Do trannies know that if men can be considered women then the word woman no longer holds any meaning you retards basically want your cake and to eat it too
>>42168924this is obviously untrue thoughyou can't stop the word woman meaning something, words and concepts don't work that way
>>42168937What meaning does it hold then?
>>42168952no word holds meaning. we assign meaning to words
Idk what this post is about, but Malcolm X was so hot and he mogged MLK
>>42168924I wanna watch Malcolm x movie denzel is just different
>>42168924>if god can be man then the word has no meaning anymore
>>42168952you know what it means, everyone does
>>42168924>want your cake and to eat it tooImplying what? Anybody who wants cake wants to eat it, retard.Was bait always this esl?
>>42168989That doesnt even make any sense
>>42168965And??
>>42169018>The phrase "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means you cannot enjoy two conflicting things at the same time; once you eat the cake, you no longer have it. It emphasizes the idea of making choices and accepting trade-offs in life.
>>42168924male and female are reproductive categories but people don't even reproduce above replacement rate, and we're developing tech that allows non-m/f pairings to reproduce anyways. and men and women as labor categories don't apply anymore either, so what's left is that they're simply aesthetic categories. why can't a man become a woman
>>42169036two very different concepts
>>42169139Your point being?
>>42169055>Some find the common form of the proverb to be incorrect or illogical and instead prefer: "You can't eat your cake and [then still] have it (too)". Indeed, this used to be the most common form of the expression until the 1930s–1940s, when it was overtaken by the have-eat variant.>In Jonathan Swift's 1738 farce Polite Conversation, the character Lady Answerall says "she cannot eat her cake and have her cake".
>>42169183you cant say that a word holds meaning
>>42169191Yes you can.
>>42169123your pushing for AI to replace us with this transhumanism shit
>>42169270whoever can be replaced with ai didn't deserve to exist anyways. i am a transhumanist
>>42168924>Jewish thread
>>42168924This assumes that the argument is that men can be considered women, which you did infact break down. But that is not the argument that transgender people make, being that trans women are women, which is true. If one is not to consider a pre-transition trans woman a woman, it may be considered fair if you see the requirement to be physical, but if so, when one has crossed sexes from male to female, through altering their secondary sex characteristics, it is unarguable that they are now both woman in mind and body. Exclusionary definitions that try to exclude all trans women end up excluding some people who would be considered women at birth, like Swyer or CAIS women, which is what makes the definition of woman to be physical appearance the utmost accurate. And nonetheless, if their appearance does not line up with their mind, it becomes necessary to show compassion and treat them as what they wish. Their dysphoria they already hold physically harms to great degrees. It is only kind to treat them how they wish to be treated.
>>42169338That's not what she said
>>42169205why?
