Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

No, there's no suggestion that the murderer is a trans woman.

Rather, the book appears to be about a cis man "pretending" to be a woman

What's the difference between a transwoman and a cis man pretending to be a woman?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nobody is allowed to write a detective thriller about a killer who disguises himself as a woman to allay the fears his victims might have about strange men, because of Silence of the Lambs and that one movie with Robert Downey Junior. Oh, and didn't John Lithgow do one? So yeah, that well is dry, and no other authors are allowed to go back to it.

Though, leaking a central characteristic of the villain's MO in a detective novel seems counter-productive. That makes me think that Rowling is acting in bad faith and isn't actually trying to write such a story for publication.

Not to quibble, but I don't think Buffalo Bill ever dresses as a woman to deceive victims. His woman "skin suit" was entirely for private use, and he never presents himself as a woman in public. Buffalo Bill's character seems to be an amalgamation of several real life serial killers, none of which ever posed as women to lure victims. Collecting body parts, using a fake broken arm as a lure, using a pit to keep victims alive, and leaving bodies with trinket items inside them were all drawn from the experiences of real killers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Bill_(character)

 

[LondonJohn]

Post 3087-3089.

Oh that. (Only five pages back in the thread, after all).

Again, I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that the meaning was obvious: I was highlighting (literally, in this case) the fact that you were seemingly declaring yourself proud of not understanding some of the tenets of transgenderism.

 

[LondonJohn]

What's the difference between a transwoman and a cis man pretending to be a woman?

The word "pretending". And the term "cis man".



(This is all pretty basic stuff - or so I thought?)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh that. (Only five pages back in the thread, after all).

Again, I assumed (wrongly, it seems) that the meaning was obvious: I was highlighting (literally, in this case) the fact that you were seemingly declaring yourself proud of not understanding some of the tenets of transgenderism.

Yes. I am proud of the fact that I don't see meaningful non-biological difference between the sexes. There is no "proper" way that men and women have to act outside of those things which are literally and incontrovertibly part of our biology.

Which is why I cannot accept a new philosophy which brings those difference back under the hope they using them "against the grain" so to speak will magically work out differently.

Putting "Okay there's more to our sexes than gender structure and chromosomes" back on the table brings all that old baggage back with it.

You can't argue "I can apply secondary arbitrary gender characteristics to myself but nobody else better dare apply secondary arbitrary gender characteristics to me or anyone else." That's not hold reality works.

Transgender people don't get special sexual stereotypes they only get to apply to themselves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The word "pretending". And the term "cis man".



(This is all pretty basic stuff - or so I thought?)

Please explain how we, acting as third person observers, can possibly, even theoretically to say nothing of practically, tell the difference between two.

 

[LondonJohn]

DSM-5 and the statute books of many large liberal democracies say that they do.

 

[Elaedith]

Yes. I am proud of the fact that I don't see meaningful non-biological difference between the sexes. There is no "proper" way that men and women have to act outside of those things which are literally and incontrovertibly part of our biology.

Which is why I cannot accept a new philosophy which brings those difference back under the hope they using them "against the grain" so to speak will magically work out differently.

Putting "Okay there's more to our sexes than gender structure and chromosomes" back on the table brings all that old baggage back with it.

You can't argue "I can apply secondary arbitrary gender characteristics to myself but nobody else better dare apply secondary arbitrary gender characteristics to me or anyone else." That's not hold reality works.

Transgender people don't get special sexual stereotypes they only get to apply to themselves.

Would you describe yourself as a 'gender abolitionist'?

 

[d4m10n]

A reasonable compromise is the one we already have, where trans women are allowed to compete with cis women provided our hormone levels are not too far off from each other. We will never accept banning us from sport at any level.

How about high school sports? Many of those athletes are too young to have undergone HRT, at least as things stand at present.

 

[Olmstead]

Honestly, there's no point arguing this. It's like talking to a religious person.

"Transwomen/transmen are women/men."

"God exists."

It's a central tenet that cannot be questioned.

Researchers are not allowed to ask: "Are transwomen women? Why or why not?"

Researchers must concede that transwomen are women and then ask: "How do we make this true?"

It insults my intellect.

 

[theprestige]

Nobody is allowed to write a detective thriller about a killer who disguises himself as a woman to allay the fears his victims might have about strange men, because of Silence of the Lambs and that one movie with Robert Downey Junior. Oh, and didn't John Lithgow do one? So yeah, that well is dry, and no other authors are allowed to go back to it.

Though, leaking a central characteristic of the villain's MO in a detective novel seems counter-productive. That makes me think that Rowling is acting in bad faith and isn't actually trying to write such a story for publication.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Would you describe yourself as a 'gender abolitionist'?

I do not believe in opposing rules or standards on the sexes beyond what is necessity by biology.

Therefore I have to reject the notion that transgender people can create and apply to themselves arbitrary sexual definitions and attributes.

Again my point has always been that there isn't a non-biological difference between the sexes, so I'm already doing everything transpeople tell me I have to be doing, I'm just doing it for the wrong reason so I'm the bad guy.

If a transmale walks into my bathroom I ain't gonna care, but I'm still the bad guy because I don't think their vagina is a special exception that is allowed in my special private world of penises by virtue of them "identifying as male" I just don't care because I don't care. I would care the exact same amount if a vagina that was attached to a mind that identified as female walked in my bathroom.

You want me to call you "she/he" I'll call you she. Because it doesn't matter. It's a pronoun, it's completely meaningless, many languages don't even have them they don't create or change reality. It's not part of your "identity" is a goddamn word used to describe you.

The closest thing to anything resembling an actual problem on the table is sports and... it's sport. Who cares?

 

[Ziggurat]

The word "pretending".

And how can you tell if they're pretending?

And the term "cis man".

No. That's begging the question.

(This is all pretty basic stuff - or so I thought?)

Yes, it is pretty basic stuff. Which is why it's strange that it's still all so undefined.

 

[Elaedith]

Honestly, there's no point arguing this. It's like talking to a religious person.

"Transwomen/transmen are women/men."

"God exists."

It's a central tenet that cannot be questioned.

Researchers are not allowed to ask: "Are transwomen women? Why or why not?"

Researchers must concede that transwomen are women and then ask: "How do we make this true?"

It insults my intellect.

I agree. It's like expecting to have a rational debate with religious fundamentalists.

I found this article from a former ideologue interesting.

"When asked why I believed transwomen were, in fact, women, I asserted that some boys and girls are “born in the wrong body,” and that our brains are gendered (thus, transwomen had a male body, but a “woman’s brain”). When asked to elaborate, I pointed to vague notions of “knowing” and “feeling,” rather than terms that were rooted in science and could be operationalized. When asked to explain further, I resorted to circular reasoning: some men feel like women, and only women can feel like women, therefore some men are women. When pushed on the question of how it is possible to “feel like a woman,” I’d argue that because I “felt” like a woman, it must be true. Other times I resorted to name-calling, labeling women who said transwomen were male “bigots” who were “stuck in the ‘50s,” and didn’t believe in civil rights. If all else failed, I’d mention my PhD. Then, I would end the conversation, as I did not believe I needed to reflect upon this further. After all, I had federal law backing me. Clearly I was on the right side of history. And so, instead of listening, I kept climbing my personal peak, feeling more righteous the higher I went."

"Now, when I reflect on my “switch” from being an unrelenting trans activist/“ally” to being critical of gender identity ideology and legislation, I’m chilled at how easy it was for me — a psychologist (now retired), ostensibly trained to understand the human mind — to become so caught up in the momentum of “trans rights” that I avoided critical thought, much like a new member of a cult. And, while I’m reluctant to call trans activism a “cult,” I’m aware of many disconcerting similarities: the absolute refusal to allow anyone to criticize issues; silencing, smearing, and ostracizing those who do ask questions (in this case, labeling them “transphobic”) about the ideology of transgenderism; and pressuring individuals (from parents to health professionals) to blindly adhere to the view that some people are “born in the wrong body,” and that the only way to “fix” this error is through medical intervention, such as puberty-suppressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and various surgeries, rather than with psychological intervention. And, much like in a cult, those who push gender identity ideology discourage independent thought, and instead respond to requests for evidence and facts to support their beliefs with platitudes, mantras, and scare tactics, repeated over and over, until they become reality."

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Interesting choice on labeling trans-acceptance a matter of orthodoxy by ideologues. Meanwhile the anti-trans case against the CT school district is brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, and Christian nonprofit that wants to reassert Christian hegemony over the country.

“Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultural renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultural cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds.”

“The only surprise is the rapidity with which this degradation of our human dignity has occurred. It has occurred, with raging effect, and within twelve months, on the heels of government mandated recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ – an oxymoronic institution if ever there was one. And, for its radical adherents, this has led to a deification of deviant sexual practices. It has further resulted in the inevitable and aggressive persecution of devout Christians who refuse to bow to the false god of sexual license.”

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

Champions of individual liberty and free thought.

 

[TomB]

You want me to call you "she/he" I'll call you she. Because it doesn't matter. It's a pronoun, it's completely meaningless, many languages don't even have them they don't create or change reality. It's not part of your "identity" is a goddamn word used to describe you.

As you note, many languages do not have pronouns. And I think someone has said that some languages do not have gendered pronouns. I’ll assume that is true.

What if we eliminated gender from pronouns? Maybe use he/her/hers for everyone? (I chose those because they all start with “he.”) It would convey all the necessary information and actually simplify the language rather than complicate it.

Of course, I expect language to evolve naturally, so it’s just a hypothetical. I don’t think any body has the practical power to do this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Interesting choice on labeling trans-acceptance a matter of orthodoxy by ideologues. Meanwhile the anti-trans case against the CT school district is brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, and Christian nonprofit that wants to reassert Christian hegemony over the country.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

Champions of individual liberty and free thought.

Nobody (I think) is denying that a huge amount, probably the bulk, hell probably the vast amount, of anti-trans rhetoric and societal movement is coming from a bad place, full of bad people, arguing bad things, for bad reasons.

I'm very aware that my "side" as it where here is populated largely by very bad people. You do not need to wow, impress, or otherwise prove anything by finding anti-trans arguments that are morally vile, emotionally hateful, and intellectually unsound.

If you, or anyone else insists upon seeing this as an option with only two sides I will grant I am on the wrong one. But we both know that real life is more nuanced than that.

 

[theprestige]

Not to quibble, but I don't think Buffalo Bill ever dresses as a woman to deceive victims.

No worries about the quibble.

I understood Boudicca's complaint to be more generally about transsexualism and transvestism being used historically as code for "morally depraved" in popular media. Buffalo Bill was an evil cross-dresser. This depiction is common enough that authors shouldn't be tolerated in resorting to evil cross-dresser characters in their works.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Honestly, there's no point arguing this. It's like talking to a religious person.

"Transwomen/transmen are women/men."

"God exists."

It's a central tenet that cannot be questioned.

Researchers are not allowed to ask: "Are transwomen women? Why or why not?"

Researchers must concede that transwomen are women and then ask: "How do we make this true?"

It insults my intellect.

It insults mine as well, and it is particularly baffling to hear this sort of waffle on a forum that is intended to be for sceptics and pro-science. Sadly, it's not alone in that these days.

At this rate, can "2+2=4 is white supremacy" be far behind? Don't answer that as it would be derail.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nobody (I think) is denying that a huge amount, probably the bulk, hell probably the vast amount, of anti-trans rhetoric and societal movement is coming from a bad place, full of bad people, arguing bad things, for bad reasons.

I'm very aware that my "side" as it where here is populated largely by very bad people. You do not need to wow, impress, or otherwise prove anything by finding anti-trans arguments that are morally vile, emotionally hateful, and intellectually unsound.

If you, or anyone else insists upon seeing this as an option with only two sides I will grant I am on the wrong one. But we both know that real life is more nuanced than that.

That's fair, and there is probably plenty of real issues to discuss around very specific problems, such as perhaps any unfair athletic advantages, that honest people could disagree with in good faith.

I find the dark shadow of extremist bigotry makes such discussion dubious. I've noticed there is often a reluctance of some to distance themselves from such people. The CT case was mentioned here, but I see no mention that it is being spearheaded by a explicitly bigoted anti-queer group that would likely systematically sterilize, imprison, or outright murder gay and trans people if they had their way, and is doing their best to criminalize their day to day lives using the legal system.

Perhaps I am wrongly perceiving hostility where this is none, but the lack of outrage over these types of groups being involved in the anti-trans movement makes me very suspicious. Anyone willing to make common cause with these people are moral degenerates.