Some sports. Most actually don't. There's no such thing in tennis, for example. And even then it doesn't work. A man in the same weight category as a woman in a boxing match, is not a fair match up.
I really don't care. I leave sporting categorisations up to sporting organisations who are better equipped to deal with it. I'm not going to use sports categories as an argument in favour of restrictive social prescriptions. It's a total non-issue in the broad scheme of the world.
Then why are we supposed to talk about "pregnant person" instead of "pregnant woman"?
Because it's more accurate. Both a man and a woman can be pregnant. You can still refer to a pregnant woman as a pregnant woman, and a pregnant man as a pregnant man. It's just that, broadly, to describe ALL pregnant people as "women" is inaccurate, for the same reason that describing the partners of ALL married men as "wives" is not accurate.
I'm sure some will and others won't. I don't really see how it matters to the point made in the hypothetical though.
Because your hypothetical doesn't take any ounce of reality into account. It's not really worth discussing because it's incapable of being mapped onto reality in any meaningful way. And, boiled down to it, your argument just seems to be "some men might be upset about being attracted to or forming relationships with trans women". Which just seems like a THEM problem, to be honest.
I don't think that's a possibility.
The turn-off here is not a sociological thing. It's a biological thing.
Then they can just be men who are not attracted to biological males. Where's the problem? I mean, clearly your hypothetical discounts that already considering they've already
had sex, so I think it's safe to assume the individual in you hypothetical was NOT put off by their partner's biology, but by the DESIGNATION of them being trans. That's why it's absurd.
I'm not talking about gender. I'm talking about biology. Male / female. Man / woman.
I'm fine with the "gender" transwoman. Why must we redefine terms?
We aren't redefining them. They've always been social labels. They have never exclusively been used to refer to biology. You're the one making the confusion by insisting on hypotheticals in which a trans woman is somehow convinced that they have a womb. They don't tend to do that. Believe it or not, people who have penises tend to be aware that they have a penis.
I disagree. So do the biological facts.
There is no "biological facts" that ascribe the social category of "woman".
If 200 years of now, the bones of this "woman" are dug up and tested, the conclusion will be "this was a man".
What an absurd argument. They could dig up the bones and just say "this person was biologically male/female". Why should that imply a social prescription?
That's a false equivalence imo.
For this analogy to work, you would have to demand that a black person is called a white person instead.
No, now you're confused. The analogy is of YOUR rhetoric. It was a simple question about the implications of YOUR rhetoric.
When talking about specific things that are unique to black people (and I can't really think of anything in particular btw), why would you not specify "black"?
Why would you refuse to call a black person a person, and instead only ever refer to them as a "black person"?
What reason could you possibly have, pray tell?
Depends on context. But without further specifics, I'ld say no.
Then you'd be extremely silly. It's fairly obvious what the implication of the refusal to call a category of people "people" means.
Disagree all you want. You're the one pretending.
So where do you draw the line?
We have to pretend in one area but not another?
Pretend what? What are you pretending? What's the pretense?
It clearly is. Even your hypotheticals seem to imply that you believe trans people are engaging in either deception, pretence or some kind of mental illness/delusion.
If that's what you believe, then you are the problem. The vast majority of trans people are perfectly reasonable, healthy people.
