One common tactic for delegitimizing trans people is to imply or assert that this is just a modern phenomena that is a sign of modern societal coddling and decadence. The same tactics were and still are used on gay people as well. Highlighting that these things are natural and have existed for a long time helps to shatter that false narrative.
But it’s a fallacy because the -supposed- naturalness of something doesn’t say anything about its righteousness. Petrol is natural, but highly poisonous, and clothes are unnatural but pretty necessary. And the call to nature argument can be pretty dangerous since it’s often used in favor of pseudomedical practices. And without talking about the hypocrisy of the argument when it’s used against queer people, since the people using it doesn’t have any problem form many unnatural things.
Just a heads up: when people of Christian inclinations say “natural” it can often mean “as god intended” or “the way things should be” instead of “occurring in nature”
A lot of people are confused each time “naturalness” is brought up, not realizing that Christians mean something completely different. Of course you argument above makes sense, but it completely misses the point.
And yes, it’s the person who makes the argument that’s at fault for using some dumb-ass apologetics-loaded meaning of the word, but I wish more people were aware of this.
Sure, natural is not at all the same as of worth. But it’s much easier to argue that trans people are natural (here, by drawing comparisons to other organisms) than to go after the opposing argument’s tactics.
It’s a much simpler, and more effective, argument to say “No, I am naturally this way” than it is to respond “And of what value is a natural thing?!”
Petrol is not natural, it’s refined from crude oil.
Edit: it’s refined organics with additives.
When formulated as a fuel for engines, gasoline is chemically composed of organic compounds derived from the fractional distillation of petroleum and later chemically enhanced with gasoline additives.
I mean have you seen a redhead on a beach, they probably reflect the same amount as snow. Might burn your eyes if you stare long enough, they will probably turn into a lobster first.
That is absolutely not true and clothes are doe ore then termal protection. Clothes are highly important for reduction in exposure to bugs, they also help limit direct exposure to sum UV. Sure there are places where you can go without clothing and be relatively okay, but to be totally honest you used one example for very specific locales. Just because it “isn’t necessary” in one specific locale doesn’t mean they are a necessary part of the human experience.
Emphasis on the ‘if you’re in a warm climate’ part. But it’s true, our society has a stigma against nudity even in circumstances where clothes aren’t necessary.
One common tactic for delegitimizing trans people is to imply or assert that this is just a modern phenomena that is a sign of modern societal coddling and decadence. The same tactics were and still are used on gay people as well. Highlighting that these things are natural and have existed for a long time helps to shatter that false narrative.
A little more reading about it if you’re interested.
But it’s a fallacy because the -supposed- naturalness of something doesn’t say anything about its righteousness. Petrol is natural, but highly poisonous, and clothes are unnatural but pretty necessary. And the call to nature argument can be pretty dangerous since it’s often used in favor of pseudomedical practices. And without talking about the hypocrisy of the argument when it’s used against queer people, since the people using it doesn’t have any problem form many unnatural things.
You’re trying to reason out an unreasonable ideology.
Republicans support bigots because they are bigots.
Just a heads up: when people of Christian inclinations say “natural” it can often mean “as god intended” or “the way things should be” instead of “occurring in nature”
A lot of people are confused each time “naturalness” is brought up, not realizing that Christians mean something completely different. Of course you argument above makes sense, but it completely misses the point.
And yes, it’s the person who makes the argument that’s at fault for using some dumb-ass apologetics-loaded meaning of the word, but I wish more people were aware of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
deleted by creator
Sure, natural is not at all the same as of worth. But it’s much easier to argue that trans people are natural (here, by drawing comparisons to other organisms) than to go after the opposing argument’s tactics.
It’s a much simpler, and more effective, argument to say “No, I am naturally this way” than it is to respond “And of what value is a natural thing?!”
Petrol is not natural, it’s refined from crude oil.
Edit: it’s refined organics with additives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Doesn’t change my argument, since i wouldn’t recommend to drink crude oil either.
Are clothes necessary though? If you live in a warm climate, you could literally walk naked and it’d be fine.
Some people don’t have the skin for that. Instant sunburn.
Baahhhhh, my eyes, my eyes are burning!!! That’s what you meant right?
I mean have you seen a redhead on a beach, they probably reflect the same amount as snow. Might burn your eyes if you stare long enough, they will probably turn into a lobster first.
That is absolutely not true and clothes are doe ore then termal protection. Clothes are highly important for reduction in exposure to bugs, they also help limit direct exposure to sum UV. Sure there are places where you can go without clothing and be relatively okay, but to be totally honest you used one example for very specific locales. Just because it “isn’t necessary” in one specific locale doesn’t mean they are a necessary part of the human experience.
Emphasis on the ‘if you’re in a warm climate’ part. But it’s true, our society has a stigma against nudity even in circumstances where clothes aren’t necessary.