What he thinks is bigotry
Dude explains that it’s bigotry for women to think that women are people with female bodies.
What a good thing it’s up to Zack Beauchamp to decide. We women are too stupid and too bigoted to decide or understand what women are.
Actually, I think we are more legitimately female in every sense than transwomen, since they are not female.
Well you’re either female or you’re not. There’s no levels of femaleness, there’s no such thing as “legitimately” female, and we are female in the only possible sense that anyone can be female – the biological sense. Whereas trans women are not. But good to know that this knob isn’t just supplying the “right” answer, but also the “right” questions.
I know that this has been said before but there is absolutely no need for the abhorrent ‘cis’ prefix. Everybody knows -including those who pretend not to – what is meant by ‘woman’ and ‘man’. Nobody is confused by the lack of a prefix; nobody hears ‘woman’ and wonders which kind of woman is meant because there was no qualifying prefix used.
The only reason it is being used is in a completely dishonest attempt to legitamise the idea that women and transwomen are equally valid sub-categories of the category ‘woman’, because not prefixing ‘woman’ highlights the fact that transwomen are something other than women. The harsh but fair truth is that there are no sub-categories of ‘woman’; that idea is simply an attempt by TA’s to expand the definition of ‘woman” to include the trans and enable them to get around single-sex rules, an idea as obviously nonsensical as the Catholic re-defining of ‘fish’ to include beavers and baby rabbits to get around the ‘no meat on friday’ rule.
“Here’s the key question.”
“Thank you. I’m going to answer it by changing it into a completely different question and asking you.”
Smooth move.