• 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.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's also possible, by the way, that trans-activist driven presentations to young kids in school that insist that "girls aren't real and boys aren't real" and that "if you're not comfortable about your body, you can be transgender and change it" and that "if you have a penis but you like pink and dolls then you might be transgender; if you have a vulva but you like cars and climbing trees, you might be transgender!" as well as "Oh, by the way, if you want to change your name and pronouns at school we will support you doing that and we won't tell your parents about it at all!" paired with "Oh, those transgender kids are so stunning and brave and wonderful and get special treatment and extra attention!"

But maybe I'm crazy. Maybe stuff like that doesn't have any affect on children at all.


Looking at the stats posted earlier, I had to wonder about something. There was a huge increase in the number of teens declaring themselves FtoM transgender.

It is widely perceived that being a boy is easier or that boys have advantages in society. Are we seeing a group of people who don't want to be girls? Is this just another form of sexism? Being a girl is so awful that I don't want to be one?

That's purely speculative, but it's something that I thought about on seeing the statistics.

Participating in these threads, and your writings in particular, have opened my eyes to a lot of the sexism inherent in the transgender rights movement. It's not something I noticed before.
 
Kind of where I'm at too. Somewhere between Jessica Yaniv and the pregnant transman, I've pretty much lost all interest in taking trans-activism seriously.

I come from a slightly different place. I never took it very seriously in the first place.

Once upon a time, I knew about transsexuals and I generally had a live and let live attitude, or a libertarian outlook on things. It was participating in a thread here that I realized there were people who said that you could actually "be" someone of the opposite sex...er, gender, er....uh, whatever. i.e. That a person who was producing sperm could actually "be" a woman, in a real and legally binding sense. Moreover they didn't have to even have surgery and alter the plumbing. There were people who genuinely believed that a man could have a baby.

I thought it was daft right from the beginning, and I learned about it in a situation where a young gir....er....transboy.....but whatever....someone with a pussy was arguing for the right to strip naked in the presence of teenage boys. That struck me as idiotic then and idiotic now.

What I share in common with several of you is that initially, though, I tried to be accommodating and understanding, but then cases like Colleen Brenna or Jessica Yaniv convinced me that there were some pretty bad apples in that bunch, and that ultimately, it's never a good idea to deny reality. It just opens the door to all sorts of bad things.

I still know trans people. I still recognize trans as a real thing, and am willing to go to a certain extent to accommodate people who are different, but when all is said and done, there's still reality to be dealt with, and refusing to acknowledge it causes all sorts of grief.
 
Kind of where I'm at too. Somewhere between Jessica Yaniv and the pregnant transman, I've pretty much lost all interest in taking trans-activism seriously.

---

It occurs to me that if we took gender dysphoria seriously as a medical condition and a disability, this would have a few implications under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990s

For example, I think employers would have the right to refuse reasonable accommodation if the employee doesn't produce a medical diagnosis.

Also, it might well be the case that requiring all other employees to use the person's preferred pronouns might not count as a "reasonable accommodation". Same with letting them use their preferred gendered restrooms at the office.

At the very least, examining the condition under the rubric of the ADA would tend to force the discussion into a more narrow focus on dysphoria as a medical condition that requires treatment, and what accommodations are necessary for their medical value in treating the condition.

Yeah, this is one of those situations where all except a very few truly bigoted people would be perfectly happy to make accommodations for a medical condition. In fact - we already had been! Up until the past decade or so, society in general treated the small handful of transgender and transsexuals people that we ran across with respect, allowed transwomen into our private spaces with the polite social fiction that they were women - on the assumption that they had a genuine and debilitating medical condition.

The biggest problem with the Transactivist approach right now is that they demand that all of these things be provided to them solely on the basis of their claim to be transgender - no diagnosis, just on their say-so.

It's very much as if the transdisabled people out there put together an activist group demanding that they be treated just like cisdisabled people and get access to disabled accommodations, are allowed to compete against cisdisabled people in the paralympics, and be protected in employment and housing under the ADA. All without any diagnosis at all, simply because they claim to "feel" like a disabled person.

With the added benefit that if a cisdisabled person objects to making these accomodations for transdisabled people... it's because those cisdisabled people are hate-filled bigots who merit threats of violence against them. And then they start up slogans to "amputate all Trans-Exclusionary-Radial-Disableds (TERDs).

Truly progressive. All the way woke. Who needs sleep? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Looking at the stats posted earlier, I had to wonder about something. There was a huge increase in the number of teens declaring themselves FtoM transgender.

It is widely perceived that being a boy is easier or that boys have advantages in society. Are we seeing a group of people who don't want to be girls? Is this just another form of sexism? Being a girl is so awful that I don't want to be one?

That's purely speculative, but it's something that I thought about on seeing the statistics.

Participating in these threads, and your writings in particular, have opened my eyes to a lot of the sexism inherent in the transgender rights movement. It's not something I noticed before.

There are a lot of hypotheses, but they're things that are virtually impossible to quantitatively measure.

It's extremely common for girls to go through periods of body dysmorphia right before and during the early stages of puberty. It's very common for girls in the 11 to 14 range to be very unhappy with their bodies, scared of the changes occurring - both physically and socially - and to wish they were boys because it would be easier.

Speculatively, this has a lot to do with changing social expectations, and restrictions that show up for girls when they begin to develop. Where they used to be allowed to go out and play with any children, climb trees, fall down, wear whatever they want, and basically be free to be children... now they are expected to dress more demurely and their interactions with boys start to be monitored as a risk. When they start to develop breasts, girls get treated differently. Boys and adult men start to look at them differently, and start to look at them as sexual objects, frequently well before those girls develop any real sexuality at all. They have to be much more aware of their clothing and what they're doing... so that they don't accidentally expose some forbidden flesh and encourage male attention. There's a subconscious (and sometimes blatant) assumption that it's the girl's fault if a boy or adult man focuses inappropriate attention on her. It's more or less "It's your fault, little 12 yo Emily, that the grown-up man started hovering around you and making you uncomfortable - look what you're wearing! You can clearly see that you have boobs, with that skimpy tank top! You should dress more demurely so that you don't tempt adults like that".

Boys don't experience that kind of shift in expectations, and they don't get subtly blamed for their bodies developing and affecting the sexual attention of other people and adults. Boys don't end up with their movements being proscribed and monitored because they've begun maturity. Boys tend to get more freedoms as they enter puberty, not less.

Additionally, whether it's nature or nurture, girls cluster in a way that boys don't. Boys will have groups of friends, but girls have cliques. I'm not even going to try to speculate on why. But the effect of that clustering is "social contagion". There's a lot of "copying" and "mirroring" among girls. There's a lot of pressure and expectation to conform to ones peer group, and actions and behaviors that produce positive reinforcement tend to be quickly adopted by other girls in that cluster. So if one girl wears a new style of sweater, and gets compliments on it, other girls in her cluster are very likely to adopt the same style of sweater. This extends to behavior and presentation as well. So there's at least some historical reason to think that a girl identifying as transgender who gets positive responses to this (you're so brave and stunning, so wonderful) is likely to influence other girls to follow in her footsteps. I doubt it's even a conscious thing - most of the mirroring and conformity behaviors of pubescent girls aren't something they're cognizant of.

An additional potential complicator has to do with how sexual orientation, and sexuality in general, expresses in girls as opposed to boys. This is a spot where I have a lot less knowledge, so I'm mostly reiterating what I've read from other people, so take it with a grain of salt.

My understanding is that when sexuality begins to express in pubescent kids, they tend to show up differently. Boys sexuality is outwardly focused, desire-based. Girls sexuality tends to be more inwardly focused. It's hard to put into words, because it's not something I have done any real research on :). I think it basically comes down to boys becoming sexually aware, and going through stages of recognizing and identifying what they want and desire. Girls go more through stages of trying to identify what about them is desirable by others. Again, I have no idea whether this is nature or nurture or a combination thereof. The point here is that when kids develop sexuality, if they are homosexual, they react differently. Boys who are homosexual tend to assume that there's something wrong with what they want, and they mask that by essentially pretending that they don't want other boys, they want girls. On the other hand, girls who are homosexual tend to assume that there's something wrong with their bodies and it's reactions. My understanding is that young gay boys tend to be closeted in a commonly understood way, whereas young lesbians tend to go through very internally-focused anxiety and think that there's something wrong with their bodies. That could, speculatively, amplify the pre-existing tendency of girls to have periods of body dysmorphia... and in an era where being trans is lauded as a wonderful thing, and is constantly affirmed, there's a concern that a lot of young lesbians are essentially being walked through conversion therapy and instead of being allowed to come to terms with being a cisgender lesbian, they become convinced (with the assistance of therapists who fast-track and affirm) that they're actually transgender heterosexuals.

My problem with that is that I think it would be much better to be an able-bodied lesbian than a mutilated and sterilized heterosexual transman.

While a lot of that is very speculative on my part... it's something that is being echoed by adult lesbians and gay men, as well as many therapists. A lot of the doctors who left Tavistock clinic in the UK did so because they felt that the "gender affirmation" model being used was essentially conversion therapy for gay kids, and that their lack of agency to challenge a child's belief that they are transgender, and to take a "wait and see" approach, effectively resulted in children being drawn into a path of permanent medicalization and sterilization. Rhetorical hyperbole, of course, but essentially "homosexual eugenics".

There are a fair number of adult lesbians, especially butch lesbians, who have found themselves being pressured to transition to being a heterosexual man. This pressure tends to come from transwomen who identify as lesbians (people who would otherwise be understood as heterosexual men) because butch lesbians aren't "feminine" enough.

It's a strange time we live in.
 
....

It's a strange time we live in.

Indeed.

And very well stated.


(And I don't know if you are right. You have stated that you don't know that either, but it all makes sense. It's the kind of thing that I wish our resident activists would at least treat seriously.)
 
I posted previously that Dr James Cantor has compared the current situation to the repressed memory syndrome scandals a few decades ago. I agree with him, but this is going to be much worse in terms of the impact on society and those caught up in it.

He describes this comparison in the video around 19.30.

https://youtu.be/_SGva6eWTDQ
 
In most cases, I think businesses, which those clubs are, should be required to provide services to clients of both sexes, all races, etc.

So what are your criteria for deciding which businesses can discriminate and which can't?

The fact that these are political issues and disputed illustrates that we, as a society, are at least undecided on the issues.

Not really. I can find people who will disagree on just about anything. The idea that it's OK to discriminate against people based on things like race, sex, gender or sexual orientation is about as decided as anything gets.

Such as saying, "That's discrimination, so it's bad."

It's not my fault if you can't follow the argument but repeatedly straw manning my position makes you seem disingenuous.

I believe you will find ample justification in these threads of why a woman might not want to take her clothes off in presence of a man, or whatever appellation you might provide for that sperm-producing individual in the locker room, but that justification is usually ignored, often with the words "bigotry" or "discrimination" substituted for a counterargument.

There has certainly been a lot of speculation based on 'feelz' but I was asking about why it would be troublesome and worrisome for discrimination to be have to be justified. It's not OK to just forget the actual point and go back to other crap because it suits you
 
Ah, yes. Really awful examples. They are all things you don't care about.

(Selina Soule is the young woman from Connecticut who would have gone to the New England girls' track championship had she not lost to two young males competing in the same division as her.)[/QUOTE]

They are stupid examples. If that's the best you got then I consider my point made.

Selina (or perhaps you) should reflect that while everyone has a right to compete in sport nobody has a right to win.
 
They are not.

But it isn't.

That's ironic. You thought it was obvious that these quotas would be proportional, but they are not proportional.

Can you give me the specific examples you are referring to here?

How would you come up with a quota without it being proportional? Tokenism?
 
Oh good lord.

Have you ever provided any citation for anything you have said in these threads? Any at all? For anything? I think you are pretty much all mouth. [/quote}

I source the facts I provide. Yes. If you haven't seen that you haven't been looking. Or you are just being disingenuous because you dislike having your outdated ideas challenged.

At least I have an anecdote. Pixel42's response to the question about effects on women's sports was to refer to "pointless competitiveness". Similar views have been expressed throughout these threads.

It would be interesting to see if the phenomenon had been formally studied in a published paper, anywhere, but exactly what to google would be difficult.

It would be interesting to see if a phenomenon has been studied BEFORE you claim it to be a fact.
 
I respect that fact that traditional gender roles are so ingrained into society that people who are opposed to them have to had to resort to a "Throw everything against the wall and hope something stick" mentality.

I really do think if you stop scraping away all the layers of identity there is a core, honest, and correct message that people are trying to get across.

The problem is nobody wants to drop the "Who gets to actually technically define sex/gender" end of the rope.

"I want to live in a world where men can wear a dress"
"Gender doesn't exist"
"Gender is a social construct"
"I identify as this gender because of this..."

... are all trying to say the same (or similar) things, but get so hung up on some hill of defending their version of the definition of sex/gender (which includes the distinction between the two) that it creates these weird contradictory paradoxes.
 
I come from a slightly different place. I never took it very seriously in the first place.

Once upon a time, I knew about transsexuals and I generally had a live and let live attitude, or a libertarian outlook on things. It was participating in a thread here that I realized there were people who said that you could actually "be" someone of the opposite sex...er, gender, er....uh, whatever. i.e. That a person who was producing sperm could actually "be" a woman, in a real and legally binding sense. Moreover they didn't have to even have surgery and alter the plumbing. There were people who genuinely believed that a man could have a baby.

I thought it was daft right from the beginning, and I learned about it in a situation where a young gir....er....transboy.....but whatever....someone with a pussy was arguing for the right to strip naked in the presence of teenage boys. That struck me as idiotic then and idiotic now.

What I share in common with several of you is that initially, though, I tried to be accommodating and understanding, but then cases like Colleen Brenna or Jessica Yaniv convinced me that there were some pretty bad apples in that bunch, and that ultimately, it's never a good idea to deny reality. It just opens the door to all sorts of bad things.

I still know trans people. I still recognize trans as a real thing, and am willing to go to a certain extent to accommodate people who are different, but when all is said and done, there's still reality to be dealt with, and refusing to acknowledge it causes all sorts of grief.

That pretty much sums up why it's pointless engaging with you further. You came from a bad place and attempts to discuss it only further ingrained your prejudices.
 
I respect that fact that traditional gender roles are so ingrained into society that people who are opposed to them have to had to resort to a "Throw everything against the wall and hope something stick" mentality.

I really do think if you stop scraping away all the layers of identity there is a core, honest, and correct message that people are trying to get across.

The problem is nobody wants to drop the "Who gets to actually technically define sex/gender" end of the rope.

"I want to live in a world where men can wear a dress"
"Gender doesn't exist"
"Gender is a social construct"
"I identify as this gender because of this..."

... are all trying to say the same (or similar) things, but get so hung up on some hill of defending their version of the definition of sex/gender (which includes the distinction between the two) that it creates these weird contradictory paradoxes.

Gender doesn't exist and Gender is a social construct don't seem close to the same thing to me.
 
I posted previously that Dr James Cantor has compared the current situation to the repressed memory syndrome scandals a few decades ago. I agree with him, but this is going to be much worse in terms of the impact on society and those caught up in it.

He describes this comparison in the video around 19.30.

https://youtu.be/_SGva6eWTDQ
Just noticed there is a good discussion of the social contagion issue or ROGD hypothesis in adolescent females starting around 49.50 in the same video.
 
Hey Archie, would you be so kind as to answer the following questions?

Alright. Please explain how it's necessary and acceptable to discriminate against biological females? How is it necessary to reduce their representation in leadership positions and politics?

Sure... but on the other hand, we also see the guff of 'transwomen are women because they have lady-brains which are different from buy-brains'.

Why is it a reasonable justification for one and not the other?

Thanks in advance for you civil and respectful response.
 
Gender doesn't exist and Gender is a social construct don't seem close to the same thing to me.

//I know this is a heated discussion, but hopefully you can respect that this isn't 100% easy to put into words, fair enough? If I say something that sounds off please do me the courtesy of asking for clarification before assuming nefarious intent, okay?//

What I mean is that at the most basic level every version of this comes down to "I want to be able to things without having a gender role defined for me." And I think that most basic of starting points gets us to more reasonable; not necessarily correct or valid or true but reasonable, places then it seems at first.

I'm saying if someone starts at:

"I'm what is traditionally thought of as this gender but I do not have this traditional characteristic of the gender" then

"Therefore gender doesn't exist"
"Therefore I'm the other gender"
"Therefore gender is socially created"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic doesn't apply to that gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic applies to the other gender"
"Therefore that traditional characteristic is gender neutral"
"Therefore I'm a special sub-category of the traditional gender"

Are all ways that someone would could honestly mentally process that initial thought further.

Again I'm not arguing the factual correctness or moral right or wrong of any specific answer, I'm saying that more of the social problem is categorization and defining the terms then the core, base, real problem really is.

If that makes any sense.

ETA: Added a bit in the first paragraph. Hit post before finishing a thought.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was daft right from the beginning, and I learned about it in a situation where a young gir....er....transboy.....but whatever....someone with a pussy was arguing for the right to strip naked in the presence of teenage boys. That struck me as idiotic then and idiotic now.

Did anyone consult the boys?

Oh why not go full bore?

Female-Antagonist-Radical-Transactivists.

That's it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom