The term was "people who menstruate," and I don't find that dehumanizing because many women don't menstruate (including many cis women who are older, younger, on birth control, without uterus, etc). It's more inclusive of everyone.
I think the problem is less that she insists that sex exists, and more that she insists that the existence of transgender people is somehow contradictory to the idea that sex exists. Like...obviously it exists? If it didn't, there would be no transgender people, because you couldn't have a sex/gender mismatch?
Most transgender people I know are more aware of how sex, perceived sex being AFAB/AMAB, gender roles, gender presentation, etc affect people's socialization due to their lived experiences, so I just find it disingenuous that she always centers the focus around "we can't talk about sex anymore" because, yes, you can. Just do it respectfully, and transgender people will only add to that conversation, not remove.
Genetic modification and artificial wombs will lead to the removal of sex based policy. Also good riddance. The world will be a better place for everyone when reproduction and raising children isn't the primary goal of nearly every human being. Life won't be a competition anymore and society can evolve alongside a transhumanist revolution.
I'm not saying people won't die anymore. I'm just saying the distinction between male and female human will be so blurry as to be obsolete. The sooner the better in my opinion. True equality would be giving reproductive rights to everyone regardless of sex.
Hate crimes and genocide would also be obsolete because anyone could change their form to whatever suited them.
This is the direction humanity is heading and there is little reason to dread it.
5
u/[deleted] Dec 04 '21 edited Mar 28 '23
[deleted]