• 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.
d4m10n said:
I doubt anyone really believes this, all of the time.

Even Boudicca seemed dubious about Seani.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that what you can get away with as long as you profess the correct quasi-religious belief in gender identity is rather different to what you are allowed to say as a skeptic of gender ideology. The primary issue is really nothing to do with rights, it's about ideological conformity.

Dr Ray Blanchard makes this point rather well at around 12.00 below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qUH-5ixz70&ab_channel=BenjaminABoyce
 
Meadmaker said:
Classic.

At least under the newspeak guidelines "cis" and "trans" still have definitions of some sort, unlike "man" and "woman".


I'll stick to using them as prefixes.
Click to expand...

All good.

But equally I will stick to female and male and add in the trans sub group of either when needed and chuck women and man on the end to make them feel nice.
 
d4m10n said:
I doubt anyone really believes this, all of the time.

Even Boudicca seemed dubious about Seani.
Click to expand...

Yes, she doesn't believe that 100%. She explicitly denied someone's stated gender identity at least once. What I couldn't get from her is any description of how to draw that line between when to believe and when not to believe someone's stated gender identity.
 
Meadmaker said:
Blanchard?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot.

I will chant the TWAW mantra 1000 times for absolution. Is that enough do you think?

I would say 500 would be enough for Dr James Cantor and perhaps also enough for Dr Ken Zucker as they are also quite bad but not quite as discredited as Blanchard. Although they do tend to collaborate with and retweet Blanchard which is guilt by association. One might have gotten away with 100 for Cantor until recently but he seems to be increasingly tweeting unacceptable thoughts. Just look at his twitter feed. Disgraceful.

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD

Fortunately in the future all experts will be activists who already know what findings are discredited before obtaining them and we won't have to put up with this.
 
Elaedith said:
Fortunately in the future all experts will be activists who already know what findings are discredited before obtaining them and we won't have to put up with this.
Click to expand...

As the old Soviet joke goes, “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable”.
 
Ziggurat said:
As the old Soviet joke goes, “The future is certain; it is only the past that is unpredictable”.
Click to expand...

The vagueness of this thread is becoming weird.

Admittedly I have never heard of the Drs being name dropped with no context.
 
cullennz said:
The vagueness of this thread is becoming weird.

Admittedly I have never heard of the Drs being name dropped with no context.
Click to expand...

Dr. Ray Blanchard is the researcher most commonly associated with autogynephilia, the male sex fantasy of imagining yourself with a female body, most notably the naughty bits. Rolfe cited him repeatedly. When a lot of people discuss autogynophilia, they would dismiss it and possibly refer to "the discredited work of Ray Blanchard".

Blanchard did his transsexual (i.e. people who had been or were seeking to be surgically altered) research in the 1980s. It has not been discredited, although I think most people would say that it reflected a limited set of knowledge of the times, and that since then a great deal more has been learned.
 
Meadmaker said:
Dr. Ray Blanchard is the researcher most commonly associated with autogynephilia, the male sex fantasy of imagining yourself with a female body, most notably the naughty bits. Rolfe cited him repeatedly. When a lot of people discuss autogynophilia, they would dismiss it and possibly refer to "the discredited work of Ray Blanchard".

Blanchard did his transsexual (i.e. people who had been or were seeking to be surgically altered) research in the 1980s. It has not been discredited, although I think most people would say that it reflected a limited set of knowledge of the times, and that since then a great deal more has been learned.
Click to expand...

Cheers

:thumbsup:




Did some googling to work it out as well.
 
Blanchard's work has been built on and extended, as with any work of that vintage. But the trans lobby is largely made up of autogynaephiles, many of them narcissists, who try very hard to peddle the line that there's no such thing as autogynaephilia.
 
lionking said:
I don’t understand this. Ten percent of what?
Click to expand...

I haven't done the math, but I think he's saying the strength difference between men and women amounts to ten percent less effort on the part of the women.

Which raises interesting questions about the pay gap. If women are putting in 10% less effort, but only getting 7% lower pay...
 
theprestige said:
I haven't done the math, but I think he's saying the strength difference between men and women amounts to ten percent less effort on the part of the women.

Which raises interesting questions about the pay gap. If women are putting in 10% less effort, but only getting 7% lower pay...
Click to expand...

Gets even more complicated.

If you take shotput as an example the mens bally thing (not a euphemism Lol) weighs 7.26 kg and the womens 4 kg

Yet the even with the easier weight the record for men throwing is 23.12 m and the womens 22.63 m
 
theprestige said:
Hilariously, this is where the skeptics have been since the very beginning of the thread. The main theme being "self-ID is not an adequate safeguard". Unless you think self-ID is sufficient, and no more improvement of safeguards is needed, it looks like you've been in agreement on the main topic of debate all along.

Then it becomes a question of "what reasonable improvements can we make, that are not unacceptably offensive to transsexuals?" They way Boudicca puts it, the answer seems to be "none at all". What do you think?
Click to expand...



Well, I did formulate a couple of loose ideas in that post of mine to which you're responding here....

And I, erm, think that it's misleading (at best) to claim this. First off, the very title of this set of threads is "Trans Women are not Women", in case you'd forgotten. The title of this set of threads is not "Yes, transwomen are women, but self-ID is not an adequate safeguard wrt women-only spaces".

You also must have skipped all those pages in which various "sceptical" posters either intonated, insinuated or flat-out stated that transwomen are not women (with some lovely variations on that theme, such as words to the effect of "Heck, men can wear makeup and skirts and call themselves Josephine, but they're not women and they shouldn't be treated as women").

But hey ho, here we are.
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, I did formulate a couple of loose ideas in that post of mine to which you're responding here....

And I, erm, think that it's misleading (at best) to claim this. First off, the very title of this set of threads is "Trans Women are not Women", in case you'd forgotten. The title of this set of threads is not "Yes, transwomen are women, but self-ID is not an adequate safeguard wrt women-only spaces".

You also must have skipped all those pages in which various "sceptical" posters either intonated, insinuated or flat-out stated that transwomen are not women (with some lovely variations on that theme, such as words to the effect of "Heck, men can wear makeup and skirts and call themselves Josephine, but they're not women and they shouldn't be treated as women").

But hey ho, here we are.
Click to expand...
And here we are, since the beginning all agreeing that, women or not, transwomen should have access to women's spaces, as long as there's some safeguards. Even you agree about this. Even Emily's Cat agrees about this. Even Rolfe agrees about this. We may not agree about whether they're women, but we all agree about this. We've all agreed about this since the beginning.
 
Elaedith said:
I've noticed that what you can get away with as long as you profess the correct quasi-religious belief in gender identity is rather different to what you are allowed to say as a skeptic of gender ideology. The primary issue is really nothing to do with rights, it's about ideological conformity.

Dr Ray Blanchard makes this point rather well at around 12.00 below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qUH-5ixz70&ab_channel=BenjaminABoyce
Click to expand...



I think I can remember (albeit only just, and as a kid) when certain (heterosexual) groups were making similar pithy comments about the vocabulary for gay and lesbian people: that they were being forced (against their will and their "better" judgement) to conform to hollow ideological terminology for homosexual people - as opposed to, say, calling them batty boys or rug munchers.

And likewise, I'm pretty sure that a generation before that, certain (caucasian) groups were making similar pithy comments about the vocabulary for black (and, for that matter, all non-white) people. I imagine you can probably guess the sorts of epithets that these groups would prefer to have used to describe non-whites.

None of the above were/are sceptics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom