For sunk cost, I think the post could have illustrated this one more accurately as “You were raised a boy,” which I think encapsulates the parental investment that makes it a sunk cost. That’s how I had initially read it, at least.
I think the false dichotomy angle could also be expanded by factoring in intersex people who are similarly forced into AMAB/AFAB boxes despite biologically not fitting neatly into those categories, basically that the labels male and female themselves are a false dichotomy. Sorta blurs into the next point re: chromosomes, but I think it still captures two different ideas (Biologically male and biologically female are not accurate categories, and chromosomes are not indicative of gender identity).
And I think even the ad hominem aspect could be blurred a little bit to still make sense, if read in the sense of, like, “You’re a man, you can’t understand what it means to be a woman, therefore you’re not allowed to call yourself one.”
For sunk cost, I think the post could have illustrated this one more accurately as “You were raised a boy,” which I think encapsulates the parental investment that makes it a sunk cost. That’s how I had initially read it, at least.
I think the false dichotomy angle could also be expanded by factoring in intersex people who are similarly forced into AMAB/AFAB boxes despite biologically not fitting neatly into those categories, basically that the labels male and female themselves are a false dichotomy. Sorta blurs into the next point re: chromosomes, but I think it still captures two different ideas (Biologically male and biologically female are not accurate categories, and chromosomes are not indicative of gender identity).
And I think even the ad hominem aspect could be blurred a little bit to still make sense, if read in the sense of, like, “You’re a man, you can’t understand what it means to be a woman, therefore you’re not allowed to call yourself one.”