• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans Women are not Women

Status
Not open for further replies.
And he persistently uses the insulting term "cis", despite being told it's offensive. I'll bet if I was repeatedly referring to "trannies" he wouldn't be very happy.
Ha, I've been called (far) worse!

I have a degree in chemistry from a couple of decades ago the novelty of being labelled as a diastereo geometric isomer hasn't quite worn off yet

(I think that a trans woman under this categorisation ought to be identical to a cis one except that the left arm and left leg should swap places. But crucially there should not be the presence of any different "functional groups")

ETA see cis and trans but-2-ene here
 
Last edited:
Lie? Sure Belz. Sure.

Well how do you call it when someone makes up another person's thoughts and motivations when they know it isn't like that? Exactly. And this is a consistent pattern with you.

If you want spoon feed and not just a citation

It's not spoon-feeding me to give me YOUR DEFINITION, since I can't know it otherwise. If I use my definition or one I can find in some journal somewhere or on wiki, it might not match up to yours and it can break down my understanding of your points. Why is that so hard to understand?

Instead of typing so many words to tell me off, it would've been much faster to answer me right away, which again tells me how confident you are of your own points.


That defines "gender dysphoria" rather than transgenderism. I assume you mean that the two are the same, then, but it's unclear because you're, once again, not putting it in your own words. On the other hand maybe you just lost track of the conversation again.

Good job arguing your way into heterosexuality being invalid. Well argued.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Are you saying that heterosexuality is all about feelings? Well, first of all, it's not. Second, not all things are the same or are defined the same way.

It's really frustrating to have to teach you the basics of life and critical thinking.

You've decided and evidence no longer matters to you.

We're discussing definitions, here. I can see you're easily confused by these matters.
 
That's not quite the point. Women are women, and we don't need a qualifier. To insist on a qualifier is to imply that women are not the whole of the set that is women, if you take my point.

You don't say landhorses to distinguish them from seahorses.

Isn't that exactly my point? But in some cases the "cis" might serve a purpose. Just not usually.
 
I hope nobody is offended.

127465cebcbb6d861f.jpg
 
Think she is fairly standard now

Biological - Pick one of male/female and the extremely rare bit of both

Gender/self identity - Men, women, trans women, trans men, gay and what ever the ? means at the end of the letters
 
Last edited:
I hope nobody is offended.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/127465cebcbb6d861f.jpg[/qimg]


Before I saw the captions at the bottom I thought the right one was a trans-Dalek only having just started to transition.
 
Meadmaker said:
To me, I don't find the "cis" terms offensive, except for the fact that I find the underlying idea behind the terms to be incorrect. In other words, I disagree with the idea that transwomen are women, and so deliberate manipulation of the language to further that idea is somewhat irritating to me, but I don't feel I have some sort of right to object to the term.

And, sometimes, it is even necessary to describe the set of all people who are biological women, and who also identify as female. Saying that whole description is a mouthful, so "ciswoman" works. I won't say I like it, but I occasionally decide it's the path of least resistance for effective communication.


I can see why a man wouldn't find it offensive, but more and more women are realising that it's extremely offensive. I don't go around using offensive terms just because I think they're occasionally useful, do you? Just say "women".

Meadmaker said:
"Women" also includes transmen.

Most of the time I would just say "women", but on rare occasions it could be inadequate.


Women includes the ones who have decided to identify as transmen, yes. If you need to exclude them for some reason, take the trouble to say, "women, other than those identifying as transmen".

Francesca said:
Ha, I've been called (far) worse!

I have a degree in chemistry from a couple of decades ago the novelty of being labelled as a diastereo geometric isomer hasn't quite worn off yet

(I think that a trans woman under this categorisation ought to be identical to a cis one except that the left arm and left leg should swap places. But crucially there should not be the presence of any different "functional groups")

ETA see cis and trans but-2-ene here


Well, we've all been called far worse. Including on this actual page of this actual thread. But that doesn't make this any better.

I have a degree in biochemistry. When I first heard the word "cis" used in this context it was some time in the mid-1990s. I thought it was quite a good, erudite joke. I took it as that, and didn't particularly mind. But as I've seen it becoming more and more pervasive, and realised how it reclassifies women to be something less than women and denies us our identity, I have come to join with many many more women in finding it grossly offensive.

ETA: That graphic is really very funny.

Isn't that exactly my point? But in some cases the "cis" might serve a purpose. Just not usually.


If certain terminology is offensive, you find some other way of expressing what you mean, if you have to get that specific point across.
 
Last edited:
Although I'm on perfectly good terms with my transwoman friend I have never been able to think of him as "she". Of course when we're together I call him "you", so it isn't an issue. I have to police my language if I'm talking about him to other people who might take offence though.

I recently realised that this whole pronouns thing is manipulative gaslighting. Forcing us to use words that don't come naturally, to conform to a false perception of reality. I'm basically not doing it, other than in exceptional circumstances where I don't want to cause upset to a personal friend.

Then I saw this today. Pronouns are Rohypnol. It explains it very well indeed, and I urge you to try the "Stroop Test" referenced in the middle of the article. I gave up about a third of the way through the second screen. Yes, that is what it feels like to have to force yourself to use feminine pronouns for someone you clearly perceive to be male. It's manipulative bullying to insist that people have to do this.
 
Last edited:
Great article, I certainly don't think anyone could be in any way even slightly offended by it.:rolleyes:

Pronouns are Rohypnol said:
They dull your defences. They change your inhibitions. They’re meant to. You've had a lifetime’s experience learning to be alert to ‘him’ and relax to ‘her’. For good reason. This instinctive response keeps you safe. It’s not even a conscious thing. It’s like your hairs standing on end. Your subconscious brain is helping you not get eaten by the sabre tooth tiger that your eyes haven’t noticed yet.
 
Men need to stop getting offended when women are frank about what they've always known and how they've always behaved.
 
I had to disentangle a wee bit of a misunderstanding this morning. I saw a quote from someone called Oscar de la Renta (never heard of him) that reads "Walk like you have three men walking behind you". The context suggested that the way this reads to a woman is that she is being threatened.

My immediate reaction on reading the words was exactly that. I'd clutch my bag tighter, I'd walk faster, I'd regret that I was carrying a bag at all, and I'd look for the quickest way to somewhere well-lit and crowded, or for possible assistance I could call on. But then I thought, well what does the quote actually mean? I decided it was aimed at men, that it was possibly a few hundred years old, and that it was an exhortation to be bold and and brave and go forward as if you have your bodyguard or your posse or your private militia backing you up.

But I looked it up. It's actually a quote from a contemporary man, aimed at women, exhorting them to walk in a sexy manner. Christ on a bike.
 
I recently realised that this whole pronouns thing is manipulative gaslighting.


Agreed. (Only recently?)

To be fair, the people using the pronoun things and "cis" and such aren't all being manipulative. Some of them, really most of them, have been successfuly manipulated.

Men need to stop getting offended when women are frank about what they've always known and how they've always behaved.

Also agreed.

People might not understand why this has anything to do with the transgender issues debate, but it does. Yes, among men there are some dangerous, predatory, rotten people. Saying so should not offend any men, ever. Now, given that, people really ought to understand why women really aren't too keen about taking off their clothes in front of strange men, regardless of what the men say about themselves.
 
Last edited:
It's actually a quote from a contemporary man, aimed at women, exhorting them to walk in a sexy manner. Christ on a bike.
I'm a quite keen (amateur) runner and am online in various running media, there is a well-worn phrase that, inexplicably to me, women occasionally pass around which is: "Run like there's a fit man ahead of you and a creepy one behind". Or sometimes men offer this one liner to women as being in some way motivational in going quicker.

Needless to say it sails right under my feet.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. (Only recently?)

To be fair, the people using the pronoun things and "cis" and such aren't all being manipulative. Some of them, really most of them, have been successfuly manipulated.


Oh yes, that is so very true. Much of the heat in this debate is coming from the wokemaidens who have essentially sold out to the men's side for some woke cookies, and don't realise it. (And the wokebeards too of course.)

And yes, relatively recently. I couldn't work out why I could never think of Ashley as "she" and thought perhaps it was a combination of having known him for so many years as a guy and his never having changed his name. Actually it's because, for all my supportive words and the ego-massaging I did at one time, I clock him as a guy and that isn't going to change with a snappy leather miniskirt and beads.

I realised some time late last year that I was still trying to curry favour with the trans-ally brigade. I would mention my friendship with Ashley, and the other transwomen I know, and continually state that the problem wasn't all transwomen and of course some and possibly many really are vulnerable and marginalised and so on. I was doing it in this thread. And it was being ignored anyway and I was still getting come-backs like "you think all transwomen are predators" and suchlike.

I basically decided, bugger that. Yes of course "not all transwomen", and I'd be genuinely sorry if Ashley, or indeed the feminist-ally transwomen like Kristina and Miranda and Debbie are disadvantaged by all this. But I will not be pity-shamed into continually apologising for the necessity to stand up to the trans bullies, and I will not succumb to the pressure to include caveats and belly-rub invitations in my every post and tweet.

Also agreed.

People might not understand why this has anything to do with the transgender issues debate, but it does. Yes, among men there are some dangerous, predatory, rotten people. Saying so, should not offend any men, ever. Now, given that, people really ought to understand why women really aren't too keen about taking off their clothes in front of strange men, regardless of what the men say about themselves.


There are a lot of men's rights activists about, and a lot of them have jumped on this as a way to put these uppity women in their place. We should hardly be surprised by any of it.
 
One of the thought experiments that has occurred to me occasionally when discussing transgender issues is to imagine that I, a regular (dare I say cisgender), heterosexual, male, am actually a female, homosexual, transvestite.

In other words, I look like a man, and I am attracted to women. However, I insist that I am actually a woman, who is attracted to women, but who enjoys dressing up and pretending to be a man. So off I go, out and about in stereotypically male attire, like a suit and tie. But, now, the day is done, and it's time to be done with the suit and tie, so I'm going to head to the gym. Naturally, since I'm a woman, I go to the women's locker room. I take off my suit and tie, and walk around in my underwear, while women around me are similarly, or perhaps completely, disrobed.

What does anyone think? Any cause for anxiety there? Might some of the women not believe that I am "really" a woman, who happens to dress like a man?

Ok. So, that would be a bit extreme, I suppose. Let's modify the situation a bit. Mindful of the anxiety of the ordinary, not transgender, females around me seeing a male bodied- woman, dressed as a male near them in the locker room, I have decided to put their minds at ease. Underneath my male outer clothing, I'll wear women's underwear.

That should put their minds at ease, shouldn't it?

Well if it doesn't, they're obviously just bigots.
 
Yes, among men there are some dangerous, predatory, rotten people. Saying so should not offend any men, ever
On the internet, it does. And it always has done. This forum reflects that. Threads about rape and sexual violence invariably accumulate disproportionate content about how women rape men and women really, as well as invent copious reports of fake assault, and how the male sex is the victim of any country's particular handling of sex crime.

In my view, understanding this kind of unreal response is inextricably linked to understanding the sense of entitlement that many men (still, whatever) possess. And the sense of angry injustice the same types experience when that is countered by reality. (I recognise that this view is likely to offend some)
 
Last edited:
Linguistic aside. I actually looked up the word "bigot" in the dictionary. It doesn't mean what we all think it means.


Well, that's the funny thing about language, the meanings of words are whatever people think they mean. There is no inherent meaning to the particular arrangement of symbols on a page, but I found it interesting that in the not too distant past, when dictionaries were written, "bigot" didn't have the meaning we associate with it. By the definitions in the dictionaries, there are indeed a lot of bigots in this thread, on all sides.
 
One of the thought experiments that has occurred to me occasionally when discussing transgender issues is to imagine that I, a regular (dare I say cisgender), heterosexual, male, am actually a female, homosexual, transvestite.

In other words, I look like a man, and I am attracted to women. However, I insist that I am actually a woman, who is attracted to women, but who enjoys dressing up and pretending to be a man. So off I go, out and about in stereotypically male attire, like a suit and tie. But, now, the day is done, and it's time to be done with the suit and tie, so I'm going to head to the gym. Naturally, since I'm a woman, I go to the women's locker room. I take off my suit and tie, and walk around in my underwear, while women around me are similarly, or perhaps completely, disrobed.

What does anyone think? Any cause for anxiety there? Might some of the women not believe that I am "really" a woman, who happens to dress like a man?

Ok. So, that would be a bit extreme, I suppose. Let's modify the situation a bit. Mindful of the anxiety of the ordinary, not transgender, females around me seeing a male bodied- woman, dressed as a male near them in the locker room, I have decided to put their minds at ease. Underneath my male outer clothing, I'll wear women's underwear.

That should put their minds at ease, shouldn't it?

Well if it doesn't, they're obviously just bigots.


Quite. But exactly that has happened. A woman in Canada sued a gym after they threw her out for reporting the presence of a man in the women's locker room.

Which is a big part of why this transgender thing is so pernicious. At the moment, or at least in the very recent past, a woman seeing a man in the women's changing room could challenge him (he might have made a mistake, it happens, and the red-traffic-light colour in a man's face when that happens is second to none I can tell you), or call the staff and have them ask him to leave. With the new world order, though, this becomes a potential hate crime. It's actually written into the (trans-lobby-dictated) guidelines of some of these places, that any incident arising out of this sort of altercation is to be reported to the police as a suspected hate crime. On the part of the woman who has challenged the man.

So now it's not just the creepy-pervert demographic among actual transwomen we have to worry about (like "Karen White" and Jonathan Yaniv), but also the common or garden creepy pervert who will soon figure out he can go where he likes because women now cannot dare challenge him. It's been remarked elsewhere that the next Jimmy Savile won't be wearing a track suit, he'll be wearing a frock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom