[flagged]
FTM transgender people can get pregnant, yes. They don't have the XY chromosomes that cisgender men do, but intersex people don't necessarily have two x or xy chromosomes, and they CAN give birth.
Biology is not black and white, and gender is a social construct.
That's really what is in the Culture novels from Iain M. banks that Elon Musk idolizes.
We are already finding ways to let sterile couples have children. Why is that acceptable and not against nature?
> Problem is left call centrists right wing, and everyone right of Stalin Nazis.
Only MAGA call anyone to their left "RHINO", "cucks" and "communists".
>Broken minds, like zombies.
https://newrepublic.com/post/215314/trump-makes-crowd-swear-...
For instance, "men can have babies" is a simple result of politeness and observable reality. Transgender people exist, and can become pregnant and have babies. The polite, sympathetic and decent thing to do when interacting with a transgender person is to use their preferred gender terms. This is true whether you're a small-government, live-and-let-live libertarian conservative (you live your life, I'll live mine) or a Christian values social conservative (Jesus spent his entire life around lepers, beggars and prostitutes and washed their feet as an act of love and compassion).
Combine those two facts 1) you've got a person who had a baby at one point in their life and 2) who should be referred to as a man today, and the result is you get a man who had a baby. Nothing left-wing or liberal about it, just basic civility and politeness to another person, which are values we should all embrace.
Trans people have above-average suicide rates. Gender-affirming care is one of the only proven ways we can reduce these rates. If this makes you uncomfortable, consider that the issue might not be on my side.
Society does not have an obligation to say falsehoods under duress. I think you'll probably agree with me for most other thought experiment examples I could come up with where people would need to collectively say what they don't believe lest the aggrieved party hurt themselves.
Woah, not even one sentence in, and you're already pretending to lack the ability to properly read my words. I genuinely have no idea how any form of productive conversation could be possible.
- Society should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group
- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide in this group <-- you are here
- I should do something because it reduces risk of suicide to this person
- I should do something because if I don't there's a high risk this person will kill themselves
- I should do something because if I don't this person credibly says they will kill themselves <-- my post
- I should do something because this person is truly mentally ill and if I don't they definitely will kill themselves
These are all the same argument. You are being disingenuous. Your post says that "'Suicide prevention' is a sufficient reason [to call a female a man]." What exactly were you implying then if not that I should do something because otherwise someone might kill themselves? You are uncomfortable with me clarifying your position in more direct verbiage; that is the insidiousness of your position: it only sounds nice when you ignore its implications.
Man, really? The same argument transphobes use?
"It's observable reality. Just LOOK at her! It's obvious!" compared to "It's observable reality. Just LOOK at him! It's obvious!"
> simple result
I wish it were that simple -_-
It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way. That's okay, but I'm just not going to use them that way. Neither of us have a stronger claim to "observable reality", but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.
And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.
>but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.
Why on earth would you think appeal to tradition gives your opinion any legitimacy.
History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.
That's fine, people can call me that if they want to
> History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.
Sure, and I'm not saying historicity makes me right, just that I didn't pull the opinion out of thin air like it's a crackpot theory; most people in the world today and throughout history agreed with me. I have essentially 0 Agreeableness in the big 5 so any argument about social pressure in present decade USA doesn't sway my opinion.