3 ms·

So instead of actually reading the article that I linked to that explains the concept, you decided to argue semantics? I'm fine with you not wanting to educate

• Chris2048 9y ago
  It's HuffPo, a thoroughly biased media - there is no "education" to be had. It also doesn't appear to be a regular article, but part of "the blog" i.e, an opinion piece. Why don't you argue the point from the article you think are relevant? As far as I see, it just throws up a load of anecdotes, and assumes a bunch of premises around them, e.g: > If you were born cisgender ... you don’t have to worry that using the restroom or locker room will invoke public outrage. I'm cisgender male. I'm pretty sure people would be outraged if I tried using the female toilets. Why is this point lost if I weren't cis? The "Invisible Knapsack" document that post references is bullshit. What is it supposed to "prove"? Is this what you consider an argument? > After one reads McIntosh’s powerful essay, it’s impossible to deny.. Nope. Entirely possible.. Finally, why do I only have to respond to the points you want me to respond to? If you don't want to be contradicted about something, don't say it in the first place. "argue semantics" usually means arguing over "different interpretations of one or two particular words that were used" - can you tell me how this applies here? You straight-up said something that wasn't true, and I contradicted you; this is not arguing semantics.