I mean, there is such a thing as reality, and it exists regardless of your observing it; we can agree on this much, I'm sure?
Person 1 sees someone who looks like and identifies as a man. They see a man.
Person 2 sees someone who has a vagina, can bear a child, and was born a woman. They see a woman.
My point was that you can arrive at different conclusions from observing reality by ignoring or arguing away the points that refute you.
You didn't even acknowledge my point of it being the same arguments used by transphobes.
Of course, it's easy to use, because your side is "obviously right". All you have to do is look at "reality".
It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way. That's okay, but I'm just not going to use them that way. Neither of us have a stronger claim to "observable reality", but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.
And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.
>but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.
Why on earth would you think appeal to tradition gives your opinion any legitimacy.
History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.
That's fine, people can call me that if they want to
> History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.
Sure, and I'm not saying historicity makes me right, just that I didn't pull the opinion out of thin air like it's a crackpot theory; most people in the world today and throughout history agreed with me. I have essentially 0 Agreeableness in the big 5 so any argument about social pressure in present decade USA doesn't sway my opinion.