.

[fhtagn]

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

[fhtagn]

No one is “objectively” not black from a definition that is not inherently arbitrary.

Just because you're ignorant of the debate between how to categorize racial categories does not mean the debate does not exist with similar contention to the debate over gender definitions.

Ask any mixed raced person, especially someone who is 1/4 or less black if their blackness is universally accepted as valid, in the black community or out of it. There is debate on whether Africans Descended from Slaves and African immigrants belong in the same category. Then there's Afro-Latinx immigrants who emigrated from Latin American countries but whose ancestors in those countries were slaves stolen from Afrifa; many of them identify strictly as Hispanic and not black, and many of those who identify as black are told by non-Latinx black Americans that they're more Hispanic than black. Then there's Africans in Africa, many of whom feel solidarity with black Americans and consider them to be one people, then there's Africans who feel they're completely separate from black Americans and that the concept of race and blackness is not as important to their identity as it is for black Americans.

So, most of the time when we talk about black people, most of us agree on who we're talking about. Nevertheless, there is contention, especially when you try to pin down a specific definitive definition. That's the same thing with trying to pin down a specific definition for women or men.

stop calling us latinx, racist bigot.

[fhtagn]

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

Yet we recognized above that this usage has changed since whatever your definition of "throughout history" entails (which is itself misleading, since there have been many instances of historically-recognized gender non-conforming people being known by other pronouns than those they were assigned at birth and by the name given by their culture to gender non-conforming people), although your response to it was the very wishy-washy "definitions do change but I'm still going to be hostile to this particular instance of it Because Ideology".

So you have the right to alter the definitions but we don't have the right to question those changes?

You have every right to question it; I just don't think you were doing so in good faith.

Oh ok. Why is that? I would instinctively question any redefinition of any word. The burden is on those advocating a change to the status quo to demonstrate why the change is necessary.

Are the millions of transgender people too burdensome to explain the necessity of a change?

The reason why your arguments — top say nothing of the posters preceding you who take more explicit pride in their bigotry — can't be taken in good faith is because it's been explained over and over again why it's important to change the status quo (or rather, acknowledge that the status quo had been to ignore a demographic of people who have existed ever since the social construction of gender), and you still pretend that nobody has ever presented a valid argument. It's been explained. You just don't want to listen.

If we are being honest, it's a fairly negligible % of the population to demand a complete change in our language and how words are defined.

[fhtagn]

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

you just don't like what's being said.

[fhtagn]

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

you just don't like what's being said.

Pretty much all pro trans people see the sex label as effectively a gender marker for all practical purposes and/or think that birth sex shouldn't be on id(at least without also having gender marked as a superannuation category.

You're only proving my point that the trans movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time.

Why shouldn't your sex be listed on your birth certificates and IDs? For the purpose of birth certificates especially, no amount of living your life as something else changes the fact that we are born male or female. It's not something someone just assigned to us, it's our state of existence as humans.

[fhtagn]

I feel like it's high time this thread was locked.

way to ruin the fun, karen 

[fhtagn]

Oh look, this thread is back.

It hasn't reached 10 pages yet

[fhtagn]

Oh look, this thread is back.

It hasn't reached 10 pages yet

Give it a few hours, it might. This is Atlas, lol.

I'll be sure to get my popcorn ready.