>>40935791
>>40936063
This reminds me.
I was watching an old debate of Andrew and his wife vs neeina and stardust. Andrew compared his belief system against trans rights where rejecting his God, he stated, was tantamount to refusing to use someone else's pronouns.
Anyways I'm a cis guy trying to sort out this riddle of how to define the category of women and the apparent evasiveness of the answers provided to such a question.
Anyways the analogy goes like this. Several religions and theologies exist in the world simultaneously. These groups do not loathe each other necessarily for having differences in their doctrines and tenants. How do they manage to not be at each others necks? In secular countries theocracies do not foist their laws based on scriptures or holy texts. Instead they tend to coexist. They grow in size by proselytizing if the person does not show exception to considering their arguments and ultimately accepting their views.
So people who believe in "leftist" trans ideology, for lack of a better identifier, reject the orthodoxy of genders and supplant their definition with any person who identifies as any gender belongs to that gender. To redoncile this definition so it doesn't come off as nebulous circular I propose the following. Analagous to why Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, pagans, wiccans, etc can't establish a monopoly on what a God or gods mean or whether they even exist, so to there is no monopoly on the definitions of gender. Of course individually I assume most people giving this circular nebulous definition say it in order to not gatekeep. Each person has their own reasons to justify what it means to belong to a gender. These people have a rigid definition but the reason why they believe what they believe is no different when the different Abrahamic religions or even among other faiths find common ground stating they in the end worship the same God.
