Misogynist: Should transsexuals be allowed to compete in women's athletics?
TERF: No.
Misogynist: Why not?
TERF: Because they aren't Women.
Misogynist: So?
TERF: So, if they aren't Women, then they shouldn't be allowed to compete in WOMEN'S athletics.
Misogynist: But, what about being inclusive?
TERF: (*dirty look)
Misogynist: No, seriously. Why shouldn't transsexual be included in women's athletics. You're all about inclusiveness when it means women being included. Why shouldn't transsexuals get the same treatment?
TERF: Because it's ridiculous! It's WOMEN'S athletics, it's unfair to let MEN compete in it.
Misogynist: See, "unfair" gets us into some trouble. Because what constitutes "unfair" will tend to oscillate, sometimes wildly, between any two people. For example...(*pretends to be thinking) fire-fighting. In order to become a fire-fighter in this country, one has to meet an exacting physical standard. That standard is markedly lowered for women. The standard is lowered for women for no reason, other than to make it easier for women to meet the standard. Is that unfair?
TERF: Having a different physical standard for Women is important, because it redresses the innate societal imbalance that prejudices against Women, and for men.
Misogynist: I'm told that an even greater societal imbalance exists against transsexuals. So, in the interest of dismantling this imbalance, why not allow transsexuals to compete in women's athletics? Surely, if fire-fighting is fair game for inclusion, so are professional athletics.
TERF: There is no imbalance against transsexuals, transsexuals are men. All they have to do is cut their hair and switch the sundress for a pair of khakis, and they're back at the top of society.
Misogynist: But they don't want to take off the sundress. The sundress is really important to them. They tell me that they are women, in every way but the physical, and that if they are forced to conform to what society - you - tell them they should be, they'll end up dead by their own hand.
TERF: Just because they say it doesn't make it so.
Misogynist: Put it another way; every industry that you point to and say "there are more men in this industry than women. Therefore, this industry is prejudiced against women". I can point to and say "there are more cis people in this industry than trans people. Therefore, this industry is prejudiced against trans people". Why do the same standards that demonstrate the patriarchy not demonstrate cistriarchy?
TERF: (*dirty look)
Misogynist: Going back to unfairness. I have a problem with the notion that it is unfair to allow a group of people to compete. There are exceptions, weight-classes in combat sports, for example. But this isn't a weight-class issue. If a 6'4, 240lb. woman wants to compete on the Australian women's handball team, you won't tell her to fuck off, so, it's not about weight.
TERF: (*deep, beleaguered, breath) The purpose of Women's athletics is to allow Women a place, in athletics, where they can compete without being overshadowed by men. It is unfair then, to allow MEN to compete in WOMEN'S athletics.
Misogynist: Let's do away with fairness for the moment. Lets talk instead about good or bad. Let's say that allowing transsexuals to compete against women is good for transsexuals, but, it is bad for women, so, it is bad. Meanwhile, lowering the standard for women is bad for men, but, it is good for women, so, it is good. It seems to me that your - the TERF - definition of fairness is the same, in every instance, one-hundred percent of the time, with zero deviation; fairness means preferential treatment for women. Whether a firm is hiring, a judge is making a ruling, a homeless shelter is letting people in for the evening, OR A BUILDING IS ON FIRE - fairness, decency, equality, justice - means preferential treatment for women. Well, the inter-sectionals have decided that transsexuals matter more than cis-women, in exactly the same way that you have decided that cis-women matter more than men. It seems to me, that in this one instance, you are being treated the way you treat men, and it is freaking you right out.
TERF: Fuck off, incel!
Misogynist: I hope the trannies take everything from you.
TERF: (*begins furiously tweeting)
The issue is that women are not just hard to get, but utterly worthless even when you do. Be top 1% and they still don't give a fuck about you. Everyone from Bezos (1% financially) to various actors (1% looks) will tell you that.
I don't want a family and I don't want to leeched off like I got a doctor from the Middle Ages.
Your expectations are too high or maybe you haven't learned how to do the dance. If you never expect adult women to act at a higher level of maturity than your average 8-9 year old boy then you will never be disappointed.
And you will sometimes be pleasantly surprised when they occasionally randomly exceed your expectations.
If you can't afford it then somewhere along the way you made poor life choices. Begrudging the resources required to maintain a family is childish and unproductive. A burden voluntarily shouldered feels much lighter than the same when it is carried with hostile resentment.
I don't have a problem with supporting a family, as long as I'm a part of that family. In the West today, if the mother of my children decides, at any moment, that she would prefer it if I kept supporting the family, but was no longer a part of the family, then that's what is going to happen.
If you want to roll those dice, then go ahead, and good luck to you. But it's absurd (and frankly, fucking obtuse) for anyone to look at this deal (marriage/family) and say "if a man doesn't want to be put in this position, he's being childish and unproductive".
Edit: It's like calling a man a coward because he won't step on a bear trap.
I absolutely understand where you are coming from and that is a valid concern to take into account. But knowing the danger doesn't mean you don't face the danger.
Men take risks.
That is part of what "being a man" means. You accept that accomplishing the mission requires putting yourself in harms way. That is the fundamental difference between men and women/children.
Because the other option is you don't get to be part of the chain of ancestry, you don't aren't able to pay your debt to those who came before you, and your are never truly accepted as a member of society.
We don't have a "coming of age" ritual anymore where you go into the woods with a knife and come back wearing a wolf pelt. And we don't have a meat grinder war with a draft to force young men find themselves or perish. What we do still have is the ritual of being judged worthy by a woman and accepting the legal and social burdens that come with husbanding her.
Yes you could get hurt, possibly irreparably. But that isn't a guarantee, unlike the guarantee you will forever remain as a boy if you don't accept this as one of your many other burdens.
Yeah... you and I have very different definitions of what it means to be a man. We should just agree to disagree.