Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve read about and seen some stuff written by the type of people Blanchard is talking about so I wouldn’t deny they’re out there. I do still get the impression that they’re the outliers among outliers, though, and that SRS doesn’t turn out to be a good therapeutic option for them anyways. The most “SRS is a lie that doctors trick you into, you’ll regret it” stuff I’ve read has been from them. It seems clear to me that a reasonable therapist or doctor presented with apparent gender dysphoria would take this into account. I have no reason to believe they don’t already do so.
 
Basically I think the question is does every new variation require an entire new identity, or what "identity" even means outside of anything it's... ya know identifying.

But again until we get something, anything beyond "Shut up and just nod your head at what ever they say" we can't take this discussion anywhere.

I mean, in the case of gender dysphoria, "shut up and just nod your head at what ever they say" works pretty well for almost everything. I can think of two obvious exceptions, though. One is that men probably shouldn't be able to grant themselves access to spaces reserved for women. The other is that medical staff need to know exactly what they're dealing with.

Unfortunately, between those two exceptions, I think you have to end up treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness, rather than a life choice. It's like schizophrenia, not like marriage.
 
I mean, in the case of gender dysphoria, "shut up and just nod your head at what ever they say" works pretty well for almost everything. I can think of two obvious exceptions, though. One is that men probably shouldn't be able to grant themselves access to spaces reserved for women. The other is that medical staff need to know exactly what they're dealing with.

I agree with your overall point, but that first point is one of the core arguments of the current... movement. Access to spaces meant for the gender they "assign" themselves to is a major, if not the major, talking point for transgenders right now. An "Okay everything except that..." solution can't really work.

The second point, medical attention, is so obvious true I don't really understand how anyone can argue against although some obviously do.

House: "There's a tumor on your testicle."
Patient: "But I'm a girl!"
House: "Well the X-ray says otherwise."
Patient: "Lookit me! I'm a girl! How can you say I'm not a girl!"
Patient's Father: "What are you saying she has cancer?"
House: "No. He has cancer. On his left testicle."
*Beat as both the patient and father adsorb this new information"
House: (While walking out of the room) "We'll cut your balls off, you'll be fine."

*Later when it comes out that the father had been abusing the girl."
Father: "Is this some kind of sick joke?"
House: "No, a joke would be if I called you a homo."
 


Don't be silly. Autogynaephilia is a recognised condition. That a proportion of TIMs are autogynaephiles is not in any dispute. That another proportion of TIMs are very feminine homosexual men is not in any dispute. That penny-numbers of men have identified as trans because of dissociative personality disorder is not in any dispute.

The dispute is over the claim that these three groups are all there are. That those who are demonstrably neither homosexual nor suffering from DPD are in the AGP group. Blanchard says that in his extensive professional experience he has not come across anyone who did not fit in this category.

Those who claim there is another category do nothing but handwave about lady-brains and women's souls. I certainly know which side of the dispute my own encounters with TIMs favour.
 
Unfortunately, between those two exceptions, I think you have to end up treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness, rather than a life choice. It's like schizophrenia, not like marriage.

In before you're called a name for comparing dysphoria to schizophrenia.

Thing is, mental illness is not a curse or something to be ashamed of. In a way it's pretty common, and we don't -- I think -- think less of people who have it.
 
Like I said, once you make those exceptions, the whole idea of trans as healthy life choice falls apart.

We don't rearrange society to cater to the delusions of schizophrenics. Why dysphorics?
 
I was watching a documentary about a theatrical troupe on a tour, half watching at least as I was doing other things.

I walked back to see a ( rather ugly ) guy painting his face and lamented to the camera that " nobody brought womens clothes, it's all mens clothes here. ". Then it was made clear the were heading out for a drink.

It struck me that probably isn't a common problem for 98% of us. But in his world the night was ruined for bad planning leaving home.

It most certainly isn't something I have ever seen before. This should never be any problem in my world. But here it was on tv a major issue to someone.
I try to be tolerant and understanding and all that but this was weird.

A little more mystery and privacy on the part of the outliers would go a long way in keeping s surface level of acceptance going. The more they make public the harder the path.
 
Like I said, once you make those exceptions, the whole idea of trans as healthy life choice falls apart.

We don't rearrange society to cater to the delusions of schizophrenics. Why dysphorics?

My gut reaction is to go "Because they've had the 'victim' label officially decreed upon them by the Progressive Master Race and there is not defense against that."

But... looking at it deeper because "gender disparage" mostly exist for things that shouldn't exist to... disparage against in the first place. A man wearing a dress isn't going through "gender disparage" he's just doing something in opposition to some stupid made up standard that shouldn't exist in the first place.

Now, yeah when if and when it reaches the level of "I refuse to get tested for Testicular Cancer because I identify as a woman"... I can't argue that. That's reality denial and dangerous. I can't square that circle.

Again I'm still at: Stupid made up standards put on the genders shouldn't exist to subvert, biological identifying qualities aren't up for debate, and there's no grey area that's not pure semantics or "how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" word games between those two.
 
Last edited:
Holy hell, I just looked up some stuff about that JY guy. He/she (not sure which it is as he/she seems to use both male and female names) needs to be permabanned from ALL public restrooms, everywhere - what a bloody sicko (pun NOT intended). Just to be clear, I read this person's own statements; not secondhand interpretations of them.

I want to find him/her and yell at him/her.
 
In before you're called a name for comparing dysphoria to schizophrenia.

Thing is, mental illness is not a curse or something to be ashamed of. In a way it's pretty common, and we don't -- I think -- think less of people who have it.

Yes.

I don't mean to disparage. But mental illness does have a social stigma, which is unfortunate but probably unavoidable. If trans people say, "it's a treatment, not a choice", they'll have to live with the stigma. That sucks.

On the other hand, if trans people say, "it's a choice, not a treatment", then that opens up a whole other can of worms, and a whole other stigma that is much harder to condemn.
 
I was watching a documentary about a theatrical troupe on a tour, half watching at least as I was doing other things.

I walked back to see a ( rather ugly ) guy painting his face and lamented to the camera that " nobody brought womens clothes, it's all mens clothes here. ". Then it was made clear the were heading out for a drink.

It struck me that probably isn't a common problem for 98% of us. But in his world the night was ruined for bad planning leaving home.
I think I kind of understand what you're trying to say, but this was a pretty confusing way to put it.

I think at least 98% of us have had the common experience of an event ruined by bad planning. Hell, I've spoiled a night out for not thinking ahead about attire, more than once.

A little more mystery and privacy on the part of the outliers would go a long way in keeping s surface level of acceptance going. The more they make public the harder the path.
I understand the sentiment, and it's a tempting solution, but telling problematic minorities to keep "out of sight, out of mind" of the majority is probably not fair to them nor conducive to open dialogue and better solutions.
 
I think this situation: (nsfw) Woman Fired Shots..../ is a perfect example of just how confusing, misleading and obfuscating the whole subject is.

This doesn't really seem to be about equality for a minority nearly as much as about turning the world into a mystical, smoky place where reason and objective reality can't be trusted and science can no longer explain the thunder or the rain.

Can you imagine how confusing Amber Alerts could become in the next decades?

"A 40-year-old woman is believed to have kidnapped two nine-year-old girls" may become utterly incomprehensible.

Are we looking for a female with two female children?
A female with both a female and male child?
A female with two male children?

A male with two female children?
A male with both a female and male child?
A male with two male children?

Are the "girls" even children?
Man identifies as a child

If I have to venture a guess, I'd say this whole social movement is less about allowing everyone to enjoy an identity they're happy with, and more about making sure in 25 years no one can communicate effectively at all. :boggled:
 
I really think that was a poe.

(nods) Probably. But it does serve to illustrate just how far out-of-current-norm things could go if someone doesn't draw some bright lines.


Of course...I could be wrong. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up remembering I'm really "Buttercup"; a neophyte movie starlet with the all the due fame, fortune and travel opportunities. If you don't give me the part in your next masterpiece you're a bigot, if you don't line up for my book you're phobic, and if you don't pay for my plane tickets you're racist, too!
 
(nods) Probably. But it does serve to illustrate just how far out-of-current-norm things could go if someone doesn't draw some bright lines.


Of course...I could be wrong. Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up remembering I'm really "Buttercup"; a neophyte movie starlet with the all the due fame, fortune and travel opportunities. If you don't give me the part in your next masterpiece you're a bigot, if you don't line up for my book you're phobic, and if you don't pay for my plane tickets you're racist, too!

I really identify as emperor Trajan and I DEMAND to be given the territory of the old Roman Empire, you inconsiderate bigots!

You can identify opinions, feelings and beliefs by self-reporting, but not objective characteristics. The far-left is attempting to redefine gender as the former rather than the latter. On the face of it, why not, right? But then it leads to a host of annoying issues, like the sports one.
 
Don't be silly. Autogynaephilia is a recognised condition. That a proportion of TIMs are autogynaephiles is not in any dispute.

Evidently you don't travel in woke circles, wherein mention of autogynephilia is questionable science at best, conversationally taboo at worst.

Happy to see ISF isn't the sort of place where this conversation gets shut down by a wave of public shaming, but I don't have enough time or expertise to tell whether Blanchard or his critics (e.g. Charles Moser) happen to have the better supported argument. Come to think of it, I’m not sure whether it really matters, so long as people just keep it in their pants.
 
I think I kind of understand what you're trying to say, but this was a pretty confusing way to put it.

I think at least 98% of us have had the common experience of an event ruined by bad planning. Hell, I've spoiled a night out for not thinking ahead about attire, more than once.
-Bits clipped-


Most of us have not needed opposite gender clothes for a night out. I certainly have not.
The folks in this troupe did.
Just for clarification.
 
Most of us have not needed opposite gender clothes for a night out. I certainly have not.
The folks in this troupe did.
Just for clarification.

So? Gendered attire is just another uniform. Pretty much everybody can relate to the experience of not being in the right uniform to get into this nightclub or that concert hall.

---

Separately, I find it hard to believe that someone whose self-identity requires gendered attire for social events would somehow forget to bring those clothes with them when they travel. But if they did, that would put them squarely into the mainstream of human experience, not off in some special trans place where these are things only a trans person can relate to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom