Blurble urble urble
Oh shut up bro.
There’s no such thing as “cis” female pals, much less feminist ones. Women are in no need of a prefix or adjective to indicate that we are women, because the word “women” already does that. “Cis” is superfluous. It’s there to trick us into thinking there are two kinds of women, the female kind and the male kind. There aren’t. There is only the one.
It’s perfectly possible to “support trans people” without insisting that men can be women.
If empathy is a good thing why not have some for women? There are a hell of a lot more women than there are men who call themselves women, so why all the exaggerated concern for a few confused men at the expense of billions of women?
This is one of those oddities of the Social Justice religion. On one hand, they profess an essentially consequentialist normative ethics, but on the other, they privilege the minority over the majority and ground their arguments in deontological pronouncements of certain things’ being intrinsically “common decency” or similar. So rather than attempt to maximize utility for the most people, they try to maximize utility for the fewest (since the smallest minority has the greatest priority). But isn’t that arrangement just exactly what despotism and feudalism do? They actually can’t do something that benefits the majority over any minority, as that would mean perpetuating the system of oppression, and they can’t do something that benefits everyone, as that would be an example of interest convergence.
But doesn’t “supporting trans people” mean ultimately and per their own vocal demands validating their delusions? Not sure I can agree with that?
Per their own vocal demand yes but ultimately no, aka NO in thunder. Trans ideology of course depends extremely heavily on specialty definitions, which is why I waste so many words on rejecting their specialty definitions.