Who was in the wrong here? Who won the argument?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
All I am gonna say is...
Thank God she is YOUR ally and not mine.
she gave a terrific answer to what was a meme tier "define woman" question, so the guy was in the wrong obviously.
what was wrong with her answer user? watch the video again and tell me which one of them is being intellectually dishonest
>which one of them is being intellectually dishonest
Let's break this down very slowly and simply for you.
Bearing in mind that the debates is regading abortion and womens rights.
Woman:
>Men can get pregnant too!
Man:
>So... This isn't actually a womens rights issue then?
Woman:
>It affects women and you are transphobic for denying that men can get pregnant.
what's dishonest about that? is it that you disagree that trans people exist and assume she does as well and is consciously lying about trans people being real?
It didn't matter what she said, the guy would have a faux naive meme answer ready to own the libs.
The white man because he is a white man.
Men can't get pregnant. Saying this isn't transphobic, as medical science is not powerful enough to give you a functioning womb or even just intrinsically alter your dna/genetics. Claiming men can get pregnant is anti-intellectual, anti-biology and anti-progress.
Yes this woman is insane. That we seriously have to even discuss this is even more insane. This should be considered a form of subconscious (because let's be honest, she doesn't actually think she's doing anything wrong here) terrorist attack on healthy thinking, in all honesty. It is sick and unhinged. How she is even in her position, more or less discredits American education.
The world laughs at us for making non-issues actual issues.
Is the implication here that these people don't want to be labelled as transphobes?
They really want this, this is like an endzone dance for them.
she literally gave the perfect answers imo. her only "mistake" was calling out the transphobia because all the conservatards freak out whenever they hear that accusation, but she was still completely in the right for calling out that behaviour.
there's no correct way for dealing with these people lol.
>Claiming men can get pregnant is anti-intellectual, anti-biology and anti-progress.
not if you include trans men in your definition of men, which you clearly don't. it's literally all semantics, are you rally this freaked out about a semantics issue?
the weasely ivy suit cuck was in the wrong
how the fuck did you manage to create a type of person even less charismatic than a fucking diversity hire shaniqua
what the fuck are you doing
Trans men identify as men, but are intrinsically *not* that. How is this hard to understand? They can't impregnate someone either. They are biologically not equipped. Tough.
So, no, men can't truly become pregnant. End of story. This is a 1 + 1 sort of logic. Simplicity.
you pretend to be all about facts and logics but don't even consider the possibility of language evolving, that your epic science math variables can change. how come you're so resistant to the idea of trans men being a sub set of men? what's the 1 + 1 simple medical reasoning behind that?
There's semantics, and then there's objectively present biological patterns.
I know trans people exist.
I'm talking to you now.
I also know that only females can het pregnant and what is a woman if it isn't an adult human female.
That isn't to say that there aren't TRANS WOMEN that don't look, sound and act like WOMEN and should be treated as such socially but they are not, in fact, biological women with regards to reproductive organs.
Should you consider seahorses horses?
I mean, the word horse is literally right in the name.
Language isn't biology. The human physique isn't capable of being physically altered by semantics or language.
The same people here that applaud her will post about how pregnant pooners are trenders (they are) in the next thread.
>Should you consider seahorses horses?
>I mean, the word horse is literally right in the name.
either you're being dishonest or you're that dumb. language doesn't evolve like that, people get to choose what words mean and how they're used. is there a major political movement that claims seahorses are horses? again, are you that dumb or is it dishonesty?
am i claiming that words changed biology, or that the words that we use to explain biology can evolve? please take your time with this one.
"eviscerates"
youtube.com
"humilated"
youtube.com
They literally pretend she won the argument and destroyed him. They are literally stewing in a thick broth of cope.
>am i claiming that words changed biology
Yes, by wrongfully associating identity with the actual biological reality. They are not the same.
oh well, seems like we're stuck on the definition. too bad we couldn't come to an agreement over the definition of "man"! lol, words right?
>language doesn't evolve like that
>you pretend to be all about facts and logics but don't even consider the possibility of language evolving,
>how come you're so resistant to the idea of seahorse being a sub set of horse? what's the 1 + 1 simple medical reasoning behind that?
This isn't a matter of agreement/disagreement. Men flat-out cannot get pregnant if they weren't originally women to begin with - so as to say, they are not true men. They weren't born men.
Her answer was just as stupid as the senator's question when they were fencing each other. When she immediately went for the dog shit retard defense of violence against trannies aka you are a nazi, that is when she lost it for me.
i already explained that here?
>is there a major political movement that claims seahorses are horses? again, are you that dumb or is it dishonesty?
do you even have a point or are you just shooting in the dark wasting my time? i'd appreciate an actual reply.
>Men flat-out cannot get pregnant if they weren't originally women to begin with - so as to say, they are not true men. They weren't born men.
all of this assumes a certain definition of "men", which is not the same as the definition that progressives use. this whole thing is a semantics issue, a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the definition of that word. i feel like now you're being obtuse! !
It still is a woman's rights issue because 99.9% of all people that can get pregnant are women. Recognizing that a small minority who may be affect by this while not being women does not negate the fact that the vast majority of those of it affects are women. When we talk about stuff, we generally exclude the outliers because having to account for outliers in all instances when talking about anything would be exhausting and even maybe humanly impossible.
Men/male as in the biological man/male. A trans man is not biologically male. They may identify as male, but they are not biologically male. Biology outweighs culture.
A man and a trans man both identify as being men/male, but only one of them can get pregnant, and it's not the biological male.
the semantics ITT holy fuck
>Men/male as in the biological man/male.
progressives disagree with this because they have a different definition of that word :)
>A trans man is not biologically male.
progressives disagree with this because they have a different definition of that word :)
>They may identify as male, but they are not biologically male.
progressives disagree with this because they have a different definition of that word :)
>A man and a trans man both identify as being men/male, but only one of them can get pregnant, and it's not the biological male.
progressives disagree with this because they have a different definition of those words :)
i feel like im starting to repeat myself...