Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Olmstead]

Lol, what?! One of the main arguments against homosexuality is that it isn't real and that it is just "weakness" that happens in certain situations.

That we are all straight because that's how "god" has made us and that homosexuality is us going against our innate nature. People have always tried to argue there is no such thing as homosexuality, so this is just straight up wrong.

Not really. Yes, some very demented people have come up with the idea that homosexuality is somehow a choice, but that's really the result of trying to mesh ideas of free will, evil, and God. And only the most demented people will actually argue that homosexuals aren't attracted to members of the same sex. It's lunacy that breaks down the moment you start thinking about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think it's necessarily hate speech per se, but it is offensive and shows the lack of consideration you give us. My biology and genetics has very little to do with anything we have been discussing, as being XY vs. XX ultimately doesn't mean anything in terms of gender, and has no relevance to anything else either in the wider world (except when dealing with medical conditions).

My biological sex is "male" in the sense that I am XY and can't change that. But it means nothing, because I am female in every way it matters.

It DOES have relevance to things in the real world! It DOES have relevance in sports, in the expectation of privacy from the opposite sex. It DOES have relevance in scholarships, grants, and recognition of members of an oppressed group! It DOES have relevance in funding for health initiatives for females! It DOES have relevance in terms of safety and security of females! It DOES have relevance in terms of bodily autonomy and political policies that endanger that!

Sex may not have any relevance to YOU, but that doesn't mean it has no relevance to anyone else!

FFS, do you think that 'women' have been discriminated against for thousands of years because we wear dresses and like dolls? We have been discriminated against BECAUSE WE ARE FEMALE. We have been discriminated against BECAUSE OF OUR SEX. We have been discriminated against BECAUSE OF OUR REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.

You want to be accepted as a woman... but you do not understand any of the issues that women face. Furthermore, you seem to think that the issues that women face are not important.

Why should I accept you into all of my hard-fought progress when you think I and those like me are unimportant?

Hell, you even said I was "overreacting". Which is an incredible male thing to say.

I will continue to treat you as a woman socially, as a matter of courtesy. I will continue to fight for your right to be treated as human and to not be harmed. I will continue to argue that you should have the same safety and security as all other humans.

I will accept you as a woman when you shed your male privilege and at least pretend to give a crap about the issues that women face.

 

[Boudicca90]

You don't know that until not so long ago, it used to be believed that homosexuals could be "cured" of their "illness"?? That it was seen as an affliction and/or aberration, and that treatment could "help" the person to become "normal" again, such that they'd find exclusively that they had sexual desires for the opposite sex??


I really suggest you do some research into these sorts of issues before writing something like that.

The new strategy is apparently to convince gays to acknowledge their homosexual attraction, but see it as analogous to being a drug addict, so they refrain from sex the way you would refrain from drugs. A gay YouTuber I used to follow was recently suckered in by this kind of conversion therapy, and it's really sad.

People will do anything to get us to see ourselves as damaged, when we are not.

 

[Olmstead]

You don't know that until not so long ago, it used to be believed that homosexuals could be "cured" of their "illness"?? That it was seen as an affliction and/or aberration, and that treatment could "help" the person to become "normal" again, such that they'd find exclusively that they had sexual desires for the opposite sex??


I really suggest you do some research into these sorts of issues before writing something like that.

Are you reading what you write? Exactly. They wanted to cure them of their desire for the same sex, hence they were convinced that this desire existed. They were convinced that homosexuality existed, and wanted to remove it. They were convinced that the person was a homosexual, and they wanted to turn them into a heterosexual. Do you really not see this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Not really. Yes, some very demented people have come up with the idea that homosexuality is somehow a choice, but that's really the result of trying to mesh ideas of free will, evil, and God. And only the most demented people will actually argue that homosexuals aren't attracted to members of the same sex. It's lunacy that breaks down the moment you start thinking about it.

I don't think you're understanding this properly at all.

It's not about arguments over whether homosexuals are (or are not) attracted to members of the same sex - because, errrrr by definition, they are.

It's about whether that attraction to members of the same sex is considered a disorder/illness/aberration (take your pick), or whether it's a valid, genuine condition.

And following on from that previous sentence, it's about whether homosexuality is an illness/disorder/aberration which requires an attempt to cure/correct.... or whether it's a condition which requires acceptance as it is.


Sheeeeeeeeeeesh

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you reading what you write? Exactly. They wanted to cure them of their desire for the same sex, hence they were convinced that this desire existed. They were convinced that homosexuality existed, and wanted to remove it. They were convinced that the person was a homosexual, and they wanted to turn them into a heterosexual. Do you really not see this?

Oh I know exactly what I'm writing, and why. It's you who is not seeing that you're answering your own question......

 

[Boudicca90]

Are you reading what you write? Exactly. They wanted to cure them of their desire for the same sex, hence they were convinced that this desire existed. They were convinced that homosexuality existed, and wanted to remove it. They were convinced that the person was a homosexual, and they wanted to turn them into a heterosexual. Do you really not see this?

No, because this is incorrect. They did not see homosexuality as anything but an aberration of nature that needed to be corrected or hidden. They did not acknowledge homosexuality as an actual identity until very recently in history.

 

[Olmstead]

I don't think you're understanding this properly at all.

It's not about arguments over whether homosexuals are (or are not) attracted to members of the same sex - because, errrrr by definition, they are.

It's about whether that attraction to members of the same sex is considered a disorder/illness/aberration (take your pick), or whether it's a valid, genuine condition.

And following on from that previous sentence, it's about whether homosexuality is an illness/disorder/aberration which requires an attempt to cure/correct.... or whether it's a condition which requires acceptance as it is.


Sheeeeeeeeeeesh

Yes, exactly! And transgender people have a valid condition as well, and it requires acceptance. Almost everyone in this thread is on board with that. Transgender people DO feel that their gender is different from the one they were assigned at birth, and this feeling is completely genuine and real. This feeling should not be changed with medication or therapy. Transgender people should be allowed to live in line with their chosen gender. But that still does not make a transwoman a woman. Do you understand that?

 

[Boudicca90]

It DOES have relevance to things in the real world! It DOES have relevance in sports, in the expectation of privacy from the opposite sex. It DOES have relevance in scholarships, grants, and recognition of members of an oppressed group! It DOES have relevance in funding for health initiatives for females! It DOES have relevance in terms of safety and security of females! It DOES have relevance in terms of bodily autonomy and political policies that endanger that!

Sex may not have any relevance to YOU, but that doesn't mean it has no relevance to anyone else!

FFS, do you think that 'women' have been discriminated against for thousands of years because we wear dresses and like dolls? We have been discriminated against BECAUSE WE ARE FEMALE. We have been discriminated against BECAUSE OF OUR SEX. We have been discriminated against BECAUSE OF OUR REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY.

You want to be accepted as a woman... but you do not understand any of the issues that women face. Furthermore, you seem to think that the issues that women face are not important.

Why should I accept you into all of my hard-fought progress when you think I and those like me are unimportant?

Hell, you even said I was "overreacting". Which is an incredible male thing to say.

I will continue to treat you as a woman socially, as a matter of courtesy. I will continue to fight for your right to be treated as human and to not be harmed. I will continue to argue that you should have the same safety and security as all other humans.

I will accept you as a woman when you shed your male privilege and at least pretend to give a crap about the issues that women face.

I think you are overreacting not because you are a woman, but because nobody has been able to show that any of these problems exist, except in your own mind. You seem to have a persecution complex and have convinced yourself that we are going to eventually take everything away from cisgender women that you think belong to you and you alone.

And I do mean you, because you don't speak for all cisgender women out there. We have a lot of cisgender allies, that you constantly dismiss and insult as just being manipulated by the "trans lobby" or "TRAs", who are perfectly fine with us and don't see us as a threat to their safety or rights.

You are not one of them, so stop pretending you are.

 

[Olmstead]

No, because this is incorrect. They did not see homosexuality as anything but an aberration of nature that needed to be corrected or hidden. They did not acknowledge homosexuality as an actual identity until very recently in history.

Yes, an aberration that was factually real. The proper comparison you are looking for is people claiming that being transgender is morally wrong and should be healed, and I'm sure there is a fair amount of those out there. But that is the only context in which the comparison to homosexuality works, and it is not something people in this thread have claimed.

 

[Earthborn]

Perhaps you've never been to locker rooms wherein (typically older) folks feel free to stroll about completely in the buff.

Maybe we should segregate locker rooms based on age... One for Millenials and one for Boomers.

If so, good for you, but try not to generalize from your experience to all the other locker rooms.

The only similar experience was with a swimming pool changing room I had to go to as a kid where everybody, old and young changed in the open. Naked bodies everywhere, no place where you could direct your eyes and not embarrass someone, feeling naked and vulnerable, nowhere to go without feeling watched. I found it quite traumatic. The fact that it was unisex wasn't the worst of it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some confusion here between "morally wrong" and "mentally/physiologically wrong".

And what I and others are discussing is not the former but the latter (the former is a whole different category of incorrect....)

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, exactly! And transgender people have a valid condition as well, and it requires acceptance. Almost everyone in this thread is on board with that. Transgender people DO feel that their gender is different from the one they were assigned at birth, and this feeling is completely genuine and real. This feeling should not be changed with medication or therapy. Transgender people should be allowed to live in line with their chosen gender. But that still does not make a transwoman a woman. Do you understand that?

I'm sorry, I can't help but LOL at you writing the above, and not apparently being able to see that the second of these two sentences flatly contradicts the first.....

 

[LondonJohn]

(And obviously my answer to the final question is "no")

 

[Olmstead]

Some confusion here between "morally wrong" and "mentally/physiologically wrong".

And what I and others are discussing is not the former but the latter (the former is a whole different category of incorrect....)

There is nothing mentally/physiologically wrong with transgender people.

Transwomen aren't women.

Are you saying that those two statements contradict each other?

 

[LondonJohn]

There is nothing mentally/physiologically wrong with transgender people.

Transwomen aren't women.

Are you saying that those two statements contradict each other?

Yes.

 

[LondonJohn]

(There seems to be further confusion between "gender" (identity) and "sex" (biological classification))

 

[Boudicca90]

Maybe we should segregate locker rooms based on age... One for Millenials and one for Boomers.

The only similar experience was with a swimming pool changing room I had to go to as a kid where everybody, old and young changed in the open. Naked bodies everywhere, no place where you could direct your eyes and not embarrass someone, feeling naked and vulnerable, nowhere to go without feeling watched. I found it quite traumatic. The fact that it was unisex wasn't the worst of it.

I mean, if we are going to ban anything we consider distressing to view, having an 80 year old person walking around completely naked would be pretty traumatic to me regardless of their gender.

But then i'm not a jerk, I can just divert my eyes and give them privacy. And I feel you on situations where you can't easily do that, that was one of my worst fears about the military - the open showers. But that was my problem, not anyone else's.

 

[Boudicca90]

There is nothing mentally/physiologically wrong with transgender people.

Transwomen aren't women.

Are you saying that those two statements contradict each other?

Yes, they contradict.

If we aren't women, then by affirming that we are women, we would be delusional or seen as having a false belief about ourselves. Which would be considered a mental health issue. Which is how we used to be treated.

Thankfully the standard is gender affirmation now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you are overreacting not because you are a woman, but because nobody has been able to show that any of these problems exist, except in your own mind. You seem to have a persecution complex and have convinced yourself that we are going to eventually take everything away from cisgender women that you think belong to you and you alone.

Okay then. Discrimination against women for thousands of years only exists in my own mind. Gotcha. Thanks for playing.