LogFAQs > #903709572

gunplagirl posted...

1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption

It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous.

Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.