ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 days agologirule fallacylemmy.mlimagemessage-square10fedilinkarrow-up1320arrow-down16
arrow-up1314arrow-down1imagelogirule fallacylemmy.mlComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square10fedilink
minus-squareLasseKB@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·2 days agoIsn’t a false dichotomy when two options are falsely presented as the only options when more options exist?
minus-squarebeegnyoshi@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down1·2 days agoUsually yes, but afaik not in this case. The argument would be: “You are amab therefore not a woman” Which implies: “You are either amab either a woman” But a question remains: ¿Por qué no los dos?
minus-squareZagorath@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 days agoYes that’s correct. In this case, the false dichotomy is between amab+man and afab+woman. It rejects options such as amab woman and afab man. And enbies.
Isn’t a false dichotomy when two options are falsely presented as the only options when more options exist?
Usually yes, but afaik not in this case.
The argument would be:
“You are amab therefore not a woman”
Which implies:
“You are either amab either a woman”
But a question remains:
¿Por qué no los dos?
Yes that’s correct. In this case, the false dichotomy is between amab+man and afab+woman. It rejects options such as amab woman and afab man. And enbies.