4 ms·

And yet adoption exists. When a parent comes with their adopted child to the doctor, we don't expect the doctor to say "No, this person is not your dad, he's yo

And yet adoption exists. When a parent comes with their adopted child to the doctor, we don't expect the doctor to say "No, this person is not your dad, he's your guardian. You don't have the same chromosomes, you can't make me deny this biological reality." If the doctor insisted on saying that and on refusing to use the word "parent" or "dad" when referring to the father, we might indeed infer that the doctor is adoption-phobic. > Why would or should men be included in something they are excluded from by nature, by biology, and by logic? If we're including "trans men" in the category of "men" (and I think there are good reasons to do so, the same way we accept adoption as real parentage), then there indeed exists an edge case of people in the category of "men" getting pregnant.

brigandish 4y ago
I included legally so the whole bit about adoption is moot, and hence the rest of your argument based on it. That’s a child, that’s an adult male, he’s the legal guardian therefore he’s dad. There’s a pregnant adult female, she’s not dad. Why? Because men can’t get pregnant, for one.
- PoignardAzur 4y ago
  > I included legally so the whole bit about adoption is moot, and hence the rest of your argument based on it. Oh, my mistake. I thought we were trying to exchange arguments in good faith to better understand other people's perspective, but we were actually playing the "my argument destroys yours with facts and logic" game. Here, let me adjust. > Because men can’t get pregnant, for one. Except trans men can get pregnant, so your point is moot, and hence the rest of your argumentation based on it.
  - cluedos 4y ago
    Transmen are women who want to be men. The fact that some can and have become pregnant is because they are women.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    If you were arguing in good faith then surely you’d use the argument I’d presented already, and not ignore it for your convenience. Since we’re playing the logic game (and it would be strange if we were playing some game without logic - I fear that you may be), trans-men are a sub-category of women, not men, so you’ll need to expand on which part of my argument is moot.

brigandish 4y ago

I included legally so the whole bit about adoption is moot, and hence the rest of your argument based on it. That’s a child, that’s an adult male, he’s the legal guardian therefore he’s dad. There’s a pregnant adult female, she’s not dad. Why? Because men can’t get pregnant, for one.

PoignardAzur 4y ago
> I included legally so the whole bit about adoption is moot, and hence the rest of your argument based on it. Oh, my mistake. I thought we were trying to exchange arguments in good faith to better understand other people's perspective, but we were actually playing the "my argument destroys yours with facts and logic" game. Here, let me adjust. > Because men can’t get pregnant, for one. Except trans men can get pregnant, so your point is moot, and hence the rest of your argumentation based on it.
- cluedos 4y ago
  Transmen are women who want to be men. The fact that some can and have become pregnant is because they are women.
- brigandish 4y ago
  If you were arguing in good faith then surely you’d use the argument I’d presented already, and not ignore it for your convenience. Since we’re playing the logic game (and it would be strange if we were playing some game without logic - I fear that you may be), trans-men are a sub-category of women, not men, so you’ll need to expand on which part of my argument is moot.