>>7723901>>7726421Actually, on second thought, I'll examine your post a bit less facetiously.
Can you demonstrate that
>... if a man can say hes a woman and that makes him "100% a biological woman" is an actual claim being made by those you are arguing against? Or is this a strawman? While I'm personally intersex, and ergo have XX chromosomes, I sensibly recognize that my identification as female is not indicative of any broad 'biological' leanings. To claim otherwise would be a danger to my health, and indeed: any trans person, intersex or otherwise, is perfectly aware of this.
> ...IDPOL ideology twitter churned out last week immediately or you are a piece of shit that deserves to get killed.Don't use Twitter. Genuine advice. You'll thank me. In fact, avoid discussion via the internet generally. Find a debate club or something, idk. It's a known fact that these sorts of platforms, regardless of their broadness in views, tend to become echo chambers rather rapidly and discussions such as this are quickly replaced with vapid shitposting a la stirnerite comment I made earlier.
> My problem begins when legal arc[h]itecture that was built to help uplift women to equal status is beginning to get torn down in favor of the elusive idea of "gender identity". Women "feeling like a woman" isn't what got us raped and discriminated against on a global scale throughout history. It's because of our bodies FFS. Can you demonstrate that this 'legal architecture' is
A. Necessary for ALL women (i.e do middle class or upper class women need these things less? Do POCs need these things more?)
B. That changing this is ACTUALLY to the detriment of cis women?
Things such as female-specific scholarships, leadership roles, grants, etc -- we provide them to ethnic minorities just as easily. Is this causing detriment to 50% of the population to benefit 1% of it?
