@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?
Follow
@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.
"...f 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."
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?
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?
I thought so. So did he, as you can tell by the shrieking and flailing.
@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?