Ana and the intentional fallacy of the hasty generalization.
The tweet:
"I'm a woman. Please don't ever refer to me as a person with a uterus, birthing person, or person who menstruates. How do people not realize how degrading this is? You can support the transgender community without doing this shit."
The informal fallacy of generalizing from the particular (aka 'the hasty generalization') is a standard HORSESHIT TECHNIQUE for scoring rhetorical points. The HORSESHITTER picks a particular example, devoid of context, and then proceeds to claim it is now the general condition.
A simple example. An unusually cold day in June happens. The paid PR agents of the fossil fuel industry, in unison, claim that this proves global warming is a hoax. They've just generalized from the particular.
In the case of Kasparian, she chose a particular situation, a reference to 'pregnant people' instead of 'pregnant women' in specific medical contexts, to infer that Kasparian, and all women, are now being referred to, in general, as 'a person with a uterus'. This is a deliberate bad faith argument, she is lying and she knows she is lying.
The only real issue here is why she chose to do this. The follow on issue is why the flying fork do we keep falling for this sort of vile nonsense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
