• 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: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Archie Gemmill Goal

Banned
Archie Gemmill Goal
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
8,324
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul2 said:
Please. You can't imagine that you can modify the definition of biological sex to account for the fact that an organism might or will stop producing gametes? That the fact that organisms stop producing gametes at some point is some type of logical defeater? Especially since an organism stops producing gametes doesn't mean that they could have produced the other type of gamete at some point.

Also, please don't bring up the tiny proportion of organisms that never produce any gametes at all until you imagine what a rejoinder, similar to the one I've offered above, might be.
Click to expand...

This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially
Click to expand...

It is binary unless you live in a Humpty Dumpty universe, which most of us don’t.
 
Ziggurat said:
Really? They face the danger of being forcibly impregnated?
Click to expand...

You are the first voice i have heard to suggest that infertile women should be denied access to women only shortlists. It's certainly an interesting and unique position to hold. I would ask you to justify it but you don't do answers to questions.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I CAN'T MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY!

That's sort of always been my point.
Click to expand...

What a weird point. Life is not about making everyone happy. Understand the arguments and choose the one you agree with or come up with your own viewpoint or don't even bother thinking about it. The idea that you need to find an answer which reconciles two competing viewpoints is bizarre.
 
qayak said:
Kaitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year,
Click to expand...

Well that's not really your call to make is it? It's up to the people who decide the awards who they award to.

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.
 
Louden Wilde said:
Not in the original way that woman was defined - adult human female . To say that sex doesn't matter or has nothing to do with why females are oppressed defies logic & evidence. I'm also not convinced that transwomen crime rates are any different than other males.....
Click to expand...

If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Personally, I think that both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful, as it doesn't require permanent medicalization, and also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think that for homosexuals, both approaches are appropriate. You start with CBT and try to get the mental to align with the physical. This is the least overall harmful..... and (it) also doesn't expose the individual to abuse and discrimination.

(You quite clearly are impervious to the fact that what you're saying here is that people with gender dysphoria should, as a first approach, try to be "cured" of their gender dysphoria. To be made "normal" again. And you wonder why people like me find your position disgusting and contemptible.)



I'll draw a bit of an analogy here. I'm epileptic. <snip>
Click to expand...


Epilepsy is a disorder. An aberration. And that's the definitive and settled opinion of the mainstream medical community. Gender dysphoria is not a disorder or aberration. Just like homosexuality.

No medical professional ever will (thankfully) think of addressing a patient/client with gender dysphoria in this way. This is nothing whatsoever to do with "curing" the condition, irrespective of your unpleasant idea of trying the "cheap cure" as a primary option. The only clinical decisions to be taken wrt a patient/client with gender dysphoria and a desire to transition is a) to work with the patient/client to make sure that they've considered their decision carefully and fully, and b) if (a) is fulfilled, to decide - in conjunction with the patient/client - what form of transition would be preferable for them.



Unbelievable. As is this ludicrous smokescreen claim that this is all about men taking policy decisions without any regard to the rights of cis women (I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence that all the policy panel members making the decisions on DSM5 were men - and nasty, misogynist men at that. And that all legislative policymakers in those (thankfully progressive) national parliaments which enshrined laws to respect and protect transgender rights... were similarly 100% men....)
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well that's not really your call to make is it? It's up to the people who decide the awards who they award to.

Of course Caitlyn Jenner was never woman of the year. She was one of one magazine's Women of the Year. One of 25 I believe. Of course nobody remembers the other 24 because they didn't get a host of TERFs berating them and telling them they weren't really women.
Click to expand...



Indeed. I'm totally done with the disgusting attitudes of some in this thread. But I take very great comfort in the fact that their toxic opinions are several miles removed from those of the actual medical experts, and those who are increasingly legislating for transgender rights.

I am particularly repulsed by the way in which some of these opinions are prefaced by claims along the lines of "I'm all in favour of transgender inclusivity blah blah blah"..... followed by blatant (and sometimes breathtakingly vile - witness the "we should try to cure them as a first option" idea I referenced in my previous post) statements riding roughshod over one or more key areas of transgender rights.

And (as I also said before), it's a near-perfect facsimile of the positions of those in the 50s/60s/70s who tried the same smoke-and-mirrors deceit in respect of black civil rights and gay rights. Of course, they'll heartily and angrily reject the comparison - but that's only to be expected. In fact it's all part of the underlying problem.

But anyhow, I'm very happy to know for certain that a) the sorts of nasty, divisive, reactionary positions held by some in this thread are ultimately a total irrelevancy in the real world (they're nothing more than an angry shout into the void), and b) in 20 or 30 years we'll all look back (as we did with black civil rights and gay rights), and wonder just how it was even morally possible to hold those sorts of views about transgender rights.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:confused: Why is it ignorant and unpleasant to defend Boudicca against insinuations of wanting to tear through the cotton ceiling? What is disgusting about acknowledging that Boudicca has expressed that she prefers men... and to infer that she probably hasn't spent much time trying to convince lesbians that they're bigots if they don't want to sleep with her lady-penis?

I seriously think you need to have a bit of thought here, buddy, and get back to me on how this can possibly be perceived as ignorant, unpleasant, and disgusting. Because your response makes no sense whatsoever. It's simply an insulting ad hominem attack related to nothing at all.
Click to expand...



You probably ought to learn what an ad hominem argument is (and what it is not).

And within this post of yours, you're only further reinforcing my position wrt your toxic beliefs. I'm alright thanks, "buddy".
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
You are the first voice i have heard to suggest that infertile women should be denied access to women only shortlists. It's certainly an interesting and unique position to hold. I would ask you to justify it but you don't do answers to questions.
Click to expand...

That doesn’t actually follow from anything I said. Nice try, and thanks for proving you don’t actually have an argument.
 
Meadmaker said:
To my way of thinking, that whole set of people who can have babies, plus the people who used to be able to have babies, or are likely to be able to have babies in the future, or who have most of the same organs, and but for some other medical condition could have babies, seems like a useful set to have a more concise term for. What is that group of people supposed to be called?
Click to expand...

I'm confident that if you did come up with a term for this set of people, trans activists would insist that transwomen have a right to be honorary members of the set.

Hell, Boudicca has already said as much, and more.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
This feels a bit to me like trying to back into a definition of sex that IS binary so we can claim 'aha look it's binary and now we have a reason to discriminate against transpeople'

This biological reductionism tends to lead me down the road that ends with 'if that's really all that defines the difference then why should I even give a **** about biological sex at all?' I couldn't care less which gametes you produce unless I am trying to reproduce with you, could you?

Honestly if that is your definition of biological sex then it's only gender (which presumably must account for everything else) that really makes any difference socially
Click to expand...
First, one quick note about the binary: anything outside of the binary of two different sexes based on the type of gamete isn't even the type of thing that we're talking about in this thread anyway. Your garden-variety trans person still has one of the two types of gametes in the bimodal distribution.

Discrimination: I think you have to mean unjust or immoral discrimination, correct? Because a neutral discrimination - that there exist in reality two different sexes, based on the type of gamete - is not unjust or immoral, it just is. Thinking otherwise is a category mistake. Given that, there is nothing unjust or immoral in acknowledging the reality of two different sexes based on the type of gamete. That some might use the fact of two sexes to discriminate lies with them, not with the fact.

I'm not sure what significance "biological reductionism" has, given the above, other than as a faint pejorative.

It's a separate question as to what we do with the fact of two sexes based on the type of gamete. All I've been trying to do here is to justify that two sexes based on gametes *is* a fact of biology, and an absolutely foundational one at that.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail
Click to expand...
So when an employer requires that their staff use an un-transitioned transsexual employee's preferred pronouns, what is it?

Treating a medical condition?

Accommodating a disability?

Catering to a personal preference?

At some point, how someone chooses to think of themselves in the privacy of their own head stops being a social issue that needs a public policy solution.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If you are defining sex as only to do with biological reproduction in order to make it binary then to argue that it is the defining factor in why women have been oppressed defies logic and evidence.

Woman aren't discriminated against because they produce eggs.
Click to expand...
Do you mean implicitly, explicitly, or both?
 
I wonder when the trans-activists will get around to telling the vast majority of transsexuals that their transition is bogus because sex isn't even binary anyway, and the man-woman distinction they're hung up on isn't real in the first palce.

In a world of binary gender, I could see gender dysphoria being a real condition that merits treatment, accommodation, and understanding. Like blindness or quadriplegia. But in a world where binary gender doesn't even exist? How do you accommodate someone who insists their seeing-eye dog needs to come on the plane, if eyes don't exist and nobody actually "sees" anything anyway?
 
We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments
 
Darat said:
We know we can never reconcile the extremists, with that in mind I was thinking about what compromise we will end up with. I think it will be something like:

1) Official gender change will still require some form of a “Gender Recognition“ certificate
2) Someone who has officially changed their gender will be able to use facilities labelled “women only”. I expect there will still be some limitations on that, probably something like there having to be private cubicles.
3) Businesses that now can legally discriminate on the grounds of gender will be able to continue to do so but will need to honour gender recognition certificates. (This would still mean that a beauty parlour offering a waxing service wouldn’t be forced to wax male genitalia because that is not a service they offer regardless of official gender.)
4) Sport - will still be able to deny or allow participation regardless of official gender based on their own objective measures.
5) Under 16 years old will not be able to start physical medical treatments
Click to expand...

I think that approach would probably be acceptable to the majority of people. It seems reasonable to me. As you say, the extremists on either side wouldn't be happy about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom