No you haven't.
>but unless you've lived a life in both shoes
Which isn't possible. Just like it's not possible to live life as a goldfish, but we have great understanding of how goldfish live.
>it's not worse for men
All statistics on violent crime, deaths due to crime, deaths due to workplace violence, deaths due to workplace accidents, homelessness, etc. all show that men are the primary victims.
>it's not coming from a place of experience.
Anecdotal evidence is meaningless at population scale. Luckily we have population statistics that provide us the objective truth.
> No you haven't.
Exactly. I wish these men would stop trying to insert themselves into every discussion on women's issues as if they have personal experience of being female. It's really irritating and just derails the conversation into propping up their fantasy.
I'm sure you could expound at length on the experiences of being a feminized male and the experience of transitioning to that state, and it may well be an interesting story to tell.
But that's not the same as being female and having the authentic lifelong experience of growing up as a girl to a woman. So it doesn't make sense to be commenting authoritatively on female issues.
Do you disagree and if so why?
I didn't say I was an authority on the female experience; no one is. I am an authority on my own personal experience as female. I'd rather not turn this into a definitions discussion as a way to discredit my experience.
I've interacted with hundreds of people who perceive and treat me based on what they and I believe me to be. There is no one outside of myself that can draw a line and say that doesn't count.
It really feels like this is turning into a cross-examination rather than curious conversation.
Most transwomen make the distinction between the reality of their sex (male) and what they perceive to be their gender (woman), so I'm curious as to why you've decided to call yourself female.
Your only problem is that most people won't agree with your ontology and will perceive this as going fully mask off on reality in order to accommodate mental illness. Which, if that's what it all always was, is good to know. Based and redpilled.
"I'm a mentally ill man who delusionally believes that I'm a women. I lie to myself and others about my sex/gender by abusing a sophomoric understanding of nihilism."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
How is violence against men relevant here?
Do you consider the needs of women so little, that you consider discussion of issues involving them irrelevant unless in the context of how they compare to the issues of men?
It's easy to see how a subset of men would be angry and sick of women getting all the social awareness while men are left to rot.
I don't know what the answer is, and I don't even know if I have a good definition of the overall problem. However, there are clearly problems that aren't being addressed, and if left untouched, they will be no good for society.
I thought that too, then asked for help once, and was rewarded for it: my belief was wrong.
My psychologist then told me that before 'toxic masculinity' was used by 3rd wave feminists (the 'empowerment' movement), it was a psychologist term used for men who refused help because of this 'i'll be told to suck it up' belief, term created in the wake of the Vietnam War and PTSD. Our masculinity become toxic once it makes us believe we aren't allowed to fail, cry or ask for help. Basically. He explained it way better, sorry.
Wait, talking about how JavaScript is a terrible programming language is pointlessly biased - we need to also talk about how Python is a terrible programming language. Everyone always seems to complain about JavaScript, but no one ever talks about how terrible pip is as a system for managing dependencies, or how the 2.x to 3.x migration was terrible implemented.
I think discussing how terrible JavaScript is pointlessly biased. Why focus specifically on JavaScript?
Bad logic right there. You can have a conversation about one topic, by itself - you don't need to bring in adjacent, yet not entirely relevant, topics in order to justify the first one.
“Blue-eyed people being unable to afford housing is a national emergency.”
“Why focus specifically on blue-eyed people? Other people are also affected by the housing crisis.”
“Don’t distract from the topic!”
A woman’s biology, by nature of being physically weaker, is a relevant distinction in the context of violence, where physical strength is relevant.
I suppose if someone says ‘In America, the average black family has 25% of the wealth of a white family’ faulty logic might say ‘why leave out the fact that the average white family has 50% of the wealth of an Asian family?’
So, what - the plight of the average white family is the same as the average black family? No, it’s not - so it’s reasonable to discuss that plight in a separate context.
Now, I am not diminishing anything stated in this article. Im purely stating this article does a very poor job of conveying how the numbers they present are statistically significant outside their immediate domain.
Isn't this just pandering?