LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿 @LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club

@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.

@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
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?

@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.

@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
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
It doesn't want you to believe it to be a shoe. It just want's you to wear it.

@Aldo2
Of course it wasn't created as a shoe, but why are you not behaving as if it were one?

@Aldo2
Ok, you cannot use a cake as a shoe...

Why? It definitely looks like a shoe to me.

@Aldo2
So, you would put this mixture of egg, sugar and wheat on your foot beofre going to work?

Interesting...

@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?

@irie @ChristiJunior
Here is my point. I hate the conservative view of men. I see conservatives being proud of identifying themselves as disposable slaves on the alter of pussy, and I want to vomit.

I also hear feminists complain about being seen as a weak biological carrying pod for a breeding unit 846368. And I do see, how that would feel dehumanizing as well. Therefore, both sexes do come with an insanely negative baggage, that one would do anything to escape.

But....... Here is where I cannot bear this shit. On one hand, we have a self ID side, that decided to fucking use the same dehumanizing roles, but give you a switch button, while the other one argues for them without this magical button. So, I do understand why the troon debate is so insanely powerful driving force on both sides. But, I don't get, why is noone talking about the meta topics at all.

@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.

@Aldo2
Yes. You spent last week arguing, that I should go into den of people who want me dead, and now, you want me to accept, that Trans advocates don't know how reproduction works?

Yes, I wanted a good faith debate. Not the "sex =/= gender" stuff, that was already repeated 100s of times.

@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.

@ChristiJunior
I noticed the breaking point, when they switched from talking about "gender roles" to "gender".

They mean the same thing, and when they complained about the roles assigned to them because of their gender, that all made sense. But then, they just made the switch, and literally all of the internal logic broke.

@jb
I am trying to disprove the null hypothesis. You repeating doesn't help.

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.

Bait used to be believable