sukoon asked:

I really did mean all of my questions quite earnestly. thanks for your answers. obviously I need to research and learn a bit more. I really wasn’t trying to argue with you, just bringing up a question that I hate having and wanted to resolve. I guess it’s a good idea to turn to the google as many people have probably already discussed it. thanks again.

I replied:

I get it.

And honestly, it is the framing of your questions, more than anything that annoyed the fuck out of me.

Because, and this is always a focus of mine as a former logician, the thing that your questions forget is that arguments need to have a basis in truth.

even if my argument and the argument use by radfems is exactly the same

the difference is, is that radfems wouldn’t know a genuine fact about gender if it was a butch political lesbian playing a set at michfest.

and this is where philosophy takes us: focusing more on arguments than truth.

my super snarky answer to your questions would have been ‘so what?’

an argument that is appropriate in one domain of discourse is not necessarily appropriate in another, there is nothing interesting about this fact, or confusing

and since this isn’t actually philosophy, but people’s lives

it would serve you well, in the future, to remember to focus on substance and truth

to focus on who is actually being harmed

who is leveraging power to oppress

this is where truth lives and it won’t necessarily make any rational sense (in fact, it rarely does)