naevaTheRat

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

This question is loaded. Trans women are not really biologically male, depending on the time transition happened there will be varying degrees of masculinised secondary sex characteristics but things such as fat distribution, muscle mass, organ size changes etc are going to look much more "standard" female than male.

AFAB women aren't excluded from sport if they're unusually tall, or have PCOS, or some other hormone variation that leads to an advantage. Women with PCOS will have an advantage in sport involving strength because they have much higher levels of testosterone (some grow patchy beards ffs) but nobody makes a fuss over that.

All sport is inherently unfair, we try and set limits of degree of unfairness. There is no evidence that trans women have more advantages than all the usual variations in women we allow competition among without issue. The Olympics has allowed trans competitors since 2004, where are all the trans gold medalists? where are all the trans women winning everything? Have you seen the differences in male and female records for most sports? If trans women are meaningfully similar to men then the average trans women would just demolish many sports. This doesn't happen, only a few people have attracted attention for success and that's in an environment of media controversy with actively trying to seek them out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So it would be abhorrent right? What makes it ok to do to a cow then? Is it the prop stethoscope? the certificate of graduation on the wall? Do cows just not matter? if so why not?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

If I artificially inseminated you would you feel raped?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

no, there is no point in investing effort in a discussion when the other party wont. The commenter does not actually care whether there are or aren't, if they cared they would look it up.

They want to waste my time arguing against a position they have no investment in. There is literally a Wikipedia page on wild bovines, that's how low effort this is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

you should read a book about subtext and implication. I think you're probably very young and have a mind that takes things very literally. When we say things, it implies things.

They are not arguing for the establishment of cow sanctuaries and global veganism they are putting forward a disingenuous and nonsensical defense of their own eating of meat.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well if someone can prove they need meat to survive and only eat the bare minimum obtained in the least terrible way I'll engage that fictional person in discussion but that is nobody you or I know so it's moot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which isn't a living being and has no feelings. It doesn't matter unto itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If I pay someone to kill you only a lawyer or a pedant would argue I didn't kill you. Without me you wouldn't have died.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ok you should Google wild bovine. Aurochs are extinct, cows aren't really a distinct species, and bovine specifically covers everything from wilderbeasts to yaks which all exist in the wild. So it's worth ridiculing people so ignorant of the world and so unwilling to even do a Google search.

Hell there are wild escaped domestic cows a day's drive from me lmao.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

benefit for whom?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (8 children)

What is meat farming? in most of the world at this point in time it's much more efficient to eat plants. Nobody with access to a supermarket is eating only what meat they might need to survive with no alternatives, you eat it for pleasure. For this pleasure someone must die, therefore you kill them for pleasure.

view more: ‹ prev next ›