3 ms·
What was unsubstantive about that post? It was on topic. It was a direct reply to this line from the GP: > The biology of women contains cis female biology as
by throwaway00112 8y ago
What was unsubstantive about that post? It was on topic. It was a direct reply to this line from the GP:
> The biology of women contains cis female biology as well as trans female biology.
This is a false statement and the deleted post said as much. Is a response to this sort of thing not allowed? What a load of nonsense.
- sctb 8y agoA response is absolutely fine! Of course it is. But it needs to be done in a way in which we stand to learn something. > "Transwomen" are just males, i.e. men. They have male biology. This is not frivolous, and not up for debate... This is unsubstantive because it is a claim without accompanying support. If the intention was to counter the original point, it should be done with actual information. “Not up for debate” is a giveaway that the commenter doesn't want to participate in a discussion, and this is a discussion site. > This is also not true. No transwomen ever needs to see a gynecologist except as a form of validation. There is also no basis provided for this statement, therefore it is unsubstantive. Thoughtful discourse contains information grounded in our shared reality. What's going on here, and not just in this subthread, is a flamewar. This is not where we learn—this is where learning goes to die in a swamp of cortisol and teeth gnashing.