"But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?"
Only the fiction is destroyed. Donald, Donna, that doesn't matter. If a man wants to be called Donald or Mark or Donna, what's the difference? Names are a perfect example of self ID in action. There is no biological or objective reality to a na…
"But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?"
Only the fiction is destroyed. Donald, Donna, that doesn't matter. If a man wants to be called Donald or Mark or Donna, what's the difference? Names are a perfect example of self ID in action. There is no biological or objective reality to a name. We just take people's word for it.
But there is a biological and objective reality to being a man or a woman. If a man wants to be called a woman, there's a big difference. And in almost all cases, we take the evidence of our eyes and ears over the claims of another person. If I tell any sane person I'm a woman, they won't believe me. Especially if they can perform a very basic check of my anatomy. And even if they do, there are objective measures of the fact that I'm lying.
So if I say, "I'm a woman," and somebody says "no, you're not," all they're doing is "destroying" my lie.
Interestingly enough, if I said, "I'm a trans woman," and somebody says, "no you're not," here, they're the ones on shaky ground. Because being a trans woman, especially today, also has no biological or objective reality. You can self ID into being a trans woman. Not into being a woman. This is just one of many reasons why I don't understand why we can't all agree that trans women are trans women.
That goes to the heart of you can't truly understand what you are not.
Homosexuals appear across a spectrum of hyper masculine to hyper feminine in appearance and mannerisms without denial of their gender. While not "truly" understanding, on an intellectual level we can understand that they have a same sex attraction. No harder to understand than we may have opposite sex attraction or preference for other characteristics. I'm not sure how wide the chasm between truly and intellectually understanding is in this case.
My initial thoughts about transgenderism were that they are homosexuals in denial. They want to be "out", but not as homosexuals for various reasons of their own that I will not try to enumerate. That is also an intellectual understanding that could be wrong.
The trans[gender of choice] who want people to accept them without the prefix and really "believe" that they are what they "feel" are unfathomable to me even on an intellectual level. I can't truly understand what I am not. Do they really believe that? Do they really believe, rather than just desire, that people believe that? That does not negate my attachment to truth, but it does point to the idea that "no, you are not" could destroy more than a lie in the mind of people like that. But politeness does not make acceptance of falsehood as truth to be a world I want to live in, and I am not suggesting such a world.
"But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?"
Only the fiction is destroyed. Donald, Donna, that doesn't matter. If a man wants to be called Donald or Mark or Donna, what's the difference? Names are a perfect example of self ID in action. There is no biological or objective reality to a name. We just take people's word for it.
But there is a biological and objective reality to being a man or a woman. If a man wants to be called a woman, there's a big difference. And in almost all cases, we take the evidence of our eyes and ears over the claims of another person. If I tell any sane person I'm a woman, they won't believe me. Especially if they can perform a very basic check of my anatomy. And even if they do, there are objective measures of the fact that I'm lying.
So if I say, "I'm a woman," and somebody says "no, you're not," all they're doing is "destroying" my lie.
Interestingly enough, if I said, "I'm a trans woman," and somebody says, "no you're not," here, they're the ones on shaky ground. Because being a trans woman, especially today, also has no biological or objective reality. You can self ID into being a trans woman. Not into being a woman. This is just one of many reasons why I don't understand why we can't all agree that trans women are trans women.
That goes to the heart of you can't truly understand what you are not.
Homosexuals appear across a spectrum of hyper masculine to hyper feminine in appearance and mannerisms without denial of their gender. While not "truly" understanding, on an intellectual level we can understand that they have a same sex attraction. No harder to understand than we may have opposite sex attraction or preference for other characteristics. I'm not sure how wide the chasm between truly and intellectually understanding is in this case.
My initial thoughts about transgenderism were that they are homosexuals in denial. They want to be "out", but not as homosexuals for various reasons of their own that I will not try to enumerate. That is also an intellectual understanding that could be wrong.
The trans[gender of choice] who want people to accept them without the prefix and really "believe" that they are what they "feel" are unfathomable to me even on an intellectual level. I can't truly understand what I am not. Do they really believe that? Do they really believe, rather than just desire, that people believe that? That does not negate my attachment to truth, but it does point to the idea that "no, you are not" could destroy more than a lie in the mind of people like that. But politeness does not make acceptance of falsehood as truth to be a world I want to live in, and I am not suggesting such a world.