Explain that adjective
Eeeesh. No it’s not.
No it’s not like that at all. It’s like asking if pretend cats are cats or if fake cars are cars. “Trans” isn’t comparable to “blue” or “tabby” in this attempted analogy, because “trans” means “not real.” Prisoners of the ideology don’t define it that way of course, but all the same that’s what it means.
It’s not a humdrum adjective that simply names an attribute of a person or thing. It’s not like small or big, polite or rude, nice or nasty, young or old, bright or dim, fast or slow. It’s a peculiar adjective that means something like “not really” or “wink-wink.” It has nothing to do with tautologies.
Indeed. In fact, “trans women are not women” is a tautology. “Trans women are women” is a contradiction in terms.
False eyelashes are eyelashes! Rubber ducks are ducks! Baked Alaska is Alaska! Pseudoscience is science! Silverfish are fish! Sea lions are lions!
It’s not even all that peculiar, if he just gave a moment’s thought.
As Sackbut so entertainingly demonstrates, any English speaker could play that game all day – without even using synonyms for ‘trans’ such as fake, false, alternative to, opposite of, ersatz, pretend, etc. and would be unlikely to run out of examples before bedtime, even if they restricted themselves to plants, say, or fish.
I think that Nathan J. Robinson really needs some remedial English lessons and work on his vocabulary and comprehension.
Or would he happily bet on hobby horses, vaulting horses, clothes horses and rocking horses in the Grand National?
Baked Alaska is Alaska lol
Even by the trans lobby’s own claims, trans means “opposite side of”, so it’s hardly us debunking the statement “trans women are women”. By their own claims, no, they aren’t.
Transport is port! Someone bring me a bottle.
There are 3 possible answers, none of which are contained in the question. 1. Yes I believe. 2. No I don’t believe. 3. I don’t know whether I believe or not. None of which are contained in the reply.
If replica Ferraris weren’t Ferraris they wouldn’t be replica Ferraris.
If vegan bacon wasn’t bacon it wouldn’t be vegan bacon.
Nope, I can’t make it make sense.
This seems tangentially related to the ontological proof of God’s existence: God is by definition the perfect being, but non-existence implies imperfection, therefore God must exist.
The connection as I see it is this: Our ability to string together words into apparently coherent sentences and longer arguments is without bound, yet this does not prove a thing about the real world.
Nonsense is sense, forsooth?
Harald, I must say that Jabberwocky immediately springs to mind.
That’s brillig, Tigger!
I think I’ve found the problem.
The best one I’ve seen is “urinal cakes are cakes.”
Fake news is news.
https://ovarit.com/o/Radfemmery/562836/the-second-example-d