• 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.
Rolfe said:
It's not an unreasonable theory, but you need to look at the nature of the trans-ally rhetoric. Even the mildest of it is scolding and judgemental of women who won't roll over and give in to the trans demands. How dare you refuse to give in to the most marginalised and oppressed people who have ever existed! (These people actually mainly being middle-class white men by the way!)

Then you get to the "die terf scum" stuff, the baby-pink baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire, the rape threats and so on. Even shown these, the wokebro contingent still continue to support the trans and scold the women, usually on the grounds that the risk to women is worth it to keep trans people happy and anyway they were provoked into it.

I've seen vanishingly few men start off defending trans rights and then stop and think, wait a minute, women have rights too, maybe there's more than one side to this. Would that it happened!
Click to expand...


Right, I'm not so much arguing against the end result, more thinking that it's a convergence of two different starting points. The 'foxy boxing is totally appropriate for a workplace team building exercise' mindset, and the 'more woke than thou - if you identify as a house-cat you're a house-cat [yes, really]' one. Which, if true, would mean countering that would have to take different forms.

It's my hope that people on 'my side of the fence', the liberal mindset, will be the ones easier to pull back to a place of sanity and reason. Yes, respect people and treat them with dignity, but that doesn't mean co-equally indulging in all of their 'I feel like <x>' whims from alpha to omega. Speaking overall of course. I don't think there's anything which could be done to bring back the more extreme radicals (the sort who insist on terms like 'chestfeeding', or the like). But maybe the mainstream liberal mindset as a whole can be nudged back to a place of acceptance without total acquiescence.
 
In our world, many of the attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men are already pathological.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Most of the attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men contribute to a high rate of healthy births, create and maintain strong cultures, perpetuate traditions that make the majority pretty comfortable, and provide a good standard of living for their families, usually with a surplus which can be banked or used to create social programs for those who fall through the cracks.

While some of the same forces that shape many into the pillars of their communities do cause a few to cause nothing but trouble, I don't want to see any kind of war waged against their sex, the common effects of male hormones on them, or their established roles in society.


A world without men would be a dark and sad place, IMO.
 
JihadJane said:
"Masculinity is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. " wiki. As a social construct, it is mutable

In our world, many of the attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men are already pathological.
Click to expand...
Yawn.
 
I'm just gonna leave a gentle reminder that there's a big difference between Gender and Gender Roles. Only the later is a construct of human culture.
 
"Consider her ways" isn't an instruction manual any more than "1984". But toxic masculinity is a thing and more men than I'm completely comfortable with seem to have a streak of it.
 
Rolfe said:
In that case you have to define "gender" without the role part of it.
Click to expand...

Aahh, the ol' "Depends what you mean by" semantic game again. There's a very clear definition of what gender is. Any dictionary should do.
 
If one takes many thousands of years and practically every civilisation (organised society) that left a mark as a guide, it's the men who defend, who fight for their people, territory (nation) and culture. Disable the men psychologically and everything is there for the taking. That's what I meant by "pathologising masculinity" - several generations of stealthily indoctrinating, brainwashing people into perceiving as self-evident truth that masculine traits are redundant, if not hateful, because we're "progressing", see?.

Most "progressives" would be rather surprised were they were to take the trouble to study the personalities of great male creative geniuses over the centuries, whether they were painters, sculptors, writers, composers, inventors, whatever - the majority were garrulous, mercurial alpha males, many outright fighting men. It's very hard to find any that were reported as the "sensitive" type.
 
Last edited:
DragonLady said:
Okay.

YOU answer Rolf's question:




We already heard a few pages upstream that our safety is a "small price to pay" for giving these MEN what they want. So you explain why this clearly asymmetrical equation is somehow making everyone more equal?
Click to expand...

Slow down, please. I called out what I believe is a sexist remark you made. I don't think it's appropriate for you to respond by demanding that I answer questions, or switch back to other parts of the discussion as if the remark weren't made or didn't matter. Your demand seems like a non sequitur in this context.

I've been uninterested in answering Rolfe's question, since it seemed more rhetorical than inquiring, and I'm already largely in agreement with what I understand to be Rolfe's position on this subject. I'm willing to reconsider answering the question (such as it is), but not in the context of helping you shift my current focus away from your apparently sexist remark. So that's all I have to say about Rolfe's question for now. Maybe we can come back to it after taking another look at the current issue.
 
TomB said:
Has anyone been arguing that autogynaephilia doesn't exist and play a role?
Click to expand...
Yes. Mostly claiming it is not correlated with trans identification.

The thing is that it is even if it was "only" because of predatory men, who is supposed to be able to tell the difference and prevent these males from getting into female spaces to commit their crimes and do their damage?

That's right, nobody. And that isn't good enough.
 
And when you look at the number of seriously problematic men whose trans identification does not seem merely to be a ruse to gain entry into single-sex spaces, the problem is compounded.

This isn't a case of pure, kind, gentle trans-identifying men versus nasty evil abusive men who are faking their trans status for abusive purposes. This is both nasty evil abusive men who really are autogynaephilic fetishits who get off on taking on a feminine role in single-sex spaces, and the possibility that nasty abusive men who don't have any particular impulse to become women will see their chance and take advantage of the self-ID laws.

And I'm sorry about the decent transsexuals who have just been trying to fit in since whenever, but women can't let this pass. Either retain gatekeeping (and preferably beef it up), or "no penis in female single-sex spaces" becomes the new norm.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
I'm just gonna leave a gentle reminder that there's a big difference between Gender and Gender Roles. Only the later is a construct of human culture.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is that simple.

It's an occasion where thinking inside the box is the best plan.
 
Francesca R said:
Does it cause you to tense up inside when you realise they are women? Do you do an instinctive probability calculation about whether they have been following you or not? Do you cross the street? Or have a mini-panic if you've left it too late to do that because now it would be obvious why you were crossing the street and might goad them on and/or make them follow you? Do you suddenly feel excessively conscious of how you are dressed even though you are dressed completely normally? Are you sickened when they look you up and down and snigger at each other clearly saying something about you? Do you lower your head and walk quickly past them? Does one of them say to another: "Yeah I'd hold a knife to that!" as you pass, knowing full well you can hear and intended for you to hear?
And does it make you reconsider your route the next time you go out?
Click to expand...

If I said yes, would that justify me treating every woman as a threat?

RE: the highlighted that's personal to you methinks, doesn't seem to be a common occurrence . Sorry if it has happened, it shouldn't happen, it is kind of an anecdote though.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
I'm just gonna leave a gentle reminder that there's a big difference between Gender and Gender Roles. Only the later is a construct of human culture.
Click to expand...


Rolfe said:
In that case you have to define "gender" without the role part of it.
Click to expand...


Ron_Tomkins said:
Aahh, the ol' "Depends what you mean by" semantic game again. There's a very clear definition of what gender is. Any dictionary should do.
Click to expand...


Here you go.

I suppose we could try to isolate (innate) psychological traits from the other two, but that seems a fool's errand. ;)
 
p0lka said:
My answer is Yes.

Can I now treat all women as a threat?
Click to expand...

No, because you just used the word "yes" to try - yet fail - to score a cheap point. Your "yes" doesn't tell us that such things actually happen to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom