It’s entirely possible to say “it’s being used as a dogwhistle in this context” without saying “it’s a totally useless term that can only be used as a dogwhistle.”
The comment I originally replied to was insinuating the latter.
I didn’t invent anything. They said it’s a transphobic dogwhistle made digestible to appease the apathetic moderate. Nothing about that statement limits it to the context of this post. It sounds overly-broad to me.
And if you think I invented the relevance to the medical field, then how do you argue with this person’s comment:
Can you explain further? I’m a biochemist / medical lab scientist, and between my studies in genetics, human sexuality, and endocrinology, it seems pretty well figured out. Between “normal” X/Y chromosomes, various chromosomal abnormalities (X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etc), and mutations like androgen insensitivity syndrome it seems there is significant causal data. Not sure if they’ve studied these with knockout mice but it’s well beyond inference at this point.
I’m not sealioning here, it has been like a decade since I was actively learning this stuff and I’m sure there have been more discoveries. In general though it seems like we know the genetics, we know the hormones and receptors involved, the developmental process and various maladies are known, etc.
You are sealioning. You don’t speak to your doctor in order to use the loos. In this context, “biological sex” is a transphobic dog whistle.
I’m not commenting on the top-level post, I was replying to a comment that said:
That’s not sealioning.
You don’t speak to your doctor in order to use the loos. In this context, “biological sex” is a transphobic dog whistle.
I never said that you do.
It’s entirely possible to say “it’s being used as a dogwhistle in this context” without saying “it’s a totally useless term that can only be used as a dogwhistle.”
The comment I originally replied to was insinuating the latter.
No, they said “it’s a transphobic dog whistle” and you invented all that extra stuff to start your irrelevant argument. It’s called a straw man.
I didn’t invent anything. They said it’s a transphobic dogwhistle made digestible to appease the apathetic moderate. Nothing about that statement limits it to the context of this post. It sounds overly-broad to me.
And if you think I invented the relevance to the medical field, then how do you argue with this person’s comment:
Really?
This you?
If you can’t see the strawmanning here, you’re one or more of unselfaware, unable to back down when you’re wrong, disingenuous or malicious.
That’s not a strawman or an invention, it’s literally what the person was saying.
Are you fixating on the fact that it wasn’t verbatim? Because I had to elucidate the subtext, since otherwise you’ll pretend subtext doesn’t exist.
And there you go pretending subtext doesn’t exist. Amazing.
And there you go pretending context doesn’t exist. Amazing.
You and I clearly use the word literally very differently. I use it considerably more honestly and literally than you do.
I’m leaning towards options (b) and © here.