You're viewing a single thread.
Why can't it just be a guy, simply dressing like a girl, 'as a joke'? I mean does he have to be 'curious'?
I never understood this obviously toxic take... saying that a cisgendered male crossdressing MUST be trans or trans-curious is exactly the same toxic energy as denying trans women's existence.
Are you folks really gonna say that, for example, Tim Curry is a closet Trans Woman? Because that's the kind of thing being implied by that. Just let people do what they are gonna do and be what they are gonna be, leave your assumptions and judgements out of it.
Guys dressing as girls has been bants forever.
Really sad that people don't want us to have that enjoyment anymore. It's fucking a cultural heritage at this point to have fun dressing as a woman.
I'm not sure where you read that in this post, because I don't see it.
The post suggests that there are only two options in the scenario: they are either secretly trans, or they are a bigot trying to belittle and insult trans women. They don't leave any nuance for a different option. Dare I say that they have a rather binary way of thinking...
Ohhh, you read the "and if" as being exhaustive. If they said "either... or" then I'd be with you, but they just listed 2 possible scenarios.
No, I read the "win/win" as listing there only being two possible scenarios. They are saying you either win or you win. "Win/win" reads as "win or win", so there is your "either... or", but even then you don't need to say specific words to be able to imply exclusivity.
Example:
"You must be joking, and if not, then you are a fool" Notice how in that sentence I did not use "either/or", yet I still implied only two possibilities? Well, that sentence is homogenous to the sentence in OP's post. I just used "if/then" instead of "either/or".You said "and if not" which is binary, but "if [predicate] [x] and if [predicate] [y]" is not generally exhaustive.