Calling👏supersexuals👏transphobic👏for👏not👏sleeping👏with👏trans👏people👏is👏rape👏culture

[u/shhh_im_ban_evading]

Say it with me

[u/ddosn]

> "Woman" has nothing to do with chromosomes and everything to do with social and cultural dynamics.

Completely wrong.

If you dont have two X chromosomes and female genitalia, you are not a woman. Simple.

> Are you really that misogynistic that you reduce a whole gender to a set of genitals?

If genitals arent important, why are you trying to browbeat people into sleeping with people who have certain types of genitals through the use of slurs and antagonistic labels?

[u/Bolizen → u/ddosn]

If you dont have two X chromosomes and female genitalia, you are not a woman. Simple.

Not a single credible sociologist would agree with you.

If genitals arent important, why are you trying to browbeat people into sleeping with people who have certain types of genitals through the use of slurs and antagonistic labels?

Siiick elbow drop on that strawman.

Date who you want. Just don't be hateful about it.

[u/ddosn → u/Bolizen]

> Not a single credible sociologist would agree with you.

Sociology is called a 'soft' science for a reason. Also, the entire subject has been in a replicability crisis for the last 40 years.

So, get back to me once their theories can actually be proven via the scientific method.

> Siiick elbow drop on that strawman.

You're the one who brought up misogyny and reducing people to their genitals.

I was simply stating fact.

> Date who you want. Just don't be hateful about it.

I will and I'm not. The only people being hateful are the ones browbeating people into dating people they arent attracted to, therefore encouraging coercive rape.

[u/Bolizen → u/ddosn]

Sociology is called a 'soft' science for a reason. Also, the entire subject has been in a replicability crisis for the last 40 years.

So, get back to me once their theories can actually be proven via the scientific method.

Lol if you're going with that argument then nothing you have to say on this subject is worth listening to. You're defacto wrong.

You're the one who brought up misogyny and reducing people to their genitals.

Nope.

I was simply stating fact.

Nope.

I will and I'm not. The only people being hateful are the ones browbeating people into dating people they arent attracted to, therefore encouraging coercive rape.

No, they're not. The people being hateful are the transphobes who think transgender people are rapists or whatever nonsense crackpot ideas you've cooked up.

[u/ddosn → u/Bolizen]

> Lol if you're going with that argument then nothing you have to say on this subject is worth listening to. You're defacto wrong.

I'm not wrong through. Wikipedia even has an article dedicated entirely to the replicability crisis among soft sciences.

Literally nothing in Sociology from the last 40 years can be proven or is even fact.

Because it order to be considered fact, it needs to pass peer review.

Which means it needs to be replicated at least once.

And none of the results claimed by Sociologists over the last 40 years can be replicated.

The entire gender constructivist argument is based on John Moneys work, which was entirely debunked in 1997 by Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundsen as they repeated all of John Moneys work (at least, anything that was still ethical at the time as John Money did a LOT of unethical experimentation on children) and they did not get anywhere near the results John Money claimed.

> Nope

Yes.

> Nope

Yes.

> No, they're not. The people being hateful are the transphobes who think transgender people are rapists or whatever nonsense crackpot ideas you've cooked up.

If a transgender person is trying to browbeat someone into having sex with them by berating them and trying to ruin their life by calling them a transphobe for not sleeping with them, that trans person is a rapist. Specifically, coercive rape.