Ana was at least arguably being a snowflake in that initial comment, I mostly agree there. I mean I suppose there's SOME argument to be made that a woman might prefer to be referred to as a woman, as opposed to being defined by her reproductive/baby-making capabilities, but since nobody was actually doing that to her specifically ... it's a bit of an invalid appropriation, and comes off poorly as such.
But at the same time, Cassandra's counter-argument is also VERY easily shown to be a logically fallacious response to that comment 
I didn't know about 'the podcast', don't know who Jesse Singal is, nor what s/he said. If Ana 'attacks' puberty blockers, then of course I do not concur in any way.
But I have to circle back round to this point ... "Again as I said before trans-men can be mothers."
Can they, though? Is that what trans-men want to be called, is 'mother'? Because, like it or not, 'mother' implies 'female'. Why is he not a 'father'? Do you not see the dichotomy of this situation?
Do you see at all how convoluted the 'proper' nomenclature becomes, and why people, even liberals like myself who stick up for trans rights at every opportunity ... will begin to ask 'what do you expect from us?'
Mother implies a woman to the VAST majority of humankind. You cannot expect that to change because you assert, for the first time in history, that a man can also be a mother.
So, I just have to ask ... is it really worth it to insist thusly?
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read