• kadu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If they have an uterus, why not? I’d want to give menstrual items to whoever needed them, actually.

      • wipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • kadu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I did not. And no, there’s no equivalence here.

          I claimed menstrual products should go to people with uteruses - men or women.

          • wipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            there’s no equivalence here.

            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?

            • kadu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • WorldWideLem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Treating someone equally is to give them equal value and respect as you’d give anyone else, it’s to not devalue them based on gender, race, etc. It’s the same as it’s been since Dr. King talked about the content of someone’s character instead of the color of their skin.

      • wipasoda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        sure, no one is denying that. I was just jumping in on specifics of how that would look like, for example, when giving certain items.