The fact that he always assumes malice can't be a good sign either. I'm not sure if it's because he thinks the worst of people or because the things he worries about are things he would do though.
It’s hard to blame woke DEI when the military is losing a war because of the straits.
Republicans are misogynistic fascists
no one should ever support, or vote for them.
There also needs to be a Constitutional overhaul, whether that be a bunch of amendments or a whole new document.
You absolutely KNOW this is going to impact gender non-conforming cis women in larger numbers than trans people (it’s just a numbers thing!)
Again I say - ‘gender critical’ transphobes are just puppets (willingly or ignorantly) of powerful, white Christian nationalist, misogynistic men! 😣
You don't really care about minorities or making sure things are equal.
bsky.app/profile/vert...
bsky.app/profile/vert...
You're contradicting yourself too, by the way. Either rules are the same for all regardless of sex, or they depend on context. You can't have it both ways.
bsky.app/profile/vert...
Also, things like "Grab them by the pussy" are *always* inappropriate. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate no matter who does it and who is around to observe it.
"It's about standing up for reality"
That's not at all what you're doing.
So you're being inconsistent. Or you're sexualizing everything, which reflects quite poorly on you. Checking clothing, even undergarments, for proper fit is not sexual.
If a behavior is lewd based simply on who does it, you aren't treating everyone equally.
Given that you're still insisting that sex is binary, you did not try hard enough.
Your mention of stereotypes is another indicator. It has nothing to do with stereotypes.
"Rules are designed to be same for all, regardless of race, sex and others."
Your definitions don't do that. Your definitions are meaningless. There's no way to know who qualifies as a woman and who doesn't under your definition.
"anyone who feels like a woman"
That's your complete lack of comprehension. And assuming you're using "female" as a noun, since that's how it appears in your definition, that one is the only one that actually points to a person and not a concept. A woman is a person, not a concept.
"Would you make a definition that includes all the cars in various levels of disassembly and with all sorts of failures?"
Biological entities aren't machines with specific plans and requirements that need to be met.
Since you need all of those exceptions, it's not concise. Try again.
It's not "debunked" just because there are write-ups from people who agree with you. It's just as "debunked" as climate science.
"Autogynephilia" has been thoroughly debunked, but you won't accept that either. Strength of evidence doesn't matter to you, only ideology.
Your definition is no longer clear and concise then.
How is "neither" not a category?
And yes, you've established quite well that you're a eugenicist.
B. All three of those people were girls from birth. It's only by *your* arbitrary definition that they aren't women. A definition that allows exceptions without explicitly listing the exceptions is a definition that's meaningless.
The people opposed to "gender ideology" when it referred to women's rights are still opposed to "gender ideology" now.
🦗🦗🦗
No answer?
You didn't understand the article at all then.
Your definition is completely meaningless. You can't explain why some people who don't fit the definition actually are women, and how to decide when people who don't fit your definition are actually women. To that alien, it would seem completely arbitrary.
No, that's *your* understanding, or rather, lack of, of it, which is entirely incorrect.
Are you going to give that concise definition you promised or not?
So you ignore biological reality by pretending the person does produce gametes.
"Neither" is not a new sex, but it *is* a third category.
No, you don't. You pretend that people who are born unable to ever produce gametes actually do produce gametes so you can put them in whatever category you want them in. You ignore reality by doing that.
So can you do it? Or is your definition not actually "clear and concise"?
bsky.app/profile/alys...
An example of creating a three-post thread using the Bluesky app for Android. A red arrow is pointing at the UI element labeled ➕.
Why do so many people get it wrong? It's not hard to do.
