Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

And then there are chains of posts that are only tangentially related to the topic, but make me laugh out loud:

Outside of competition, what is a reason for sex segregation of athletes that doesn't implicate gender?

Outside of competition, there's no reason for athletes.

Outside of a dog, books are man's best friend. Inside of a dog, there isn't enough light to read.

 

[Earthborn]

Sure, sure. It's not like gender stereotyping has kept female human beings oppressed for thousands of years - including the present - across pretty much the entire planet.

Gender stereotyping has also kept transgender human beings oppressed for thousands of years - including the present - across pretty much the entire planet.

It's obvious that those oppressive and confining gender stereotypes are especially super bad for transgender people who leverage and reinforce those stereotypes in order to affirm their identities, regardless of whether that reinforcement sets half the population back by several decades.

They only leverage those stereotypes to survive in a segregated society, and have done a lot more to challenge those stereotypes than the people who want to keep society segregated on the basis of gender.

Please explain how gender roles can be eradicated for being confining and oppressive, while maintaining the confining and oppressive segregationist policies that are part of those roles. Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[Tippit]

Sure, sure. It's not like gender stereotyping has kept female human beings oppressed for thousands of years - including the present - across pretty much the entire planet.

"Oppressed for thousands of years" seems hyperbolic. Do you have evidence of this oppression?

And obviously, it hasn't really had any impact on the ability of half the population to be self-sufficient and independent, and to get paid fairly for their work, or to be represented in politics or leadership roles.

In a free market system (which I concede that we do not have, but ideally) employers decide who and how much to pay employees. Do you presume that the state should decide who gets hired and how much they get paid, in order to achieve some notion of "fairness" in your mind? That would be consistent with communism, which is clearly the goal of the "patriarchs" using the feminists to achieve their goal of dominating everyone.

Yep. It's obvious that those oppressive and confining gender stereotypes are especially super bad for transgender people who leverage and reinforce those stereotypes in order to affirm their identities, regardless of whether that reinforcement sets half the population back by several decades. They're totally much worse for the 0.3% of the population who make active use of them to mitigate their emotional and mental distress.

Gender "stereotypes" are often reflective of reality. For instance, women are typically physically weaker than men, suffer athletically in comparison, and typically possess less spatial intelligence than men. On the other hand, women possess higher verbal intelligence and social IQ, are better at raising children, and are generally more intuitive.

Is society really better off when women (and apparently everyone else) decide collectively that raising children is less important than making individual careers? Are women really better off now that they're all but forced economically to get jobs and earn money working, whereas before they mostly worked at home, everything else subsidized by males? It certainly isn't clear to me. I don't think anyone is better off as a result of feminism.

 

[theprestige]

vi/vim/vis

ema/emac/emacs

 

[Olmstead]

"Oppressed for thousands of years" seems hyperbolic. Do you have evidence of this oppression?



In a free market system (which I concede that we do not have, but ideally) employers decide who and how much to pay employees. Do you presume that the state should decide who gets hired and how much they get paid, in order to achieve some notion of "fairness" in your mind? That would be consistent with communism, which is clearly the goal of the "patriarchs" using the feminists to achieve their goal of dominating everyone.



Gender "stereotypes" are often reflective of reality. For instance, women are typically physically weaker than men, suffer athletically in comparison, and typically possess less spatial intelligence than men. On the other hand, women possess higher verbal intelligence and social IQ, are better at raising children, and are generally more intuitive.

Is society really better off when women (and apparently everyone else) decide collectively that raising children is less important than making individual careers? Are women really better off now that they're all but forced economically to get jobs and earn money working, whereas before they mostly worked at home, everything else subsidized by males? It certainly isn't clear to me. I don't think anyone is better off as a result of feminism.

In a free market system, I shoot you over a loaf of bread because the system had given me no other option due to the cards life had dealt me, and I was about to starve.

Libertarianism sounds so nice until its taken to its obvious conclusion. Which is why there need to be regulations limiting what people can do with their power, whether the power comes in the form of money, a bullet, or something else.

 

[Paul2]

"Oppressed for thousands of years" seems hyperbolic. Do you have evidence of this oppression?

For starters, you can't go wrong with the Old Testament in the Bible.

 

[Paul2]

In a free market system, I shoot you over a loaf of bread because the system had given me no other option due to the cards life had dealt me, and I was about to starve.

Liberalism sounds so nice until its taken to its obvious conclusion. Which is why there need to be regulations limiting what people can do with their power, whether the power comes in the form of money, a bullet, or something else.

Did you get auto-corrected from "libertarianism?"

 

[Tippit]

For starters, you can't go wrong with the Old Testament in the Bible.

Women certainly haven’t had the same rights as men throughout history, nor am I advocating that suffrage be repealed and that women’s ability to own property be revoked. I’m just questioning the idea that they’ve been oppressed. Women have also historically been protected, given the least dangerous jobs, sheltered from martial combat, venerated for their beauty, subsidized by males (except for housework which is underrated and very important). So to some degree they have enjoyed privileges too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Olmstead]

Did you get auto-corrected from "libertarianism?"

Yes, if the auto-correct you are referring to is inside my brain.
Thanks for the correction.

 

[Olmstead]

Women certainly haven’t had the same rights as men throughout history, nor am I advocating that suffrage be repealed and that women’s ability to own property be revoked. I’m just questioning the idea that they’ve been oppressed. Women have also historically been protected, given the least dangerous jobs, sheltered from martial combat, venerated for their beauty, subsidized by males (except for housework which is underrated and very important). So to some degree they have enjoyed privileges too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? A woman was considered to be her father's property until she got married and then became her husband's property. No opression? Really?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Must be tough finding allies as a pro-feminism, anti-trans person. Plenty of anti-trans animus out there, but only if you're willing to accept all the other regressive nonsense that comes along with it. Obviously trans affirming feminists want little to do with their bigoted cousins. C'est la vie.

The TERF road is a lonely one it seems.

 

[theprestige]

In a free market system, I shoot you over a loaf of bread because the system had given me no other option due to the cards life had dealt me, and I was about to starve.

Libertarianism sounds so nice until its taken to its obvious conclusion. Which is why there need to be regulations limiting what people can do with their power, whether the power comes in the form of money, a bullet, or something else.

The death penalty for refusing to give away your property is a bit extreme. But is being imprisoned and having your property confiscated really that much better?

Unless you're a literal communist, you probably believe in some form of individual property rights. Ideally, nobody should be taking your property from you by force or threat of force. And if they try, you have the basic human right to resist that by any means necessary.

But.

You live in a society. A certain amount of wealth redistribution is probably necessary to the healthy functioning of that society. And some amount of collective decision making is almost certainly necessary. At the end of the day, some collective force or threat of force against individuals is necessary to achieve some amount of healthy wealth redistribution. Unless you're a literal libertarian, you probably agree that a limited amount of infringement on your property rights is a reasonable price to pay for living in a society.

After that, everything else is just debating how much infringement is strictly necessary, whether or not specific forms of wealth redistribution are working, and how to improve things without adding more infringement.

It seems to me that there are two principled starting points:

One is that individual rights are paramount. They should be infringed only the minimum necessary to address some basic need of the collective. It is incumbent on the infringers to show that their proposed infringement is necessary, effective, and limited to bare minimum to meet the necessity. If they cannot, then the infringement should be rejected.

The other is that collective needs are paramount. Individual rights should be allowed only to the extent that they do not interfere with the collective need. It is incumbent on the individualists to show that their proposed individual right does not interfere with the collective need. If they cannot, then the right should be rejected.

I start from the first point. Where do you start from? The first or the second?

 

[Paul2]

Women certainly haven’t had the same rights as men throughout history . . .

=oppression

. . . . Women have also historically been protected, given the least dangerous jobs, sheltered from martial combat, venerated for their beauty,

Oppression also comes in the form of not giving a person a legitimate choice, without social disapproval, in jobs or military service. Perhaps that's a lesser form of oppression, albeit insidious for being mistaken for not being oppression.

subsidized by males (except for housework which is underrated and very important).

Also not without social disapproval, at the very least, for hundreds of years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Must be tough finding allies as a pro-feminism, anti-trans person. Plenty of anti-trans animus out there, but only if you're willing to accept all the other regressive nonsense that comes along with it. Obviously trans affirming feminists want little to do with their bigoted cousins. C'est la vie.

The TERF road is a lonely one it seems.

Your vacuous insinuations are becoming tedious.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oppression also comes in the form of not giving a person a legitimate choice, without social disapproval, in jobs or military service.

So men were oppressed, then.

 

[Robin]

ema/emac/emacs

Notepad


...

I'll see myself out.

 

[Paul2]

So men were oppressed, then.

How so? It's hard to evaluate your claim without some specifics.

 

[theprestige]

Notepad


...

I'll see myself out.

You have not lived until you have grokked the fullness of notepad++

 

[Ziggurat]

How so? It's hard to evaluate your claim without some specifics.

They frequently had no socially acceptable legitimate choice about military service, for example.

 

[Paul2]

They frequently had no socially acceptable legitimate choice about military service, for example.

Sure, men were conscripted into service (when there was a compulsory draft) and women weren’t. None of the ways that men were unfairly treated would necessarily alter any unfairness in how women have been treated, and vice versa.