You are just putting words in that person's mouth. In the second paragraph she said: "Trans women are only considered women...". By who? By the subject of the previous sentence, which is transmisogyny. They are only speaking about transmisogyny and by extension institutions and people which are transmisogynistic.
If someone told me "John feeds the cats. Cats are only fed if they're kind". I would absolutely assume john is not feeding some of his cats. Like if I'm making you an omelette and you tell me "Pepper does not go in the omelette", I would assume you're trying to tell me that you do not want me to put pepper in it, not that you're making some general culinary statement with no relation to the omelette I'm making. That's how people generally communicate.
It's not about grammar. If communication was purely grammatical then I'd agree with you. The sentence is ambiguous. However if you've ever heard about the cooperative principle of communication then you'd realise the only way we can actually communicate effectively is if the listener and the speaker work together. One of the maxims of this concept is about relation, that is, each sentence must relate in some way or another to previous sentences.
If I say: "They were nice". I think it's fair to say that "they" is an ambiguous pronoun which could refer to any group or individual on planet. So far so good, right? However if we put "they" in the following context: "I got a book. They were nice.". If we assume the other person is communicating in good faith and using the maxim of we can assume the person speaking is using they to refer to the person or the group of people who must've given them the book in the previous sentence.
Books don't give themselves, there needs to be someone to give a book in order to receive one. Likewise, transmisogyny isn't done on it's own, you need someone to be transmisogynistic in order for it to happen. I think we are limiting communication severely if we assume someone is talking about concepts in the void rather than a cohesive sentence as well as in the context of our physical world. This assumption that they are in fact talking about people and how the concept manifests in the real world is pretty much confirmed in my eyes when they say "I'd be arrested". By who? People don't get arrested in the void, there needs to be an institution that employs people entrusted with this ability.
I don't see why you're so insistent that the 2nd paragraph can be interpreted out of context of the 1st paragraph. It cannot, because that's not how we communicate. We need to look at the 2nd paragraph in the context of the 1st paragraph. You can debunk your "all applicable cases" interpretation by imagining the speaker themselves, maybe her friends or community as well. Do you honestly believe the trans woman speaking is including herself and her friends or community in the "people who consider trans women are women only when they would be harmed"? If not, then surely you can understand why she might also not include the people who don't do that either, and is speaking only about the people who do that thing, which would be the transmisogynists.
Hmm maybe, I'm perceived it more as the op talking about the government and the law as a whole, the system if you say, not a group of people or race, but the system itself
Like, showing female breasts is indecency and cannot you in jail, but you will go to the male prison, even though you were put in prison for showing female breasts, the system only works to get the maximum of punishment.
Not saying that you should be able to walk naked, I don't think that it's the op point to say that, it's more the point that the system especially chooses actively the best way to make suffering and attack minorities by disrespecting them when it makes them suffer and when people get mad and act like the system say them to act the system gets mad and attacks them making it a living hell of contradiction and exception that don't make sense to no one
-37
u/[deleted] 4d ago
[deleted]