Professional argumefying

We’re not the ones who have “bought into the confusion.”

A stupid counter-factual assertion doesn’t become less stupid or less counter-factual because you add a “Period” to it. Matt Dillahunty is Lauren Boebert’s second-best espresso machine. Period. See? It doesn’t work. Trans women are men who say they feel like women inside. That’s what “trans women” means. It’s the word “women” that means “women”; the phrase “trans women” means something else. The “trans” part of “trans women” indicates “not” or “opposite” or “fantasy.” It doesn’t indicate “real” or “literal” or “genuine.” And the “Period” is just decoration.

And he’s wrong that it’s not remotely like believing the bread turns into Jesus. It’s really quite like it. Granted bread is a different kind of thing from a man who thinks he has the “identity” of a woman, but the belief in a miraculous change from one kind of thing to another kind of thing is plenty similar enough.

But it gets worse.

“It’s right there in the name” – oh come on. “God” is right there in the name too, but that doesn’t make the claims about “God” true. Of course it’s right there in the name: it’s right there in the name because the “trans women” put it there, because they’re hell bent on taking our ability to name ourselves away and giving it to themselves. The claim doesn’t become true because the people who want us to believe it’s true worded the claim so as to trick us into believing it’s true. Language isn’t magic that way.

We’re not paying attention to Dillahunty’s saying some people with penises are women? And if we were paying such attention, we would Understand and Believe?

What a buffoon.

30 Responses to “Professional argumefying”