92

9 comments

[–] tamingthemind eh/ayyyy 1 points

"People with cancer have a disease."

"So people with cancer are nothing but walking diseases to you?!"

I honestly wonder if these people are really this poorly educated in logical fallacies or if they're being deliberately obtuse. It is so obvious that saying "all members of [category] have [trait in common]" doesn't mean "any member of [category] is nothing more than [trait]".

Like when people say Rachel Dolezal isn't black because her skin is white, nobody is gonna say "Oh so that's what you think black people are? Nothing but skin?". If somebody claims to be vegan while eating a cheeseburger, and is told "You're not vegan because you eat meat and animal products", are they gonna snap back "Wow how sad it is you think vegans have nothing in their lives except for eating patterns".

I can't think of the right words to express this concisely right now but I feel like this is a very, very basic logic fail that is simply SO bizarre and I don't see it in any context EXCEPT to dismiss women using the actual definition of woman. I even see women argue this! They're like "As a woman I am so much more than my vagina", like yes, that's the whole point of feminism, just because you are one of those "people with vaginas" doesn't mean you're limited by anything! It's so fucking backwards

[–] Disappearanceoftheychromosomer ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 7 points

Sure the vagina my mother created for me inside her when I was a baby is a patriarchal standart. The make up, skirts and porn AGP uses to discover their "gender identity" are just a natural occuring phenomenon to humans...

This is so tiring. Women are not just our bodies, but it is because of our bodies that we are discriminated against in many places and openly oppressed in many countries. All the border-control of definitions etc., all the attempts to ask if a woman stays a woman without all the female parts functioning etc, none of that makes any difference to the fact that the oppression of women is sex-based.

It affects some individuals who are not biologically female if they look as if they are, but it does not affect trans-identified men who, say, go to work in 'boymode' do no body modifications and, in fact, get all the male privilege they can carry and store. It may not affect passing trans-identified women in most areas of life where they, too, get male privilege, but it certainly affects almost all special non-binary female people who are going to be seen and treated as women by the wider society as it is not possible to identify out of oppression (or into it) by the mere change of pronouns.

That we are even having these discussions is a sign of the destruction the corruption of language is creating.

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 21 points

Some years ago (feels like decades in internet years, but it wasn’t that long ago) Pharrell Williams told Oprah he was a “new black.” The New Black, in his eyes is someone who has transcended race and racial history to achieve success. This is more or less where the New Women are going with feminism. Being a man or a woman, and the relations between the sexes, are all mindsets. If you want to be a man and enjoy the privileges of maleness you can, if you want to be a woman and enjoy the privileges of being a woman you can. Feminism isn’t about liberating women from male supremacy and dependency, it’s about liberating “gender” from a binary, exploitative paradigm. The very first step of liberation is denying the material basis of gender, it’s relation to sexual reproduction and the economy, and redefine it as aesthetics and spirituality. Gender is about acting, performing, dressing, perceiving, deceiving, feeling, identifying not about the penis raping and the male fist beating and throttling women into submission.

At some point we just need to point, laugh, and move on to sane interlocutors. These people are trolls, insane, or both.