To this day, I have no fucking idea how could Trans debate hone so insanely wrong. No matter how long I do spend on the topic, I cannot wrap my head around this madness, but the more interesting part is, just how little good faith debate there actually is on the topic.
Fuck... Even on Abortion, there is some gray zone. I do not belong to either camp, because I know, that both sides are trying to pointlessly escalate their position to push the overton window. But the base arguments are clear. But with the trans debate, I don't even know the last time I heard 2 people try to compate the baselines.
@LukeAlmighty the "gray zone" is sex =/= gender.
That's it.
Conservatards can't stand that gray zone because they view sex and gender as synonymous. As with most things, they shot themselves in the foot, and now their only recourse is outright oppression (with predictable results) to try and amend the "problem".
@Aldo2
Bro...I am trying to take this conversation seriously, and you jump in with "if you believe hard enough, you might grow a dick".
I am getting to tired of your bait.
@LukeAlmighty you were literally asking for a "good faith debate" lol
Well, there's your "good faith debate".
You clearly don't want a "debate", you just want people to agree with you 100% on everything without any pushback.
Rather pathetic, tbqh.
@Aldo2
Obviously last week has a ton to do with me not believing you are even able to do a good faith argument anymore.
Not to mention, that you started the debate with literally stating the most insane assertion and expectation, that I will accept it in full extent. Instead, if you even read what I wrote in this thread already, you could have noticed, that I did give a HUGE pass on the gender role question, but I seriously wouldn't expect you of all people to understand that point.
@LukeAlmighty how is it the "most insane assertion and expectation". It's something that most, if not all people agree on.
Sex is not gender. They are different words, relate to different things etc...
Again, YOU are the one who wanted a "good faith debate". But you can't even accept a basic premise of the "trans argument".
Well then, it's not "good faith" then, is it?
Your pass is that.....You didn't give it a pass?
You said you don't want to talk about it because it's been talked about 100s of times. That's not a pass, that's you avoiding it entirely because you know if you agreed to it then you'd have to change your own position.
@Aldo2
Ok, if you want to play this game:
Is this a boot, or is it a cake? Would you eat it, or would you leave it on a floor next to your other boots for a few days, and then put your foot in it and walk with it through a forrest?
@LukeAlmighty footwear can apply to women or men.
Men can wear women's footwear and vice-versa.
You used the wrong analogy.
@Aldo2
So, you would put this mixture of egg, sugar and wheat on your foot beofre going to work?
Interesting...
@LukeAlmighty you used the wrong analogy, deliberately, to make an argument against you impossible.
Of course you can't use cake as a shoe. Duh.
I used the correct analogy, to describe not only my position, but reality (i.e. shoes are not made of cake, and men can wear women's shoes and women can wear men's shoes, the shoe is gender, duh).
@Aldo2
Ok, you cannot use a cake as a shoe...
Why? It definitely looks like a shoe to me.
@LukeAlmighty notice how I said "men can wear" and "women can wear", i.e. there is a difference between SEX and GENDER.
I know this is tough for you to accept.
@Aldo2
Of course it wasn't created as a shoe, but why are you not behaving as if it were one?
@Aldo2
It doesn't want you to believe it to be a shoe. It just want's you to wear it.
@LukeAlmighty a shoe is meant to be worn.
A man can wear a woman's shoe, and a woman can wear a man's shoe.
How hard is this for you to understand?
@Aldo2
Yes. A shoe is meant to be worn, and a cake is meant to be eaten.
But what about cake, that REALLY deep down KNOWS it's a shoe?
@Aldo2
Thank you
You have no idea jist how a big of a compliment it unironically is.
Back to the topic. Will you wear the shoe?
@Aldo2
You must understand already, that the point of gender =/= sex argument means, that if you spend enough effort truly trying to look and behave as the category you don't belong in, (shoe), you should be treated as a part of that category as default.
That was your argument, not mine. I just illustrated it on a topic, where I know advanced mimicry is in fact possible.
@LukeAlmighty That's not the point of sex =/= gender. How can you misread something so simple.
Men can wear women's shoes, and women can wear men's shoes. HOW IS IT THAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS?
No you didn't, you brought up a cake, which as I said was the wrong analogy, and then you keep bringing up your stupid Jordan Peterson tier "I identify as an attack copter" argument as some sort of great own.
Again, it's beneath you to do that.
@Aldo2
On other topics, you say "this cake looks like a shoe". You don't say "this cake is a shoe", and you definitely don't behave as if the cake was unironically a shoe. Why? Because the inert properties of the cake make it useless as a shoe.
So, why do you think gender =/= sex is an argument for that guy is a women and treat it as one, but taste =/= wearableness is an argument for wear the cake?
Why?
How does that follow? how does that even make sense?
If I spend enough time and effort truly trying to look and behave like a dog (and there are people who do), are you obligated to treat me as a dog?
If you tell me I'm not really a dog, are you committing a crime?
@Snidely_Whiplash @Aldo2
Yes, that is their claim as far as I understand it.
So, was the allegory a good one?
@Aldo2
Well, you wanted to have the gender =/= sex debate, so I had it.
If sex is what you are, and gender is how you identity, and it can be different based on what you look like, then a food's sex would be food. But, it tried to look like clothing, it's gender would change to clothing.
And since we treat people based on the gender, and not sex, you would have to treat the shoe cake as a shoe. That is the entire logic of sex =/= gender.
@Aldo2
And I am seriously starting to question your legal status of self governing individual, if you can neither understand the concept of an analogy, or the concept of protecting yourself from buch of people who hate your existence.
i'd say don't waste your time and just curb stomp him
@LukeAlmighty lol
Again, you use the wrong analogy.
Sex is what you are, gender is what you identify as. It is not "different based on what you look like".
"Food" is incapable of having a sex, because food is an abstract.
More like "tomato is a fruit".
You keep making the completely wrong argument to try and buttress your position, and it keeps failing.
@Aldo2
No, you didn't even define your position, and keep on sperging out about people not accepting your unsaid definition in all the examples you believe in including all the implications you believe in, but not the logical extent.
So, once again you gave proven, that a good faith conversation with troon supporters is not possible.
@LukeAlmighty the definition is that men can wear women's shoes, and women can wear men's shoes.
Tomato is a fruit, but used as a vegetable.
How hard is this to understand, jfc.
I don't know how to make it simpler.
@Aldo2
Clothes and food were analogy for men and women. I am really sorry, if your kindergarten failed you in this respect.
@LukeAlmighty no, they weren't.
"Food" was an analogy for gender.
Shoes were an analogy for gender.
I made the argument that food is an abstract, so you have to be more specific, i.e. fruits. But as I said, tomatoes are a fruit, yet they are used as a vegetable.
Shoes can be either "mens" or "womens", yet both biological men and women can wear the others shoes.
Jfc
@Aldo2
Wow... you are so insanely retarded, that even when I spell out the analogy to you, you still are incapable to grasp the concept 
@LukeAlmighty you're the one who said you wanted a "good faith conversation", yet now you say that you never wanted it.
Congrats, you're a retard.
Sex is not gender. "
It is not something that most people agree with you on. You are lying to at least yourself.
That you cannot see that is why you are a complete failure.
Troons are saying that they have been fucked in the head and now we need to coddle them and lie to them so they won't feel bad.
Your argument is that everyone must agree with you because you airily dismiss reality.
@LukeAlmighty lol
Last week's argument was not at all related to this, stop deflecting.
It's not up to you what can or can't be argued in a "good faith debate", especially when you dismiss a fundamental argument of the opposition which is actually agreeable by all sides.
Sex =/= Gender.
Sex is not about gender.
Those trans people arguing in "good faith" are not saying they can give birth from their penis (if they're of biological male sex).
They're saying that they are a gender that is different to their sex. They would like people to treat them as their gender. It's really quite simple.
You can agree with that or disagree, but the position is fairly rational, all thing's considered.
Again, your argument is that everyone HAS to agree with you because no trans person can "argue in good faith". Again, it's just pathetic. Like a JK Rowling Twitter rant.