• circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Alright, you convinced me. I’m switching to Team Elmo.

      That was your goal right? Take someone who agrees with your larger belief system, find something you can nitpick, and then berate them about it until they can’t stomach the thought of politically aligning with you?

      Because you did a bang up job.

      Now excuse me, I need to go sign up for Twitter Blue and get some MAGA hats.

    • jmp242@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d argue that it’s pretty obvious that man and woman are socially constructed, and as such - there’s just no fact of the matter to get down to. I also find that most things of strict self-id basically become just a place to have “no true scotsman” arguments, and therefore we’d be better served to stop using the terms for policy making at the very least.

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The person you’re replying to doesn’t seem to be implying anything you’re arguing against in your response.

        • raptir@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They’re saying chromosomes are a good measure for “transness” or “cisness”.

          No, they’re not. They’re saying that because a person’s chromosomes don’t change based on whether they are trans or cis that a clear biological answer to the question being posed is impossible.

          Like… did you read the rest of the person’s comment? It’s pretty clear they are not anti-trans if you read the entire context and don’t just cherry pick a random sentence .