you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Kai_Decadence 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Transwoman" is not putting it is as subset of women, but a new entity.

If it's not meant to be seen as a subset of women then why is "woman/women" in the name? Woman only ever meant one thing. Woman: Adult human FEMALE.

So I mean... I think it's just obvious that they're implying that otherwise "woman/woman" would not be in the name at all.

Then there will be less oppression points and viewers!

Bingo. Though don't forget attention which even thrn I still he would still get attention, just from the usual closet cases who watch his videos.

[–]MezozoicGay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

then why is "woman/women" in the name?

For some reason there is "man/men" in woman/women.

However, I agree with you. I just pointed out that TRA are not using word "transwoman" they are using two words "trans woman", so it makes it subset of woman - like "tall woman" or "american woman". While if you follow logic, like it was pointed out here yesterday, then "trans woman" must be transman, because it is "woman who is trans". This creates extra cognitive dissonance and confusion in people heads.

Yesterday my friend gave me great example of this. In news there was an article "woman grabbed other woman's breasts and she stole panties" (or even if it would be "trans woman"). However, if you change everything to how it should sound: "man grabbed woman's breasts and he stole her panties" - then there no confusion and everything is perceived much more different. In first case women are on equal footing and equal strenght theoretically, and grabbing breasts could be just in mids of the fight. While in second case instantly appearing sexual context, and difference in strenght is obvious, and part with panties becomes disturbing and not just a minor detail.

And gave this article: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/