• 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.
Louden Wilde said:
This sentence is particularly bad: the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.
Click to expand...
Even if every single human being was born with completely unambiguous primary sex characteristics and went on to develop completely unambiguous secondary sex characteristics, transgender people (who are deeply dissatisfied with the hand they've been dealt re: sexual characteristics) would still exist. The topics of intersex variation and trans* issues are (by and large) orthogonal to each other, rather than clearly informing one another.
 
I the extremists on the "transphobe" side would actually be pretty okay with all of that. There'll be a vanishingly small number of weapons-grade douchebags, but we won't hear much from them and won't take them seriously anyway.

The real opposition is going to come from the vocal minority of trans-activists who will make every effort to change policy.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Transitioning is not a necessary part of being trans. So that's a big fail
Click to expand...

Nothing is a necessary part of being trans. The only defining factor is pure contextless self-determination in regards to multiple factors which are all either purposely ill-defined or directly contradictory. That's the problem.
 
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...

She still wasn't though. You can't tell me that a woman who had been a man just 4 months earlier was one of the top 25 women of the year. I think the magazine that voted her one of the entertainers of the year got it right. E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.E.R. That would exclude her role on KUWTK where she just wandered around in the background with nothing to do.

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.
 
Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

:thumbsup:
 
cullennz said:
Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.
Click to expand...

I fully expect all the old unanswered questions to be definitively settled, and that soon.
 
cullennz said:
Can I just take the time to point out, that I have high hopes and a good feeling this 5th massive forum thread repeating the same things as the other thousands and thousands of posts on the other 4 will be the winner. The one that sorts it once and for all.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...


Is it the function/role of this thread to "sort it out once and for all"? And irrespective of that: suppose that this thread actually did sort it out once and for all? What would that mean in the real world? Precisely nothing.

Thankfully, the world's mainstream medical/psychology/sociology experts have sorted it out already. As have many mainstream national executives and legislatures.

I suspect that had there been a forum such as this in, say, the 1960s, there'd have been a similar entrenched thread about gay rights in which one group of people argued that homosexual people a) deserved the right to have their condition treated as a valid lived experience rather than a disease or disorder; b) deserved precisely the same human/civil rights as heterosexual people, in all areas of life; and c) deserved full protection under the law. And there'd have been another entrenched set of bigots arguing something like "Yeah, I'm totally in favour of gay rights - but I draw the line at an out gay guy being allowed to use the swimming pool's changing facilities at the same time as me and my 12-year-old son", and so on.

And as I also mentioned before, it'll be grimly amusing to look back upon this thread in 20-30 years' time, and wonder quite how some of the views expressed in this thread could ever have been seriously offered up.
 
qayak said:
She still wasn't though. You can't tell me that a woman who had been a man just 4 months earlier was one of the top 25 women of the year. I think the magazine that voted her one of the entertainers of the year got it right. E.N.T.E.R.T.A.I.N.E.R. That would exclude her role on KUWTK where she just wandered around in the background with nothing to do.

I fully support her decision to live her life as she wants, until it takes resources allotted women. I don't worry about celebrities like Elliot Page taking resources from men. We have plenty to go around.
Click to expand...




Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".

S. M. H.
 
LondonJohn said:
Is it the function/role of this thread to "sort it out once and for all"? And irrespective of that: suppose that this thread actually did sort it out once and for all? What would that mean in the real world? Precisely nothing.

Thankfully, the world's mainstream medical/psychology/sociology experts have sorted it out already. As have many mainstream national executives and legislatures.

I suspect that had there been a forum such as this in, say, the 1960s, there'd have been a similar entrenched thread about gay rights in which one group of people argued that homosexual people a) deserved the right to have their condition treated as a valid lived experience rather than a disease or disorder; b) deserved precisely the same human/civil rights as heterosexual people, in all areas of life; and c) deserved full protection under the law. And there'd have been another entrenched set of bigots arguing something like "Yeah, I'm totally in favour of gay rights - but I draw the line at an out gay guy being allowed to use the swimming pool's changing facilities at the same time as me and my 12-year-old son", and so on.

And as I also mentioned before, it'll be grimly amusing to look back upon this thread in 20-30 years' time, and wonder quite how some of the views expressed in this thread could ever have been seriously offered up.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Like males with penises claiming they are biologically no different to females.....Which I apologise if I missed it, I haven't seen your opinion of.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmmmmm.

"I fully support the decision of gay men to live their lives as they want, until they take resources allotted straight guys".

S. M. H.
Click to expand...

What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight? The only one I can think of is straight women as sexual partners, and I'm pretty sure gay men aren't taking those away from straight men.
 
cullennz said:
Not the greatest example, given the same thing can be used as bias against any single straight male wanting to foster...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.
Click to expand...

Your example was based on a question of what resources are available to straight dudes over gay dudes.

If you want to add in "I mean in the case of couples" which invalidates your example from the question you are answering, you should have clarified you mean straight couples and not straight dudes, because your example involving couples doesn't answer the posters question.

In fact your answer accuses straight females who are a straight couple as well as male, which I am thinking wasn't your point as you seemed to be just criticising straight dudes.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. A same-sex couple can be denied approval as a foster family because they are the same sex, even as similarly well-qualified opposite-sex couples are approved. This is an example of how resources are allocated to heterosexuals as a matter of public policy, which was at least part of what Zig was asking about.
Click to expand...

Let me put it better.

I agree a straight female and male religious couple have a better chance of fostering than a gay couple, a straight single male, a gay single male.

But this has no relevance to the question that you answered.
 
cullennz said:
Your example was based on a question of what resources are available to straight dudes over gay dudes.
Click to expand...

Right, and I gave an example of resources that are offered to straight dudes (and straight chicks) but not gay dudes (and lesbian chicks) in certain parts of the USA.

cullennz said:
If you want to add in "I mean in the case of couples" which invalidates your example from the question you are answering...
Click to expand...
Why exactly is that? Did the original question somehow require that sexual orientation is literally the only criterion in play?
 
d4m10n said:
Right, and I gave an example of resources that are offered to straight dudes (and straight chicks) but not gay dudes (and lesbian chicks) in certain parts of the USA.

Why exactly is that? Did the original question somehow require that sexual orientation is literally the only criterion in play?
Click to expand...

This shouldn't be as difficult as you are making it.

The question you answered was this about straight male dudes getting extra rights

Ziggurat said:
What resources are allotted to straight men on the basis of them being straight?
Click to expand...

You replied fostering with couples. Why? I have no idea

Sorry, but straight single dudes are just as prejudiced against as gay people, when it comes to fostering.

At best your example says straight women in a relationship are advantaged over single blokes straight or gay.

Either way along with custody in break ups, the chick 9/10 wins and dudes straight or gay lose
 
cullennz said:
...straight single dudes are just as prejudiced against as gay people, when it comes to fostering.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't exclusively limited to single people, though. I've provided an example of when public resources are preferentially given to straight people because they are straight and you seem to want to quibble over the fact that foster families are usually, well, families.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The question wasn't exclusively limited to single people, though. I've provided an example of when public resources are preferentially given to straight people because they are straight and you seem to want to quibble over the fact that foster families are usually, well, families.
Click to expand...

No. I was more sort of pointing out you weren't answering the actual question.

Let me try another way and make another persons question different (To you , because for some reason it has to be"


What resources are allotted to straight men with no other factor like a female partner on the basis of them being straight?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom