You already made it crystal clear that "a complete physical transformation" was not in your list of criteria for whether a man should be viewed and treated as a woman.
Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and the perceptions of privacy and safety which are roots in large part to the history of violence and sexual violence most commonly —but not exclusively— inflicted on girls and females by men and boys.
Of course it isn't. What's your point? Calling so-called "trans women" "men" is a good faith attempt -- a successful attempt -- to speak the literal truth. Are you proposing that literal truth is the wrong thing to be making a good faith attempt at? Are you proposing that speakers have a duty to instead commit pious fraud? ... If you want me to say transwomen are women, explain why they're women; don't explain the social benefits of pretending they're women.
But it’s not the literal truth. Genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY or female XX body to feel differently. For almost all people, what is between their legs matches their genetics and how they and the world perceives them. But not for everybody. For a small percentage of people, a shift of a gene makes the difference in how they perceive themselves.
What makes you think any of that has any bearing on whether transwomen are in point of fact women or men? What evidence do you have that "how they perceive themselves" is one of the criteria for "woman" and "man"?
If you have evidence that there's a gene for transgenderism, that's interesting in its own right. It's surprising; I'm skeptical that transgenderism is even the sort of thing there could be a gene for -- I suspect there are a lot of different underlying psychological conditions that are lumped together under that name because they have somewhat similar symptoms. So it would be unsurprising if some cases were genetic, some caused by environment in utero, some by early childhood environment, and some by environment during adolescence. If you wish to share a genetic study you've seen, go for it. But, and it's a big but, a gene for transgenderism proves zilch about whether transwomen are men or women. We already know it has physical causes, since everything does. What the heck difference does it make whether some "pregnant person" is convinced she's a man because some gene says GATTACA instead of GATATCA or because she got dosed with some extra testosterone when she was a 14-week fetus? Believing doesn't make things so.
Are you familiar with the
"God Gene" hypothesis? The idea is that people can be made more or less likely to believe in God by a genetic variation. Never mind that the evidence is flimsy -- suppose it's a real effect. Suppose there really is a gene that makes a person believe in God. Well, so what? You wouldn't quote the study at me and claim scientists proved there's a God, would you? Of course you wouldn't. Because believing doesn't make things so. All the scientists would have proven is they can explain why somebody
believes there's a God. Likewise, if you can cite a study that shows genetically, there is change that drives the apparently male XY body to feel differently, all the scientists proved is they can explain why he
believes he's a woman. They haven't shown he isn't just as wrong about that as a Christian is about whether there's a God. People are often wrong.
Y’all are acting as those this is very trivial
Your argument for why calling trans women men is not the literal truth was an epic fail, for reasons that are, in point of fact, trivial. "Believing doesn't make things so." isn't exactly rocket science. If you want to try to construct a better argument, knock yourself out.
Hey, I make no claim as to whether any gender-ideology advocate who insists "Transwomen are women." really believes it or is pretending. As with any other wacko dogma, I expect some of them are true believers, some are just saying it to virtue signal, some are saying it because they sincerely imagine getting others to generally accept it will make for a better world, and some are saying it because they really really want to believe it, because their friends convinced them you have to believe it to be a good person and they don't want to be unworthy of their friends so they very much want to be a good person. Pascal said if you want to believe in God based on his Wager but you can't make yourself, go through the motions enough and eventually belief will come. Pascal was a rubbish philosopher but a great psychologist.
No, when I wrote "pretend" I wasn't accusing you of pretending; I was accusing you of trying to get
me to pretend. Whether you believe it when you say it is between you and your programming; but
if I were to say it I'd be pretending, because I know it isn't true even if you don't. When you wrote "Calling trans women men is not a good faith attempt to resolve the conflict of interests when it comes to privacy and safety and <yada yada>", that was an appeal for me to say whether they're men or women based on strategic consideration of consequences rather than based on truth, i.e., an appeal for me to pretend.
It is not. It is rooted in biology. It’s time to accept that.
And it's time for you to stop beating your wife. Of course transgenderism is rooted in biology. Duh!
Everything people do is rooted in biology! You have no grounds for insinuating that I don't "accept that".
