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

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is like hell. It's Sisyphean. Every time we're on the verge of making some sort of advancement in the discussion, it gets bogged down or reset somehow. Some of the disputes about words and reality and meaning border on surreal, at least the way they are being worded. Read this thread stoned, I dare you. Your brain will explode. I don't know how anyone with ANY position can stand it at this point. I'm so frustrated, I feel like I want to go start a fight with the unmasked hordes at the nearby gas station, just to blow off some steam.
 
Distracted1 said:
Seems like you are making an argument against the expectations themselves, like an old-fashioned Liberal.
Click to expand...
I would make such an argument (probably have upthread) but that's not what I'm doing here. Basically I'm just acknowledging that gendered (feminine vs. masculine) social expectations and norms do exist and are relatively easy to find if you're looking around for them.
 
Collin237 said:
That may be changing. The inauguration of Joe Biden has started a "fringe reset", as ThePrestige calls it.
Click to expand...

That's not a fringe reset as I call it.

In skeptical debate, "fringe reset" refers to a common woo behavior, where a woo proponent is backed into a corner where they can no longer support their proposal. They react by resetting the debate back to an earlier point, where the objections have not yet been raised, and the failure to address those objections has not yet been manifest.

I have no idea why it's called a "fringe" reset. What I call a fringe reset is what you did upon entry into this thread: Ignore five installments of the debate, in which much has been discussed. Ideas have been proposed, rebuttals have been mooted, explanations have been asked for and not provided. So you've ignored all this discussion and tried to restart the conversation as if we haven't already covered this ground more than once.
 
Butter! said:
This thread is like hell. It's Sisyphean. Every time we're on the verge of making some sort of advancement in the discussion, it gets bogged down or reset somehow. Some of the disputes about words and reality and meaning border on surreal, at least the way they are being worded. Read this thread stoned, I dare you. Your brain will explode. I don't know how anyone with ANY position can stand it at this point. I'm so frustrated, I feel like I want to go start a fight with the unmasked hordes at the nearby gas station, just to blow off some steam.
Click to expand...

:D I can barely read it sober!
 
Collin237 said:
Elaedith:

Guilt by association, ad hominem, and a total lack of argument about any substantial claim.

And, IMHO, reminiscent of typical anti-science screeds.

Aber: Ask ThePrestige for citations.
Click to expand...

Bruh. Read the thread.

And feel free to ask me for citations yourself, if you think any of my claims need to be disputed.
 
Collin237 said:
Elaedith:

Guilt by association, ad hominem, and a total lack of argument about any substantial claim.

And, IMHO, reminiscent of typical anti-science screeds.

Aber: Ask ThePrestige for citations.
Click to expand...

You, like so many TRAs, seem to go silent when it comes to women’s sport (this issue was the genesis of this thread BTW). How do you feel about self identified, male bodied and testosterone fuelled people competing against women and blowing them off the track and even hurting them in contact sports?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Hmm. And a few years ago Zinnia Jones posted on Twitter "It'd be nice if there were roving gangs of trans women beating the **** out of transphobes, but alas, this doesn't seem to be the case"

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/21/terf-isnt-slur-hate-speech/
Click to expand...


And while probably not the person who coined it, Zinna Jones is the first person I heard to unironically use the term 'ladycock'. If one relies on Zinna Jones for anything other than misanthropic/comedic purposes one has failed. Horribly.
 
d4m10n said:
I would make such an argument (probably have upthread) but that's not what I'm doing here. Basically I'm just acknowledging that gendered (feminine vs. masculine) social expectations and norms do exist and are relatively easy to find if you're looking around for them.
Click to expand...


That's true, but the idea of making the definition of one's sex into whether or not one conforms or is expected to conform to such regressive sexist stereotypes is not clever.
 
Rolfe said:
That's true, but the idea of making the definition of one's sex into whether or not one conforms or is expected to conform to such regressive sexist stereotypes is not clever.
Click to expand...
I defined sex strictly in terms of gamete production at #1031.

Perhaps you're thinking of gender?

ETA: I do not assent to the implicit assumption that all gendered expectations are "regressive sexist stereotypes" in practice. Some of the so-called feminine virtues are indeed virtuous and ought to be taught to girls and boys alike, IMO.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
You, like so many TRAs, seem to go silent when it comes to women’s sport (this issue was the genesis of this thread BTW). How do you feel about self identified, male bodied and testosterone fuelled people competing against women and blowing them off the track and even hurting them in contact sports?
Click to expand...

1. I'm not an activist.
2. I have no way of knowing whether this is a common occurrence.
3. I think sports are vastly overrated, so I don't much care.
 
d4m10n said:
I defined sex strictly in terms of gamete production at #1031.

Perhaps you're thinking of gender?

ETA: I do not assent to the implicit assumption that all gendered expectations are regressive sexist stereotypes.
Click to expand...


Gender is not important. I can think of literally nothing that should be legally segregated by gender. Feel how you like inside your head. Wear what you like, call yourself what you like, have whatever cosmetic surgery you like, take whatever medications you like. But do not attempt to intrude into the spaces or categories reserved for the sex you are not.
 
Joe Random said:
And while probably not the person who coined it, Zinna Jones is the first person I heard to unironically use the term 'ladycock'. If one relies on Zinna Jones for anything other than misanthropic/comedic purposes one has failed. Horribly.
Click to expand...

I was referring to her as an example of a viewpoint. I don't take her seriously. I just think she gets the big picture, in a comedic sort of way.
 
Collin237 said:
1. I'm not an activist.
Click to expand...
Just a kibitzer?

2. I have no way of knowing whether this is a common occurrence.
Click to expand...
Bruh. Read the thread. It's been a consistent pattern for every TRA and TRK who's participated so far.

For example:
3. I think sports are vastly overrated, so I don't much care.
Click to expand...
Would it surprise you to learn that every TRA and TRK in this thread who's been pressed on this point has given almost exactly the same answer?

Meanwhile, I think butt sex is vastly overrated. But I still care very much about the human right of sodomites of every gender to indulge their predilections without fear of persecution or prosecution.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to solve social problems by declaring that the people who care about those problems are second-class citizens whose concerns should be summarily dismissed.

---
Pun most definitely intended. Own your puns, people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom