that’s what I meant. You wouldn’t give them to whoever not needed them. I called them man, you called them people without uterus. In other words, you don’t want to treat all equally.
You’re moving the goalposts and definitions, purposely.
I claimed no two men are alike - but we treat them equally. The purpose of this argument is claiming gender wouldn’t be enough to treat men and women differently.
You mentioned menstrual products - I’m saying they should be distributed based on need, regardless of gender.
I’m explicitly explaining things now, even though I’m sure you actually do understand from the very beginning, because your lazy attempt at definition-trolling is getting boring.
If they have an uterus, why not? I’d want to give menstrual items to whoever needed them, actually.
that’s what I meant. You wouldn’t give them to whoever not needed them. I called them man, you called them people without uterus. In other words, you don’t want to treat all equally.
No, I did not. And no, there’s no equivalence here.
I claimed menstrual products should go to people with uteruses - men or women.
So you would give menstrual products to people with a uterus but don’t say anything about not giving menstrual products to people without a uterus?
But would you? If you do not, wouldn’t that make you treat people unequally, in some sense?
You’re moving the goalposts and definitions, purposely.
I claimed no two men are alike - but we treat them equally. The purpose of this argument is claiming gender wouldn’t be enough to treat men and women differently.
You mentioned menstrual products - I’m saying they should be distributed based on need, regardless of gender.
I’m explicitly explaining things now, even though I’m sure you actually do understand from the very beginning, because your lazy attempt at definition-trolling is getting boring.
That would mean some men would go without menstrual products they need. And would be wrong.