Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don’t think Rolfe has expressed being uncomfortable around trans people because they are trans in any situation.

Then you haven't been reading properly.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

People who get a GRC acquire the protected characteristic of gender ressignment. They do not, at present, actually become the opposite sex. The law recognises the difference between women and transwomen, quite specifically.

The actual law....

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

Now can we stop lying?

 

[Joe Random]

Probably, since there's a high likelihood of receiving an STD in the former case but not the latter case.

That's ... actually an interesting point I hadn't considered.

 

[Belz...]

Then you haven't been reading properly.

In that case I'm sure you will be able to provide quotes?

 

[Belz...]

The actual law....



Now can we stop lying?

That quote is confusing. First, do you have a link for that, and second, they seem to use gender and sex interchangeably, which I thought was a big no-no.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Made perfect sense to me: A misogynist is someone who hates women. Bigots don't think bigotry is bad. Ergo they don't think other people being bigots are bad, and therefore can't be said to hate those people specifically for having that trait.

That's not how anything works. Prejudice is prejudice.

Saying Jewish people love money is anti-semitic, even if you don't think loving money is bad

Saying black people are well-endowed is racist even if you think being well endowed is a good thing

Its just another one of the 'i'm not a bigot because' excuses. Although in fairness to it at least this one is novel. Totally ridiculous. But novel.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That quote is confusing. First, do you have a link for that, and second, they seem to use gender and sex interchangeably, which I thought was a big no-no.

The quote is section 9 part 1 of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which is the relevant UK law.

It uses gender/sex interchangeably (or rather not at all, but I get your point) because legally there is no distinction. If you get a GRC that says you are a woman you are legally a woman.

Note that I am quite fine for people to disagree with that or to object to the law on whatever grounds but don't then claim legal definitions as a massive gotcha elsewhere.

What i am not fine with is for people to lie about what the law says. Because that is simply a matter of fact. If you get a GRC you are what it says you are legally for all purposes.

 

[Belz...]

That's not how anything works. Prejudice is prejudice.

You're not talking about prejudice. You said "misogyny". That word is defined as hatred of women. You can't conclude that someone hates women from the mere fact that they ascribe to them something they agree with. It doesn't make any sense.

Saying Jewish people love money is anti-semitic, even if you don't think loving money is bad

Saying black people are well-endowed is racist even if you think being well endowed is a good thing

If you really think so, then you have no idea what those terms mean. First, for the same reason I explained above, and second because that's simply not how those words are defined.

I'm struggling to understand why you insist in using those 'hate' labels when they are not warranted. It wouldn't be because labeling people you disagree with is a convenient way for you to 'win' the argument, would it?

 

[Roboramma]

That's not how anything works. Prejudice is prejudice.

Saying Jewish people love money is anti-semitic, even if you don't think loving money is bad

Saying black people are well-endowed is racist even if you think being well endowed is a good thing

Its just another one of the 'i'm not a bigot because' excuses. Although in fairness to it at least this one is novel. Totally ridiculous. But novel.

Is it racist because one would be attributing a particular trait generally to a broad group of people? Or is it because these specific traits are stereotypes with a racist history? Or some other reason?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not how anything works. Prejudice is prejudice.

No, Archie, it's obviously no. Misogyny is not misandry. Antisemitism isn't homophobia. There are different names for different kinds of prejudice because they aren't the same. Seriously, how can you get something so basic so wrong?

 

[Belz...]

It uses gender/sex interchangeably (or rather not at all, but I get your point) because legally there is no distinction.

That is very interesting, and it sure flies in the face of everything we've been told about the very important distinction between the two.

If you get a GRC that says you are a woman you are legally a woman.

The question is: are you female? And if you are, how is the word defined, legally?

What i am not fine with is for people to lie about what the law says.

And you'll call them liars whether they are being dishonest or whether they are just wrong about it or are interpreting it differently.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don’t think Rolfe has expressed being uncomfortable around trans people because they are trans in any situation.

Then you haven't been reading properly.

Rolfe seems to think otherwise:

This is entirely correct.

Maybe you're using a different definition of "proper". Maybe it's like how something can be factually correct or it can be politically correct. My reading isn't politically proper, even if it's what Rolfe actually meant.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You're not talking about prejudice. You said "misogyny". That word is defined as hatred of women. You can't conclude that someone hates women from the mere fact that they ascribe to them something they agree with. It doesn't make any sense.

Here we go. Someone else who can't deal with definitions. Did you check the definition before you posted?

noun: misogyny
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

If you really think so, then you have no idea what those terms mean. First, for the same reason I explained above, and second because that's simply not how those words are defined.

Then you have no idea what you are talking about because you are simply wrong on this. Both of those examples are classic examples of the words.

I'm struggling to understand why you insist in using those 'hate' labels when they are not warranted. It wouldn't be because labeling people you disagree with is a convenient way for you to 'win' the argument, would it?

It's because they are accurate. And calling something what it is shows it to be what it is. Hiding bigotry behind weasel words and/or claims of 'i'm not bigoted but...' or any other nonsense is ********.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, Archie, it's obviously no. Misogyny is not misandry. Antisemitism isn't homophobia. There are different names for different kinds of prejudice because they aren't the same. Seriously, how can you get something so basic so wrong?

God, are you sponsored to miss the point or do you just do it fun?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is it racist because one would be attributing a particular trait generally to a broad group of people? Or is it because these specific traits are stereotypes with a racist history? Or some other reason?

It's all 3 I think you could argue. It's neither here nor there with regards to the point though.

 

[Ziggurat]

God, are you sponsored to miss the point or do you just do it fun?

No, Archie. YOU missed the point. Everyone else got it. You're making a fool out of yourself.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That is very interesting, and it sure flies in the face of everything we've been told about the very important distinction between the two.

Because, and this shouldn't be a surprise, differences between two things can be important in some contexts and not important in others.

I'm not sure if gender is ever really considered an important legal concept but I'm pretty sure on your birth certificate the word used is 'sex' so if you change your birth certificate that would be legally changing your sex.

The question is: are you female? And if you are, how is the word defined, legally?

That's not the question at all. That's a different question.

And you'll call them liars whether they are being dishonest or whether they are just wrong about it or are interpreting it differently.

I call people liars when they are corrected and continue to repeat the false claims and know fine well that what they are saying isn't true. There is no 'interpretation' required. The law is clear.

Do you agree that it is incoherent to say on one hand 'the law says women can't rape by definition, therefore women can't rape' but on the other say 'the law says transwomen are legally women, but I don't agree with that so I will just insist they aren't'

Note that the question is not whether you agree with either of those positions but whether you agree that holding both simultaneously is disingenuous. If you go by legal definitions then women can't rape, and transwomen are women. (and god lets not even address the giant gap there that if transwomen are women does that mean transwomen can't rape! Just ignore that for now). If you think legal definitions don't tell the whole story then you also have to consider that women may be able to rape and that quoting a legal definition isn't a trump card.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, Archie. YOU missed the point. Everyone else got it. You're making a fool out of yourself.

Your point was a nonsense as the examples showed. Your comeback was that antisemitism isn't homophobia. Yeah. Great response.

Let me try again since you have issues:

Prejudice is prejudice EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU ARE ASSIGNING A POSITIVE TRAIT.

It's racist to assume Asian kids are good at math.

You don't understand prejudice. We get it. No need to prove it further.

 

[Belz...]

Here we go. Someone else who can't deal with definitions. Did you check the definition before you posted?

And how about you? Did you read the post you responded to before replying? Notice I'm not dismissing the definition of the word. I'll give you the opportunity to read it again.

Then you have no idea what you are talking about because you are simply wrong on this. Both of those examples are classic examples of the words.

Only if you're using a definition of the words so broad that everybody fits within them in some way or another. Racism is belief in the inferiority of an ethnic group. Assigning, erroneously perhaps, a characteristic you admire to that group is not racism.

It's because they are accurate.

Obviously, people believe that they are accurate. But stating that you are is not a demonstration. It's just repeating the claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your point was a nonsense as the examples showed. Your comeback was that antisemitism isn't homophobia. Yeah. Great response.

Let me try again since you have issues:

Prejudice is prejudice EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU ARE ASSIGNING A POSITIVE TRAIT.

But you didn't just claim prejudice. You specifically claimed misandry. And it's not misandry, even if it's prejudice of some other kind. That's not a hard concept to grasp, yet you keep failing to do so.

You don't understand prejudice.

Evidently everyone except you doesn't understand prejudice.

Or perhaps it's just you. Occam's razor time.