I'm starting to think
@Dee Price was gone because he went to a Mexican chop-shop.
Actually, this is a really good point. I'm going to go on a bit of a rant, so feel free to throw the dumbs and autistics at me. I think the big problem with the whole trans debate is this whole idea of 'real woman' so lets talk about that for a second. First, what exactly is a woman? There are three practical ways to define a person's identity and those are the social identity (The role they play in society), the personal identity (The gender they express to the outside world), and the biological one (XX vs XY). These are three VERY different things, and not to go full retard, but both sides of the argument have this idea that they're the same thing when they aren't. If you make the argument you're a "real woman" you're going to lose on the biological argument no questions asked. I suppose you could make the point that there are intersex women with Y chromosomes and although rare some are capable of child birth. That's the only point I might concede on but I think it's still a stupid point.
So it becomes a question of the societal and personal role you fill. Can a trans woman fill those roles? With work certainly and besides that, there are plenty of biological women who chose not to. I think saying those who chose that life and are XX aren't real women isn't a viable argument against the trans identity. Identify the difference between the three and live comfortably in the roles you can, I don't have a problem with it. However it's being conflated because for some damn reason, people misinterpret and blend the roles acting like they're the same thing when they aren't. When it comes down to it, there is no easy way to define womanhood or manhood. It's a multiple-faced question and that needs to be acknowledged.
