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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron Obvious said:
Transwomen ARE objectively male, so this is literally Orwellian.

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Click to expand...

Unlike the quote, which isn't anything to do with Orwell, although it's usually attributed to him.
 
Have to admit this whole cis women are a subset of women thing is hitting new heights in stupid.

Males and females are males and females.

Trans women are a subset of males. Trans men are a subset of females.

The cis bit is both pointless and just a redundant prefix trans activists made up to make them feel better with themselves.

If trans people are so certain about their inner chosen outward gender expression, why they needed to make it up I have no idea.
 
Each day this discussions goes on the question of what we are actually supposed functionally do differently when someone goes "I'm biological X but define as Y" that is reducible to pure semantics (and yes pronouns are just a form of semantics at this point) disappears further and further over the horizon.
 
I just anyone would explain to us what the point or end goal here is.

I got news for you. "People don't have an image of me that matches my internal image exactly 100% perfectly" is not new. There's a support group for that. It's called everybody. We meet at the bar.

I get it, the argument will continue along the "Well this is different because gender is different because I say so" lines but nobody's image of themselves; whether the criteria be 100% objective or 100% subjective, lines up with how others see them.

That's why so much of this is a red herring.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I like to think he'd nevertheless heartily approve of the sentiment, even if nobody now remembers who first said it.
Click to expand...

Maybe it came from some high school kid's essay on 1984.

I don't know if it is something Orwell would actually have said. I think he was much more of a pessimist when it came to revolutionary acts. After all, Animal Farm was the result of revolution, where the revolutionaries just get to make things up as they go.

This thread is a little bit like the barn in animal farm. Every time I come back to it, I think the rules have changed a little bit, but I can't quite remember. I thought biological sex was clear, but gender was socially constructed and somewhat flexible. But now it appears that biological sex is as well.
 
Well that's sort of the situation we wind up in when the only actual member of the group the discussion is about has adopted a "How dare you even ask me to explain it" attitude.

I appreciate all the other inputs here, but we need to face facts that what the "Trans Supporters*" and the actual claimed Transperson in this thread are saying are not matching up 100% and their voices are just clouding up the matter.

*I detest phrasing it this way because no matter what a certain someone has to say on the topic, we aren't "not supporting them" just because we disagree about amazingly esoteric questions of categorization.
 
People advocating for certain positions here don't have to adopt and defend every extreme proposed elsewhere. For example, if someone here genuinely wants criminal charges for misgendering then I'd be quite startled.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Because most people don't differentiate between 'male' and 'man'.

Why?

No, it's quite simple. Just respect a person's self-identity and don't try to weasel around it. Unless you are a doctor, a person's biological makeup shouldn't be any of your business.

Language is constantly changing, and many positions don't make internal sense.

I know what you mean though. I once dated a lady who called herself Josephine. Imagine my horror to find out that wasn't her real name. Turns out she just used it because she didn't like her real one. She didn't even bother to change her actual sex name, just went around telling people that she was a woman Josephine now. :eek:
Click to expand...

I think Selina Soule ought to care about the biological makeup of the people who finished the race before she did.

And my thoughts on people who say that she should not care would be at best borderline when it comes to the membership agreement, so instead I will say that anyone who says she shouldn't care is insensitive and lacking in empathy, and their attitudes are very damaging to ........umm....what do we call those people again? Ahhh, I remember. People who menstruate.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
People advocating for certain positions here don't have to adopt and defend every extreme proposed elsewhere. For example, if someone here genuinely wants criminal charges for misgendering then I'd be quite startled.
Click to expand...

Beginning to get the feeling it will end up being bad just "gendering" in the first place tbh.

Then it will hit we shouldn't actually even use understandable pronouns

Then a lot of gruntile conversations

"You. Have you meet my friend you, they are partners with my other mate them over there. You might have noticed you and them. Them was the one with the big willie, hanging out of their dress, as opposed to that person who has the tits"
 
gnome said:
People advocating for certain positions here don't have to adopt and defend every extreme proposed elsewhere. For example, if someone here genuinely wants criminal charges for misgendering then I'd be quite startled.
Click to expand...

In a worldview where transwomen are biologically female, I don't doubt that thoughtcrimes like the one you describe are soon to come.
 
cullennz said:
Beginning to get the feeling it will end up being bad just "gendering" in the first place tbh.

Then it will hit we shouldn't actually even use understandable pronouns

Then a lot of gruntile conversations

"You. Have you meet my friend you, they are partners with my other mate them over there. You might have noticed you and them. Them was the one with the big willie, hanging out of their dress, as opposed to that person who has the tits"
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
In a worldview where transwomen are biologically female, I don't doubt that thoughtcrimes like the one you describe are soon to come.
Click to expand...

Yes, and everyone will wear only grey, and happiness will be outlawed, and we must all spend five minutes of every hour praising our benevolent leader.

Interesting that you each chose to respond to me suggesting a retreat from arguing over extremes, to supposing an even greater extreme.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
Yes, and everyone will wear only grey, and happiness will be outlawed, and we must all spend five minutes of every hour praising our benevolent leader.

Interesting that you each chose to respond to me suggesting a retreat from arguing over extremes, to supposing an even greater extreme.
Click to expand...

What is your proposed non extreme?

Males are females?
 
That it be considered polite to refer to someone with their preferred pronoun, if they've advised you of it. Just like it's polite to refer to someone by their chosen name.

To allow people to make choices according to their self-identified gender, except in cases where there is a compelling reason not to.

Neither of those requires agreeing on whether trans women are "real" women.
 
Last edited:
gnome said:
That it be considered polite to refer to someone with their preferred pronoun, if they've advised you of it. Just like it's polite to refer to someone by their chosen name.

To allow people to make choices according to their self-identified gender, except in cases where there is a compelling reason not to.

Neither of those requires agreeing on whether trans women are "real" women.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

But in each case it has to be taken on it's own circumstances.

In the case of Boudicca yes. I would probably refer to them in the feminine, woman and ****.

Because they seem to be a pretty cool person, but if someone is a prick who happens to be trans I am probably more inclined to do the complete opposite lots just to annoy them.

Maybe it is my immature sense of humour

But then that doesn't just work with gender things.

It is the same if someone is just annoying
 
cullennz said:
I totally agree.

But in each case it has to be taken on it's own circumstances.

In the case of Boudicca yes. I would probably refer to them in the feminine, woman and ****.

Because they seem to be a pretty cool person, but if someone is a prick who happens to be trans I am probably more inclined to do the complete opposite lots just to annoy them.

Maybe it is my immature sense of humour
But then that doesn't just work with gender things.

It is the same if someone is just annoying
Click to expand...

Not quite.
 
gnome said:
Yes, and everyone will wear only grey, and happiness will be outlawed, and we must all spend five minutes of every hour praising our benevolent leader.

Interesting that you each chose to respond to me suggesting a retreat from arguing over extremes, to supposing an even greater extreme.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir. Much of this thread has been about biology, clear terms and definitions, and humanitarian compromises in public policy.

Right now it's about how difficult it is to have a reasonable discussion along those lines when trans-activists keep ******** the bed with nonsense like transwomen are biological females and anyone who questions this is a TERF (and a TERF is just a hateful bigot).
 
gnome said:
That it be considered polite to refer to someone with their preferred pronoun, if they've advised you of it. Just like it's polite to refer to someone by their chosen name.

To allow people to make choices according to their self-identified gender, except in cases where there is a compelling reason not to.

Neither of those requires agreeing on whether trans women are "real" women.
Click to expand...

Everyone but the extremists figured that out in part 1 of this thread.
 
theprestige said:
You're preaching to the choir. Much of this thread has been about biology, clear terms and definitions, and humanitarian compromises in public policy.

Right now it's about how difficult it is to have a reasonable discussion along those lines when trans-activists keep ******** the bed with nonsense like transwomen are biological females and anyone who questions this is a TERF (and a TERF is just a hateful bigot).
Click to expand...

That's because until I came into this thread, it was just a bunch of cispeople arguing amongst themselves on how much discrimination and bigotry against us transpeople was acceptable.

I've thrown a wrench in how you view us by giving examples of how we view ourselves, but you and your transphobe allies constantly dismiss what I have to say as insane. When my views are quite common in the trans community. I can't say whether or not it is a majority view, but many trans women consider ourselves truly female and consider being called male to be hateful.

I certainly don't consider myself an extremist or trans-activist, my actual activism usually has to do with BLM, anti-capitalism, and environmental causes. And TERFs are hateful bigots and transphobes, but all transphobes aren't TERFs (you aren't, for example).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom