Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

Oh yes.

We have discussed this extensively a few months ago if you remember. I think you were part of the discussion.

Apparently, female puberty can be anything a male person wants it to be. Apparently, it is not focused on maturation of female reproductive systems. It is simply developing breasts and something to do with appearing like a woman.

And apparently, it is not misogynistic at all to say that a male can experience female puberty or make reference in any way to a male going through female puberty.

And around and around the discussion goes.....

And again you are missing the point.

It is not based on whether an individual can correctly identify a male person's sex. It is whether ONE female person who has need of that female single sex provision can correctly identify a male person's sex.

Again, it is irrelevant if YOU cannot correctly identify a male person's sex. And you can tell us there is no 'sensible way of discussing' the topic all you like, we will keep sensibly discussing the topic regardless.

And disagreement is not attacking you .

Talking more mince.

"Impossible"? As in because I said it was a scientific impossibility for you to have gone through cross sex hormone induced female puberty?

Where's @murasaki's professor when you need him!

I genuinely thought people were referencing bone measurement and visual assessment. Why not just say 'dna test your remains' instead of 'dig you up?'

I'll stand by with what i said.

You said the above, did you forget?

That shows invalidity both as a child and an adult. So your following post contradicts it. Do try harder....

Two things can be simultaneously true.

My life as a person who transitioned as a teen is very much culturally invalid. It is impossible and invisible.

My life as a woman makes sense culturally and is valid, visible and possible everywhere but gender critical space (and one country's laws so influenced).

Well, he is validly a woman in his belief, obviously.

Not sure why that belief should override millenia of woman's identity and history as the female half of humanity, but it is his belief that it should.

Don't be trivial. You are not a stupid person. You knew what was meant.

Life tip: if you find yourself looking for loopholes so you can be right, you are wrong.

But you claim it is valid in the cultural sense.

We say it is valid as a human, but not as a woman in any sense.

So if you're now saying it's not valid in the cultural sense, in what sense is it valid?

My existence has always been very much ignored, impossible and invalid in the cultural sense.

Have you ever wondered that in fact your premises are indeed impossible and invalid?

If I start answering under any other context, the content will be ignored as impossible or invalid, so the only relevant answer in this environment is 'no.'

Male DNA doesn't make you male? M'kay then.

It doesn't make you female that's for sure! 😂

Er 'no' is very much a statement on your belief. Which is scientifically invalid, as you've just admitted.

No.

Edited to add: this is in response to the gender critical belief. It's not a statement on my belief that I can be a woman while having male DNA.

OK, you admit your dna is male. Does that not make you male?

I will now forever after know the reference includes a DNA lab.

I have hips, a waist and a pelvic tilt. As for the measurements of cavities and such, I assume I am somewhere within the normal average. Maybe narrow, but definitely not male shaped.

Ah, but the original point was just "dug up". You are the only one who added that the observation must be "in the field" objection, simply to "win" a point that otherwise undermines your claims. Bad faith sir, bad faith.

And yet both you and I and everyone reading knows exactly what was meant and knows it is true.

So, like all Genderist arguments for why they think we should like them believe that men are actually wonen, your wriggling to change the goalposts, change the terms of the question or change the meaning of the words used to meanings you prefer simply highlights the truth you are avoiding.

You don’t live within your skeleton.

I'm intrigued as to why you keep returning to claim something that isn't true, in the face of women telling you you aren't and will never be one of us. You must have a masochistic streak a mile wide.

It's quite bizarre.

I very much doubt your skeleton is "unremarkable female" given that differences between male and female pelvises are present at birth.

Just as female hormones at puberty can change fat distribution but not cause a non-existant uterus to grow, they can have some secondary effect on the male pelvis but they don't go back in time and rewrite a pelvic bone that was born male into one born female.

That made me laugh! 😂

I wonder if in PPW's lexicon, the opposite of an "unremarkably female skeleton" would be a "remarkably female skeleton", it's the kind of win, win, "words mean whatever I want them to mean at the time" word game-y type of thing I'd expect tbh.

I live within it. I am very familiar with its dimensions.