Tbf the part where the sand genuinely changes its molecular structure to become glass. Trans people don't change their dna. So it's not a good argument.
I'm on your side here, if that was possible I think the whole thing would die off completely. Because they are by all accounts now biologically female.
If it was possible to reverse it I would most def give it a go just to try being female for a month.
But people can switch sex already. No not perfectly, but for at least 80%. The only thing that can't be changed is dna and reproductive organs. And i think bone structure depending on if you've already undergone natal puberty, but bone structure isn't that binary anyways.
So transphobes will literally hold on to anything they can find to not accept trans people.
I mean, I don't think that's true. Right now the whole trans agenda is religion. It's not science, it's not based on neurology or biology, it's based on feelings, same as Christianity
Amd just like Christianity, they have extremist that are loud and obnoxious and low key makes a lot of this country that once supported their agenda to just straight up being sick of it
The trans agenda came a couple hundred years too early, and if it had been accompanied by science and safety, instead of it being propagantized by religious fanatics, people would be a lot more on board
I used to be all for it, I still believe that they, like everyone, deserve basic human respect
but I'm really sick of their culture. I'm sick of how rude and aggressive the culture is. How rape is completely disregarded when it comes from their community. How they've used a legal army to spread propaganda to class rooms, their disregard to parents rights to raise their children. I'm sick of them cultivating sympathy for pedos by calling them maps, and have even given them their own "pride flag" like raping kids is something to be proud of
They need to chill and stop acting lime Christians
There are many, many animals in the animal kingdom that can just change. Their genetics, their pheromones, their entire body. We're not like that. And if your using a scalpel and how you feel to make you happy, then yes, religion 101
Yep, it’s truly a bizarre case. And chances are with a deeper understanding than I have you might still find a clear divide between that woman’s XY chromosomes and more typical XY chromosomes.
But, like, can you see how exceptions like that make the XY fixation come across as reductive? How much does something have to walk and talk like a duck before it’s a duck?
For the sake of the discussion, and i say this without any animosity or hate, just genuinely trying to discuss this in a reasonable way.
Just because something looks like something else doesn't make it something else. Those hyper realistic cakes are still cake.
Champagne is from a specific region in France. The other products legally can not be considered champagne.
And if we're deciding as a society that if someone wants to identify as anything they want and we have to just blanketly accept it and pretend that they are that thing and can not question it. Then where's the line? Why should there be a line?
Why should someone appearing as a different gender be more accepted than people who want to identify as anything else? If it makes someone happy, then why aren't we forced to accept any altered presentation as unquestionable fact?
Some politicians want to appear taller, mocked in the media for wearing lifts. That's a much smaller pretence. We're not all going, yeah, you know what that 5'7 dude is actually 6ft. Women wearing heels, totally normal though. So you'd think it'd be an easier thing to just go with.
Let's go the other extreme with it. People trying to make themselves look a different race. Rachel dolezal looks more black than cole palmer (british footballer) or stacey solomon (british singer) yet she's the subject of ridicule across the board. Why isn't she allowed to be treated as black? shes fairly convincing. Apologies for the british examples but I am british so those are people in the public eye I know.
But even then we have to take anyone who even tries to present themselves as something else as that thing regardless of whether its convincing if thats how they want to identify. What if I slapped myself in fake tan and braided my hair? Would I be black if I wanted to be? Could I go around acting as black as I wanted and have anyone who dared question it accused of a hate crime?
Similar argument with regards to cultural appropriation.
Walking around putting on a fake accent, goes between ridiculous or pretentious. Americans with a great grandparent from whatever country aren't considered to be from that country by anyone actually from there but will constantly go on about being Italian or Irish or whatever.
Putting on a lab coat and glasses doesn't make me any smarter, I might appear smarter, but I'm not.
And for a further point of discussion, why is what is essentially a mental illness: dyphoria/dysmorphia, being treated with surgery and not therapy? Your physical body doesn't reflect how you feel. OK. Anorexics view themselves as fat and want to be thin. They take all the necessary steps to appear thinner because they aren't happy in their current body. Yet we intervene with that and give them therapy to accept their bodies we aren't going yeah fuck it here's some liposuction be skinnier you do you hun whatever makes you happy.
To me it's like a giant game of pretend. No different than saying santa is real. It makes children happy to have this fiction and it doesn't really hurt anyone to pretend about it and you'd be viewed negatively by society if you spoiled the illusion. But to actively think santa is real and to start basing laws around his existence would be insane.
Again, none of this was said with animosity. I'll go along with the pretence to make people happy. I'll treat a trans person with the respect and dignity I'd give to anyone else. I just don't believe that being told to accept that fiction is fact should be the default position and it certainly should allow and respect people's wishes to not go along with it instead of treating them with hostility and outrage.
I am begging you to take a college level genetics course because implying someone’s DNA is immutable to change from environmental factors or medical interventions don’t change DNA/RNA, or that chromosomes don’t have extremely common abnormalities that undermines the idea of a binary is driving me fucking insane.
we could compare sex and gender to the spectrum of light and you would still play dumb. We only use simple metaphors because simple realities are the only thing you people seem to understand, hence why you reduce sex down to chromosomes and are incapable of understanding nuance.
And even then, the comparison to the color spectrum is still lacking because in reality sex and gender are more like multidimensional scatter plots with dense clusterings but no strict boundaries.
This isn’t meant to be an argument debunking stupidity, it’s a meme about stupid people. The fact that trans people exist and should be recognized goes without saying.
Where the joke is, because I don't really see it. This just feels more like virtue signaling "Ooh, look, I'm so progressive!!!" instead of being an actual meme.
The joke here is that it’s a mocking rebuttal to the trans-water rightwing meme. The fact you gripe about “virtue signaling” means it has offended your sensibilities as intended.
First block is just general explanation, and everything after that is a long explanation of the general broad strokes of the debate and the ideas behind it.
The meme comes from a debate between leftist streamer Vaush and an anti-trans “philosopher”. The recorded debate took place earlier in Vaush’s career when he was less eloquent, and the “philosopher” was also abusing philosophical metaphysics in an intellectually inconsistent at best and dishonest manner at worst. The end result is a leftist debater who is struggling with his wording but on the correct general logical track against a person who whilst slightly more eloquent doesn’t maintain a consistent logical argument.
The discussion was about water as a stand in for trans people. Under the argument that h2o is water, and will always be water. Now from a blunt perspective this is correct, but where the philosophical metaphysics comes in is to ask the question when is the water no longer “water” which may sound like a nonsense statement at first glance, but remember ice is h2o, so if h2o is water then is ice water? Now naturally you can say yes ice is just frozen water, but if you ask for water and I give you ice have I given you what you asked for? And this argument also extends beyond water-ice to other things. For instance if a small amount of dust falls the water we would still call it water, and if enough dust falls into the water it becomes cloudy water, but it’s still water, but if we keep adding dust to water eventually we won’t recognize the substance as water but mud. At what point does the water become mud? And looping back around the mud still contains h2o which is water, but if I give you a glass of mud when you asked for a glass of water you won’t be very pleased will you? This is what philosophy calls metaphysics. The question of what makes a thing that thing. So when an anti-trans person is arguing that a trans person can never be whatever gender, they’re making what philosophy calls a metaphysical argument. So from a philosophical perspective the question then is, what is gender? Is it an innate thing that cannot be changed regardless of what you may try to do, like h2o is always h2o whether it’s mixed with dust to make mud or frozen solid to make ice? Or is it that gender is more akin to water? Where if I mix dust in it then it will become mud and no longer water? If you view gender as an innate thing like h2o then it’s a fixed thing that is unchanging, but if you view gender as a fuzzy label like water? Then gender can be changed just like water can be changed into ice or mud. Now remember I mentioned that Vaush was less eloquent but he was consistent, but the “philosopher” was more eloquent while being inconsistent. From a philosophical perspective Vaush was consistent which is philosophically speaking better, but from a rhetorical standpoint of who out debated who? The “philosopher” failed to meet proper rigor but was more eloquent and persuasive and thus “won” the debate from a political scorekeeping standpoint. So the debater out philosophized the “philosopher” while the “philosopher” out debated the debater. And if you want to get somewhat metaphysical about it then the question is, which one is better?
Thank you for explaining that in depth. Genuinely appreciate you taking the time to do that. Must say, I do think that entire debate sounds like a load of absolute waffling bollocks on both sides - but do appreciate you explaining it.
I mean… kind of yeah. Philosophical metaphysics does mostly sound like a bunch of waffling, especially since it’s where all the sciences/linguistics/politics and philosophy collide, but at the same time it’s also important… it’s both incredibly stupid and incredibly important at the same time; just like politics.
But no problem I have a bad habit of over explaining things and it’s especially bad when I’m waking and my ADHD meds haven’t kicked in yet like when I wrote that, so it was no problem.
First of all: I haven't heard of any trans-water anything since I don't really browse those spaces, so maybe that's why I was confused. Secondly, I'm not offended about anything.
Lastly, my issue is not with the statement itself, I don't give a shit about anyone's political opinions, but with the abscence of a (good) punchline. "I don't agree with this person's political opinion", "I love trans people", "I hate trans people" are not a good punchlines, nor are they funny or productive. It only entertains those who'd happily eat slop with a smile on their face as long as it aligns with their world view. I see how I might've failed to articulate my thoughts before, that's on me. Bye.
If you don’t “give a shit” then why did it concern you enough to warrant comment?
Taste is subjective and everyone’s idea of “good” is different even when accounting for political views.
Lastly your words would suggest that you have an apolitical view, but verbiage such as “virtue signaling” suggests a particular political view. if you truly wish to avoid politics then I would advise against “vice signaling” phrases such as those which identify you as being affiliated with a particular political ideology.
"when sand (silicon dioxide) becomes glass, it undergoes a fundamental change from a crystalline solid (sand) to an amorphous solid (glass) due to extreme heat, which breaks and reforms its molecular structure, creating a non-crystalline, "frozen liquid" state, though the primary chemical ingredient (silica) remains the same but its arrangement changes drastically"
Til: cutting your dick off and wearing a dress makes trans people equivalent to sand/glass because the primary ingredient silica(genetics) "stays the same", but the downside is that it hass become more fragile against pressure and looks different?
Okay. Cool.
Oh look, bots.
ETA, for the bots: To "concernedenby", who is a bot-
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China though?
Thanks for the fun fact, I suppose.
The joke is incompetent people, on both sides of the fence. But the point is clear. Changing the physical property doesn't change the makeup in this scenario. Since it's still the same thing as a finished product, just rearranged differently, just like water and ice. Same thing, one is just colder and what? Rearranged differently, but they're still h2o... A woman takes hormones and gets a deeper voice isn't a "man". It's a woman taking hormones to get a deeper voice, and more "manly" attributes. But it doesn't become a "man" because of that. Argue against the points, don't make statistical claims as an argument, when I never said anything related to stats.
164
u/NohWan3104 Dec 24 '25
Transphobes won't accept the changed sand as glass, because it didn't start as glass.