Question

...
87blue

Is this moving the goalposts

From here:

At, around 15:31 James agrees with Dave (yikes, agreeing with at T R A N S P H O B E, kinda transphobic, James) that gender and sex are facts and troons don't have eggs, periods, and can't give birth.

&

Women don't have periods/can't give birth because of some dysfunction in their bodies which can (sometimes) be cured with medical intervention. Women, by default, can all give birth and all have periods unless some physical deformity/disease prevents them from doing so.
No troon can menstruate (ever) and no troon can give birth (ever)

Sounds like moving the goalposts. Either that or special pleading. After all, there are exceptions to the default, yet he assumes transwomen can't fit into those exceptions because...they are trans? What makes transwomen women who have that physical deformity he mentions? Especailly since he admits that it doesn't always get "corrected"?
asked on Thursday, Oct 13, 2022 02:57:43 AM by 87blue

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments
...
1
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:

We can't know if this is moving the goalposts without knowing where the goalposts were first placed. In other words, we need the original argument or claim.

posted on Thursday, Oct 13, 2022 06:40:16 AM
...
0
87blue writes:
[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

How is he defining what makes a woman? He sets up the fact that a woman must be defined by something had by default then admits that exceptions exist but trans people can't fit into that because they couldn't fit into the default in the first place...like said exceptions. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Oct 13, 2022 06:06:11 PM
...
0
Bo Bennett, PhD writes:
[To 87blue]

Sorry, I am not seeing what you are seeing. Perhaps one needs to read the whole thread. With what you posted, I see only opinions and rants.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Oct 14, 2022 06:42:44 AM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers