Notice: Welcome to
TinyChan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have
set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can
restore your ID. The use of this site requires cookies to be enabled; please cease browsing this site if you don't consent.
Topic: Reflexive property of gender equality
+Anonymous A — 1.2 year ago #67,036
If transwomen are men, then by the reflexive property of equality, it would follow that men are transwomen.
If x = y, then y = x.
Which must mean, if I’m a man…
+Anonymous B — 1.2 year ago, 2 hours later[T] [B] #666,646
So you're saying that if penguin are birds then birds are penguins?
+Anonymous C — 1.2 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #666,647
@previous (B)
Well if birds are dinosaurs then dinosaurs are birds. Except dinosaurs had feathers, so maybe they were birds. The same way, penguins are technically sea birds so sea birds must be penguins. Why not take it a step further? What’s the difference between a bird and a sea bird? A bird lives in the water and a seabird lives on land. Not so different. You didn’t even notice I said the wrong thing did you? See…
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
·Anonymous C — 1.2 year ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #666,648
Really, if you wanted to have a system where transwomen are men and men aren’t transwomen you would have to introduce set theory. And I don’t throw up sets because I’m a law abiding citizen and that’s just a stereotype that all black people are in gangs anyway. So I don’t do set theory anymore. Transwomen cannot be a subset of men. I refuse to partake in such lawlessness!
·Anonymous C — 1.2 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #666,649
You know, penguins are diapsids. So are chameleons. Maybe penguins are just another type of chameleon!
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.