I am aware of the reality that banning trans people doesn't stop abuse.
It seems like you're talking about something different. Originally, you were talking about cis people who thought banning trans people would stop their husbands, etc., being abusive. In other words, that banning trans people would stop all abuse. It seems like what you're talking about here is something different: not all abuse but only some abuse.
the people who genuinely believe this may react upon learning their problems have not been magically solved
Why do you think there are people who believe that banning trans people will stop all abuse?
a task or action that someone is required to perform
This I can understand.
"human biological duties"
This, which you've made up, I don't understand. It doesn't make sense to me. "Biological duties" seems like a contradiction in terms. In fact it sounds ridiculous. And there's no logical connection between the definition of "duty" you gave above and this undefined term "human biological duties" which you've introduced. If it's in line with your previous expositions about family, then it is in fact distinct from the definition of "duty" you gave and incoherent.
Regardless, whatever it is you're talking about doesn't seem like what the authors of the article were talking about or what I was asking about. So again, consistently, it seems like we're talking about different things. In fact it's looking more and more like you're just reaching and trying to shoe-horn the subject that you want to talk about into this discussion.
I wonder what's going to happen when the cis women realize that banning trans people from their spaces didn't actually fix anything and their husbands, boyfriends, and colleagues are still groping, beating, and forcing themselves on them.
That's ridiculous. Why would you think that the TERFs believed that banning trans people would stop all groping, beatings or rape? They're defending their safe spaces. They want the safe spaces for a reason.
That’s obviously an appeasement strategy towards orangeboi and the nationalist Christians
It's not. This conflict has been going on since long before Trump took office.
Firstly, you haven't given a definition of "duty".
Secondly, you just said it's not a duty, now you're saying it is a duty. Please sort your shit out.
You must get that people are here to talk about some politicial commentary, and you're saying "well, I'm not convinced in the concept of duty". It's like turning up to an astrinomy club and saying "you can't prove these stars aren't a dream of mine!".
You seem to be a bit off on one. Your analogy doesn't make sense. Someone posted an opinion article which contained a statement that I questioned. Other people responded to my questioning. Discussion ensued. Seems pretty normal and expected to me. It seems like the misunderstanding is on your part.
it's not so much a "duty,"
All of:
- the statement in the posted article
- my question about that statement
- the response to my question
- my response which you originally replied to
- my question, which you quoted in the comment I'm replying to here
were about duty.
Whatever you're talking about, it isn't an answer to any of my questions because you're not talking about duty.
why are you saying I'm wrong?
I haven't said that.
this:
Your answer is limited to parents only.
Is completely wrong.
You said "your kids".
Children of which were the best example. However, any human can be your family. Adoption, Friendship, ...
You didn't say any of that. In fact, your comment didn't contain the word "family" once. You've changed your tune.
Regardless:
and improves of our own futures and that of our families
Why does one have a duty to improve one's own future or the future of one's family?
You didn't answer my question.
I'm going to take the lazy approach
Pfft.
I'd recommend starting from the ground up in a philosophy 101 course
LOL that's very presumptuous.
Right so this is a different concept to the definition of "duty" you gave previously. So again, we're talking about different things.
Which isn't an answer to my question. I asked about duty, not about "biological duty".