zbyte64

I bet you would equally have a problem with the phrase “women are women” because there is no 1:1 equivalence between two women. Ask yourself why “natural” has to be added in the response when it wasn’t in the original statement?

I’m just pointing out the obvious difference between the two categories: one is based on gender the other is based on sex. It’s like asking: “if they’re allowed to discriminate on gender, then why not this other instance (that is based on sex)?” But without making what is in the parenthesis explicit - when someone responds “trans women are women” they are saying what is in the parenthesis.

I’m not directly addressing whether it’s okay but that there are categorical differences in the examples given. We might as well ask why we can’t discriminate based on hair color, since that too is categorically different than gender. That being said, bathrooms discriminate based on gender and not sex, so maybe ask why people think that is okay.

It should be obvious that I don’t agree with the question because of what I perceive to be a categorical error.

Is this what equal opportunity under the law looks like?

Yeah, the short of it is if you are a landlord and you’re not undermining your own industry by encouraging tenants to become owners of their own personal property, then you’re not community minded in the socialist (own the means of production) sense. There are exceptions, like one case where a rapper bought a poor neighborhood but did so to keep rent hikes and evictions from happening, arguably giving those families more stability so they have a chance to build family wealth.

Remember that time the Supreme Court decided our 2000 presidential election? I do. OP must be old…

I hear Vietnam has an excellent way to curtail “inflammatory” speech that works well on billionaires.

He’s already a martyr in the eyes of many, but yeah, we don’t need to make that a larger portion of the population.

Have you tried eating the rich by yourself? It really helps to have others hold em down.