• 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.
d4m10n said:
Gender isn't assigned at birth, it is socially inculcated over time. Sex is assigned (some would say documented) at birth.

As to who is supposed to use what, I don't really have a dog in the fight. You could at least specify whom you're arguing against. I'm guessing gender-critical feminists?
Click to expand...

This. Though it would be more accurate to say sexual phenotype.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Nice to see how we should not view Jim Crow as a crime against people but an effective compromise between slavery and civil rights, and it should be viewed historically as such.
Click to expand...


What if we were to pass a law something like this:

An owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access to such place of public accommodation, or a portion of such place of public accommodation, based on a person’s sex shall grant all persons admission to, and the full enjoyment of, such place of public accommodation or portion thereof consistent with the person’s gender identity.

Would that be a sufficiently uncompromising solution for your taste?
 
Ziggurat said:
There's another minority group that's advocating for social change lately, because they too feel like we're at one of those change points. That group is pedophiles. They've even come up with a new name for themselves: Minor Attracted Persons, or MAPs. They want the same freedom as the rest of us to have sex with whomever they want. And the mainstream wants them to shut up, and often puts them in prison.



Why didn't you compare transgender activists to pedophiles? The parallels are just as strong as with minorities, arguably more so on a number of fronts. Is it because you yourself would reach a different conclusion regarding the rights of pedophiles compared to transgenders? Or is it because you wouldn't reach a different conclusion, but think others here would? Do you think all minority preferences should be treated the same? Or do you think that some preferences should be treated differently than others? And if it's the latter, what makes the difference, and why are the racial minority preferences you referenced the same as the transgender preferences under debate here? Couldn't someone else view them as being different?
Click to expand...
Utter garbage.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yea we totally got the whole civil rights movements wrong with that, we needed far more compromise. Like have Loving v Virginia prevent them from being charged with miscegenation but refuse to recognize their marriage. That would have been far better than winning and losing because we would have had a great compromise for everyone.
Click to expand...

You make a good point, but where are we going to find a duck and a hose at this hour?
 
Darat said:
No it doesn't, a "non sexed" toilet doesn't out anyone.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that idea was thrown on the garbage pile when I suggested it 3 or 4 hundred pages ago.

I doubt much has changed.

Ron_Tomkins said:
Which one of all the definitions in that list was the one you were interested in?
Click to expand...

*Any that disagree with the statement they object to*

I have to say, at post 3167, the discussion hasn't moved very far - the same axes are being ground as were back on page 1.

I think women & trans deserve each other. Blokes will just ignore the whole "problem" and stand at the urinal, regardless of who's in there with them. Someone wants to sneak a peek? More power to them.
 
Darat said:
Utter garbage.
Click to expand...

And yet, you can’t offer a single substantive response to it or criticism of it.

Not all minority groups are equivalent. Not all minority group demands are equivalent. It doesn’t suffice to simply say that the demands of one minority group are like the demands for racial equality, or that opposition to those demands is like racism. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t. The demands have to be argued on the basis of their own merits. But that is precisely what you tried to avoid doing with your racial minority comparison. So it’s no surprise that you can’t take the argument any further, since What you were doing to begin with was trying to get out of arguing substance.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, you can’t offer a single substantive response to it or criticism of it.



Not all minority groups are equivalent. Not all minority group demands are equivalent. It doesn’t suffice to simply say that the demands of one minority group are like the demands for racial equality, or that opposition to those demands is like racism. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t. The demands have to be argued on the basis of their own merits. But that is precisely what you tried to avoid doing with your racial minority comparison. So it’s no surprise that you can’t take the argument any further, since What you were doing to begin with was trying to get out of arguing substance.
Click to expand...
Darat, I warned you this would happen. Arguments by analogy always fail. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, you can't argue it at all.
 
d4m10n said:
Gender isn't assigned at birth, it is socially inculcated over time. Sex is assigned (some would say documented) at birth.
Click to expand...

"Gender" sounds a lot like "social roles applied to each sex" is that definition.

Again I thought those were supposed to be going away, not kept around just so one subgroup can use them (but only in a subverting the normal fashion) as part of their identity.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Darat, I warned you this would happen. Arguments by analogy always fail. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, you can't argue it at all.
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
JoeMorgue said:
When even the dictionary defines a word as basically "whatever you want it to mean" what's the point?
Click to expand...

I've no idea how you got from "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" to "whatever you want it to mean," but okay, I guess.

:confused:

Do you have a better definition?
 
d4m10n said:
I've no idea how you got from "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex" to "whatever you want it to mean," but okay, I guess.
Click to expand...

That definition is so broad and so vague what wouldn't it mean? "Typically associated with" is an outright weasel phrase. "Cultural" means everything from strict gender roles to nearly none.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Typically associated with" is an outright weasel phrase.
Click to expand...

Given that such associations vary over time and space (from culture to culture and within cultures over time) it seems just fine to me.

What definition of gender do you prefer, assuming it doesn't just collapse back into sex?
 
ponderingturtle said:
And with marriage blacks and gays always had the same rights as everyone else too.
Click to expand...

No they didn't, gay people did not have the right to marry but heterosexual people did have the right to marry. So clearly they did not have the same rights as everyone else. Trans people, on the other hand, already do have the same rights as everyone else.

Or are you claiming that cisgender and agender males are allowed to use the female facilities but not transgender males? And cisgender and agender females are allowed to use the male facilities but not transgender females? This isn't a minority wanting the same rights as everyone else, it's a minority wanting rights that nobody else has. So yeah, let go off those comparisons to the struggles of black people and gay people for equal rights already.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
And of course outs them too. But you always outed yourself in every situation constantly too I am sure so doing that would be no big deal.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a male who goes into a gender-neutral facility outs themselves as transgender but a male who goes into the female facility does not out themselves as transgender. :rolleyes:
 
Myriad said:
What if we were to pass a law something like this:

An owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement that lawfully segregates or separates access to such place of public accommodation, or a portion of such place of public accommodation, based on a person’s sex shall grant all persons admission to, and the full enjoyment of, such place of public accommodation or portion thereof consistent with the person’s gender identity.

Would that be a sufficiently uncompromising solution for your taste?
Click to expand...

That's internally contradictory. If it's segregated based on a person's sex (first highlight) then it isn't segregated based on a person's gender identity (second highlight). Gender identity is not the same as sex. Furthermore, the modern doctrine of gender ideology asserts that gender is a spectrum, so should we then have a spectrum of bathroom facilities? How would that work?
 
d4m10n said:
Given that such associations vary over time and space (from culture to culture and within cultures over time) it seems just fine to me.

What definition of gender do you prefer, assuming it doesn't just collapse back into sex?
Click to expand...

I would go for an infinitely broad list of different social sexual traits which are self diagnosed, self defined and immeasurable, which an individual wants to portray themselves as/feels they are, which can differ from those normally associated with the biological sex they were born as.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom