Trans Women are not Women

[Rolfe]

The SEX marked on the door.

 

[Belz...]

Oh so you are doubling down on this?

I think you're using that term wrong. It's not "doubling down" to tell you that you read me wrong.

What did you mean by what "they looked like under the hood" then? What the inside of their torso cavity looks like? Their colon? Please I want to know.

If you weren't in such a hurry to disagree with me you might have found the answer yourself. For your information, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, men and women have a host of differences such as pilosity, shape of the upper body or hips, breasts, other secondary characteristics and, yes, genitalia. If you want to dig further, they have another host of genetic and hormonal differences.

I'm surprised you didn't know that. And don't pretend that you did, because genitalia is the only one you came up with. Not me. You.

No? That was the point...

You can't even keep your own story straight. If losing an arm doesn't stop you from being a tetrapod even though the number of limbs is the definition, then losing your penis doesn't make you not a man anymore even if it were the only criterion. That's because people who are serious about discussing real things can employ useful definitions in pragmatic ways, and don't feel the need to wrangle about the exact meaning of each word ceaselessly. They're perfectly happy with tetrapods normally having four limbs, for example, or a man not having a penis anymore.

But using your standard here, your own definition of "woman" makes no sense because it explicitly varies with time. If a man looks and behaves like a woman convincingly for a theatre play, do they temporarily become a woman?

 

[Arcade22]

I think you're using that term wrong. It's not "doubling down" to tell you that you read me wrong.

Considering that you have such incredible problems at reading comprehension that you read the complete opposite meaning of my text, I'm thinking it's more likely you are deliberately being disingenuous... or maybe your just incredibly confused?

If you weren't in such a hurry to disagree with me you might have found the answer yourself. For your information, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, men and women have a host of differences such as pilosity, shape of the upper body or hips, breasts, other secondary characteristics and, yes, genitalia. If you want to dig further, they have another host of genetic and hormonal differences.

I'm surprised you didn't know that. And don't pretend that you did, because genitalia is the only one you came up with. Not me. You.

I wasn't disagreeing with you because quite frankly I've not seen you make any kind of claim at all, just sniping from the sidelines and trying to act like some kind of referee.

You can't even keep your own story straight. If losing an arm doesn't stop you from being a tetrapod even though the number of limbs is the definition, then losing your penis doesn't make you not a man anymore even if it were the only criterion. That's because people who are serious about discussing real things can employ useful definitions in pragmatic ways, and don't feel the need to wrangle about the exact meaning of each word ceaselessly. They're perfectly happy with tetrapods normally having four limbs, for example, or a man not having a penis anymore.

Hey guy, i suggest you take a course in English reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious that i was subverting the claims of those who stubbornly refuse to employ pragmatic definitions. That was the whole point, which yet again flew over your head. Seriously.

But using your standard here, your own definition of "woman" makes no sense because it explicitly varies with time. If a man looks and behaves like a woman convincingly for a theatre play, do they temporarily become a woman?

At least as far as their performance in the play is concerned, why not? You tell me why peoples gender's can't change instead. Note that actually changing your gender tends to take a little more effort than just wearing a dress. Outside of the delusional fever dreams of TERF's transwomen actually do more things that just shout "i identify as a woman".

Outside of in Canada that is. There it's all it takes. Just say those magical words and any man can walk into the changing-room's, undress, get a raging hard on and photograph people with complete impunity. It's basically an epidemic at this point.

 

[Arcade22]

You show up at a nudist beach fully expecting to see all types of body - male, female, fat, thin, old, young ... You've contracted to accept that simply by being present at such a beach.

You show up in a changing room expecting to see bodies of the gender marked on the door including, in the women's room, saggy granny tits if they happen to be present.

And women can now have penises. You may not like that, anymore than you might not like the fact that black people can use the same facilities as you (or even that they are considered people at all). You even said that seeing penises didn't bother you in the least so why do you act like it's any worse than seeing ugly people naked? It shouldn't.

 

[Belz...]

Considering that you have such incredible problems at reading comprehension that you read the complete opposite meaning of my text

What are you talking about? I'm the one who said something and you're the one doing the interpreting. How can the disagreement possibly be due to my reading comprehension? What's with the gaslighting?

I'm thinking it's more likely you are deliberately being disingenuous... or maybe your just incredibly confused?

One attack after another. You must really furious at the idea that people might disagree with you. The only explanation must be that this other person is either dishonest or evil, right? They can't possibly genuinely have a point.

Hey guy, i suggest you take a course in English reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious that i was subverting the claims of those who stubbornly refuse to employ pragmatic definitions. That was the whole point, which yet again flew over your head. Seriously.

I don't believe you for a second. You were offended by my "under the hood" comment and you thought I was specifically talking about genitalia and nothing else, which led you to ask if a man stopped being a man if they lose their penis.

That wasn't "subverting" anything. You were specifically attacking a definition because you didn't understand it. And now you're trying to flip reality around. More gaslighting. You understand that we can click back and check the older posts, right?

At least as far as their performance in the play is concerned, why not?

Oh, so anyone can become a woman or a man temporarily so long as they are convincing. Good to know. Of course that just makes your definition of "woman" even more ridiculous and self-defeating.

 

[JihadJane]

I mentioned it before, but it bears repeating. Among women I have heard complaining about the presence of men in women's locker rooms, exactly zero have said that the problem is that the women might view a penis. Exactly no one is worried about that.

Why do people not get that that isn't the issue? Are men so obsessed with their penises that they think the women must also be obsessed with them? "Ahhh…..the problem must be that they might see my penis. I can see how that might be a problem for them. They probably haven't seen anything so magnificent before. They might faint."

Actually, it is a problem. Many parents don't want their young daughters having to undress in the presence of strangers' dicks*.





*This includes "lady dicks".

 

[JihadJane]

And women can now have penises. You may not like that, anymore than you might not like the fact that black people can use the same facilities as you (or even that they are considered people at all). You even said that seeing penises didn't bother you in the least so why do you act like it's any worse than seeing ugly people naked? It shouldn't.

How can women have penises?

 

[Rolfe]

And women can now have penises.

Only in the deluded wee bubble of the trans cult. Sad that you can only resort to "argument by blatant assertion" and insults when discussing this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Anyone else is welcome to chime in here.

Basically, what test or combination of tests ought to be used by top-level women's leagues?

Well now by legal decision clearly only testosterone level is needed.

 

[Belz...]

How can women have penises?

By redefining "woman" to include "man", so long as that man claims to be or acts like a woman, even temporarily.

This seems to be an attempt to blur the lines between the sexes, which I guess is meant to counter the impression that women are perpetually oppressed, no matter what.

But I think that if you were to ask 10 million random people on Earth for their definition of "woman", it wouldn't be anything like Arcade's. Definitions are made from usage, and only a small minority of people use "woman" that way. Unless medical professionals push for the change in definition, it might never catch on, so to pretend that this is the way it's defined now is disingenuous.

Here's the reality, though: trans people exist. They have a condition that may require treatment, and definitely requires support. Taking it to extremes, like Arcade22 and others have, is doing them a disservice because it gives the wrong impression to the general population that transgenderism is just a crazy fad. It makes it more likely that their issues will be ignored.

 

[Baylor]

And women can now have penises.

Since when?

 

[JihadJane]

Here's the reality, though: trans people exist. They have a condition that may require treatment, and definitely requires support. Taking it to extremes, like Arcade22 and others have, is doing them a disservice because it gives the wrong impression to the general population that transgenderism is just a crazy fad. It makes it more likely that their issues will be ignored.

Trans people existing and transgenderism being a crazy fad are not mutually exclusive realities.

 

[Rolfe]

Trans people existing and transgenderism being a crazy fad are not mutually exclusive realities.

Fair point. We're constantly exhorted to remember the genuinely fragile and vulnerable trans people who aren't out there behaving like power-crazed narcissistic MRAs, with the subtext being that we should give in to the aforementioned power-crazed narcissistic TRAs for the sake of the vulnerable demographic.

One word. Nope.

 

[Arcade22]

What are you talking about? I'm the one who said something and you're the one doing the interpreting. How can the disagreement possibly be due to my reading comprehension? What's with the gaslighting?

No you somehow thought that I actually literally meant what i wrote, not what i implied.

One attack after another. You must really furious at the idea that people might disagree with you. The only explanation must be that this other person is either dishonest or evil, right? They can't possibly genuinely have a point

.

A bad point. It's no different from refusing to consider same-sex marriages as actual marriages. Or that black people can't be Swedish. There's no meanginful difference. It's bigotry all the same.

And don't act like that's not an argument and just "personal attack" just cause it stings. It stings because it's true.

I don't believe you for a second. You were offended by my "under the hood" comment and you thought I was specifically talking about genitalia and nothing else, which led you to ask if a man stopped being a man if they lose their penis.

Yeah because that's the most obvious interpretation of your post. The fact that you have such incredible problems with English reading comprehension is your fault, not mine.

That wasn't "subverting" anything. You were specifically attacking a definition because you didn't understand it. And now you're trying to flip reality around. More gaslighting. You understand that we can click back and check the older posts, right?

You haven't even explained what you meant by your alleged definition. You are gaslighting yourself you fool.

Oh, so anyone can become a woman or a man temporarily so long as they are convincing. Good to know. Of course that just makes your definition of "woman" even more ridiculous and self-defeating

.

So that's it, huh? Argument from ridicule. Weren't you demanding that other's make good arguments just now? And now the only thing you can manage is "it's ridiculous"? This just hilarious you know that? Pure comedy right here.

 

[Arcade22]

Fair point. We're constantly exhorted to remember the genuinely fragile and vulnerable trans people who aren't out there behaving like power-crazed narcissistic MRAs, with the subtext being that we should give in to the aforementioned power-crazed narcissistic TRAs for the sake of the vulnerable demographic.

One word. Nope.

Are you going to repeat your performance at London pride anytime soon?

 

[Belz...]

Trans people existing and transgenderism being a crazy fad are not mutually exclusive realities.

I know, but it's hard to get that through to them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Indeed. But then you are simply asserting this conclusion and i dont think you are in any position to claim authority on this. you appear to simply be dismissing the idea that trans is a thing.

Trans is definitely a thing. What sort of thing is open to debate, but you don't really seem open to debate on what sort of thing it is.

What sort of authority would someone need in order to declare that someone is a man or a woman? Back in my youth, I was taught that the decision was based on biology. Apparently, there are people who think that is no longer the case. What "authority" made that decision?

In a different post, you referred to "people who study this sort of thing" (quote from memory, so perhaps slightly incorrect). As it turns out, an awful lot of scientists and scholars study this sort of thing, and seem to be in a lot of disagreement. By what criteria shall we decide which set of authorities got it right?

To my way of thinking, there are people who study this sort of thing on Tinder every day, and if the truth be told, I think their expertise on the subject is at least as valid as many people who publish in academic journals.

 

[Belz...]

No you somehow thought that I actually literally meant what i wrote, not what i implied.

Ok could you please explain what you're refering to? Because if you follow the line back to the first posts, this is about what I said, now what you said.

A bad point. It's no different from refusing to consider same-sex marriages as actual marriages. Or that black people can't be Swedish. There's no meanginful difference. It's bigotry all the same.

That's exactly what I said. You can't fathom that anyone might actually have a point. You label it as bigoted because you can't accept that someone might have another point of view and NOT be a bigot. Are you that afraid of being called a bigot yourself if you deviate from the dogma?

ETA: And it's pretty rich to call someone bigoted right after they told you that you're doing a disservice to trans people, who need support with their condition. It's almost like you don't care about what the people you're engaged in a conversation with actually say.

And don't act like that's not an argument and just "personal attack" just cause it stings. It stings because it's true.

False things sting too, so you're not saying anything of value here.

And no, telling me that I'm being disingenuous is not an "argument". If you think it is, then you have no idea what an argument is.

Yeah because that's the most obvious interpretation of your post.

Once again: just because YOU are interpreting something in a certain way doesn't mean it's obvious. Stop trying to give yourself excuses and get on with an actual argument, please.

So that's it, huh? Argument from ridicule.

No ridicule. It directly follows from your own argument. If someone can act like a woman and therefore BE a woman for an hour while playing a role, then they can temporarily be a woman. That's exactly what you argued for!

 

[Arcade22]

Ok could you please explain what you're refering to? Because if you follow the line back to the first posts, this is about what I said, now what you said.

What's the point? It's obvious you have gross problems understanding written text so I'm not even going to bother.

That's exactly what I said. You can't fathom that anyone might actually have a point. You label it as bigoted because you can't accept that someone might have another point of view and NOT be a bigot. Are you that afraid of being called a bigot yourself if you deviate from the dogma?

You haven't given anything remotely resembling a non-bigoted argument. It's almost like you are completely oblivious to the fact that the only other people who share your views are transphobic bigots. It's almost like it's something a transphobic bigot would believe!

ETA: And it's pretty rich to call someone bigoted right after they told you that you're doing a disservice to trans people, who need support with their condition. It's almost like you don't care about what the people you're engaged in a conversation with actually say.

I do care, that's why i bother responding.

False things sting too, so you're not saying anything of value here.

It's not false. Stop lying to yourself that you are any different from the racist or homophobe. You aren't making this any easier on yourself.

And no, telling me that I'm being disingenuous is not an "argument". If you think it is, then you have no idea what an argument is.

I never said it was an argument. That's another of your strange misinterpretations.

Once again: just because YOU are interpreting something in a certain way doesn't mean it's obvious. Stop trying to give yourself excuses and get on with an actual argument, please.

I'm sorry if i didn't interpret written English in your unique and ideosyncratic fashion, maybe you should be more verbose in the future since you have problems with people misunderstanding you? It's not like I'm the only one who's encountered this issue you have.

No ridicule. It directly follows from your own argument. If someone can act like a woman and therefore BE a woman for an hour while playing a role, then they can temporarily be a woman. That's exactly what you argued for!

And you dismissed it as being ridiculous without motivation. That's what an argument from ridicule is. Either come up with a good argument or don't bother responding. You were the one demanding i make an argument earlier now it's your turn.

 

[Belz...]

What's the point? It's obvious you have gross problems understanding written text so I'm not even going to bother.

That sounds remarkably like you just realised your mistake and would rather attack and smear me than admit it.

It's almost like you are completely oblivious to the fact that the only other people who share your views are transphobic bigots.

And vegetarians are just like Hitler. If you're a vegetarian, you're a Nazi. It's really that simple.

Guilt by association is fun!

It's not false. Stop lying to yourself that you are any different from the racist or homophobe. You aren't making this any easier on yourself.

Could you step out of that bubble of yours for just ******* moment and accept that, maybe, there are people around you with different perspectives and opinions and that they may not be evil for it? That maybe they're not dishonest, or deluded, or whatever other label you can imagine?

You're trying to beat me into submission by accusations of moral crime rather than addressing points and arguments, and making some of your own. You tried it at first, but when it became obvious that your definition was nonsense, you decided to browbeat your opponents.

You're a bully, plain and simple.