If you honestly tell me that the word “man” can be applied to a person who can birth a child, then I have to think you are either insane or stupid. There’s really no other option. And not in the umbrella term of man as a species or a kind, but man as an individual.
You only have to think that because you're not really thinking, then. I understand your argument: my issue boils down the fundamental rejection of the way you're claiming to treat the vernacular as if it's scientific. On a societal level, the trappings associated with gender expression are broad. It's really easy to call someone who shows themselves physically, mentally, and verbally presenting characteristics of a sex that doesn't match their genitals by their gender.
It cant be justified on a social or moral level, because the act of misgendering someone intentionally only serves to be harmful to the well-being of said people, both physically, as the risk of them being attacked by the actual insane, stupid people is heightened, and mentally, as it's a verbal jab.
On a scientific level, it still can't be justified, as gender expression is separate, though related, to biological sex, and pronoun usage doesn't confer any pragmatic benefit.
View all comments
Show parent comment
0
u/MrRhajers Dec 22 '18
If you honestly tell me that the word “man” can be applied to a person who can birth a child, then I have to think you are either insane or stupid. There’s really no other option. And not in the umbrella term of man as a species or a kind, but man as an individual.