ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
No bio...
User ID: 822
so much as pointing out that accusations of sexual deviance were not first levied by the pro-trans faction.
Yet those accusations are the bread and butter of the pro-trans faction. "Why do you want to know about their genitals?" [intended with this implication] is kind of the standard pro-trans canard; hell, you're actively using it yourself.
Philosophy Bear's concept of 'inadmissible knowledge' gives the example of someone whose father is a murderer.
I'll start taking that seriously when [the set of people who are overwhelmingly likely to be pro-trans] stop blood libelling me for being part of the murder gender (and conversely, granting themselves extra privileges for being the should-protect-from-murder gender). Granted, this isn't directly the argument you're making, but it does point to the pro/anti-trans thing being more who/whom, and the actual "gender euphoria" is arguably just as much about ramming your ideology down everyone's throat (remember when 2010s atheists used to say that? Guess that aged poorly) than it is the psychological effects, or personal benefits, of dressing as the opposite gender in public.
I don't think it's generally right for what someone is and isn't allowed to do to vary based on accidents of birth.
Ok, so what about kleptomania or pedophilia (in the "older man hits on your 5 year old daughter" sense- not something that would raise 'consent' issues)?
I'd give you points for being consistent and accepting both on its face (after all, how could mere speech be harmful?)... but if you don't, well, now we're just haggling over the degree of "is and isn't allowed based on real or imagined harms to the participating parties, willing or not".
I'm not interested in the pretense that it isn't a sexual deviance. It pretty clearly is, on its face in fact- what we're actually debating is to what degree that should matter, and who should be forced to accept what.
Which is why the motte of the anti-trans argument centers around "they are completely unwilling to accommodate for anyone else"- something you yourself acknowledge. The bailey is stupid and absurd, but then again, the bailey of the pro-trans argument is "they should be forced at literal gunpoint to accommodate for me" and not merely "they want to be allowed to do the same things as cis individuals are allowed to do".
As [for the purpose of this argument] a cis-person, I don't have the right to summon the State to beat someone into submission should they call me a woman. That is, very literally, what trans-people insist on (or rather what their loudest advocates insist on; trans-people don't actually have a critical mass and most of the fight is an intra-woman conflict, but that's out of scope at the moment.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboy miscegenation
20hr ago
That would have been real conversation.
It's irritating how 'conservatives' haven't figured out how to call themselves 'reform' yet. To a degree, the under-40s have figured that out anyway (and the label's just for the benefit of the Boomers, much like 'liberal's are the enemy of classical liberalism these days no matter what the old think), but I'd rather have someone intelligent talk frankly about it than just jacking off in the corner Politics 1.0 style.
Indeed; that's exactly what we're seeing here, just like every other time a woman complains about not getting that power in exchange for the sex she had 50+ years ago.
More options
Context Copy link