92

9 comments

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