• 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.
Emily's Cat said:
There's a lot less support when that shifted to self-id with no diagnosis, and with no expectation of surgery at all.
Click to expand...

I think this was originally because government health care systems made diagnosis and surgery too difficult. It's well known that governments set up smoke-and-mirrors operations to avoid having to tackle difficult issues. If they can sell the line of "Self-ID is what U NEED", so they can shuffle off the time and expense of setting up a convenient system of diagnosis and surgery, then they'll do whatever propaganda manipulations that entails.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
That's because we're not actually one group. The only thing we have in common is being objects of your derision.
Click to expand...

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.

Funny you should mention "canals on Mars". Mars does actually have long narrow valleys that are colloquially called canals. And trans women who pass as women are colloquially called women.
Click to expand...

That's not remotely what the canals on Mars controversy was about. As for your last sentence, I will refer you to the supposedly "offensive" subject line of this thread. But I'll file you into the subcategory of "treat like" but "isn't actually" when it comes to this issue.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I really don't know how else to put it.

I simply can't image why so many people are shocked, simply shocked I say, that an entire 1/2 of the population, the vast majority of whom are perfectly decent people who have no predatory intent on anyone, aren't just willing to go along with being treated like we're on permanent parole or under permanent rehabilitation with a smile on our faces and a skip in our step.
Click to expand...

OMG. Not wanting males in female-only spaces is somehow equivalent to treating you like you're on permanent parole?

Females: We want to keep the places where we're naked as places where males aren't allowed.

JoeMorgue: Waah! You're treating me like I'm some kind of predator! It's unfair! Waaah!
 
Emily's Cat said:
OMG. Not wanting males in female-only spaces is somehow equivalent to treating you like you're on permanent parole?

Females: We want to keep the places where we're naked as places where males aren't allowed.

JoeMorgue: Waah! You're treating me like I'm some kind of predator! It's unfair! Waaah!
Click to expand...

Cool. Now do it for separate black and white spaces and see how it sounds.

White women were REALLY scared of black men back in the day.

I can already tell the amount of "Well no that's different because... *mumble*" is going to be amazing.
 
Meadmaker said:
To be honest, I'm not sure why it bothers you that we are.

It provides an opportunity for us to prove that we aren't the bad sort of man, always looking out to get laid, and the ladies appreciate that.

And we can use that to our advantage and get laid.


Well, I vaguely remember that was the way it used to work. Being old, fat, and married has changed that dynamic a bit.
Click to expand...

This made me laugh. :D
 
theprestige said:
If it doesn't happen by itself, do you think a law should be placed in that case?

Do you think a law should be placed to address people who buck the trend and don't do it?
Click to expand...

No. I am simply saying I prefer more privacy, and it seems people tend to prefer it more and more these days. This isn't a moral and legal imperative, just a consumer preference.

Building codes for gym locker rooms isn't really something I see as that necessary for trans anti-discrimination laws.
 
The "Just push for more privacy overall" does seem to be the only solution put on the table that gets us closer to what everyone is claiming they want.
 
Collin237 said:
I think this was originally because government health care systems made diagnosis and surgery too difficult. It's well known that governments set up smoke-and-mirrors operations to avoid having to tackle difficult issues. If they can sell the line of "Self-ID is what U NEED", so they can shuffle off the time and expense of setting up a convenient system of diagnosis and surgery, then they'll do whatever propaganda manipulations that entails.
Click to expand...

It's not the governments pushing this. It's the transactivist organizations pushing it. Governments are just going along with it.

Additionally, the rigor of diagnosis hasn't really been in place for a while. Look into the Tavistock clinic in UK, and particularly the case of Keira Bell and the results of the investigation that resulted from her case. The short version is that Tavistock has been "diagnosing" minors with gender dysphoria after only a few hours of discussion, and immediately moving to prescribe them puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones.

For many people, myself included, this is medical malpractice. For transgender activists, the fact that they're engaging in any sort of diagnosis at all, rather than just providing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on request is a travesty.

Collin, you seem like a great person, and once past that first day of breaking in to a new forum, you seem very reasonable. :D I'm glad you're engaging in this thread. It also seems like you're working from a set of assumptions that aren't as true as you think they are. That's okay - that's where I was about two years ago too. There is a LOT going on behind the scenes, hidden from view, that is completely counter to what the general well-meaning public thinks the whole thing is about.

Despite the framing of it as such, this discussion isn't fueled by hatred or fear of transgender people. It's almost entirely two topics. 1) The conflict between the sex-based rights of females and the gender-based rights of transwomen, and 2) Self-ID and a lack of physical transition.
 
d4m10n said:
Have you noticed there are people whom you treat as women (she/her/ma'am/"The ladies' department is that way.") and others whom you treat as men (he/him/sir/"The haberdashery is upstairs.")? Are you 100% sure that these social roles line up with their chromosomal sex or sex at birth? If not, then you too may be classifying and treating people based on their social gender role (to include gender presentation) rather than their sex.
Click to expand...

Stop going off on irrelevant tangents. We're discussing your definition, the one you provided earlier.

Your definition is improper. Here's your definition condensed: A woman is anyone most genderists expect femininity from, a man is anyone most genderists expect masculinity from. Ergo, in order to determine whether a transwoman is a man or a woman, we'd have to know whether most genderists expect either masculinity or femininity from them. Until you provide this information, your definition is improper - it can not be used to determine the truth-value of the proposition "transwomen are women."
 
theprestige said:
Which valleys would these be?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_network_(Mars)

Of course this has nothing to do with what Shiaparrelli thought he saw. But if one says "canal" instead of "valley", no sane person automatically assumes that one is advocating Shiapparrelli's theory.

Do you assume that everyone who uses the words "sunrise" and "sunset" believes the sun goes around the earth?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yaniv lost in court and had to pay recompense to the victims of her legal harassment. Canada passed trans rights into law and yet Yaniv's crackpot legal trolling was unsuccesful.

It's almost as if the anti-trans doomsaying around the issue was totally off-base.
Click to expand...

How is any of that relevant to what I said?
 
Emily's Cat said:
1) The conflict between the sex-based rights of females and the gender-based rights of transwomen, and 2) Self-ID and a lack of physical transition.
Click to expand...

There is not a consensus among cis women that trans rights come at the expense of their own rights. The term "TERF" was created explicitly to differentiate between feminists who are in support of trans rights, and the feminists who see trans rights as an attack on the rights of women. As far as I can tell, the TERFs are a very loud minority of the broader feminist movement that stands in solidarity with trans people.

Not everyone sees civil rights as a zero-sum game. In fact, many see expanding civil rights as a boon to all other marginalized groups.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_network_(Mars)

Of course this has nothing to do with what Shiaparrelli thought he saw. But if one says "canal" instead of "valley", no sane person automatically assumes that one is advocating Shiapparrelli's theory.

Do you assume that everyone who uses the words "sunrise" and "sunset" believes the sun goes around the earth?
Click to expand...

Canals are artificial and man-made, you know. It's in the definition. Partly it was a translation error from channels to canals that caused the controversy in the first place.

Definitions matter.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There is a LOT going on behind the scenes, hidden from view, that is completely counter to what the general well-meaning public thinks the whole thing is about.
Click to expand...

I'm not allowed to say it, but I think you know very well where statements like that crop up.
 
theprestige said:
It's implicit in the entire premise of dictionaries. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. The list of words and definitions is literally, "this is how people are using these words"*

---
*As of some arbitrary point in time, since it's a moving target and dictionaries have to take snapshots of their best efforts.
Click to expand...

Yes, a truism everyone knows (words ultimately mean whatever people think they mean) which is also irrelevant. It's a red herring, since obviously just because that truism is true, doesn't mean that dictionaries explicitly define words as "X is whatever people think X means." Otherwise it would be easy to generate a dictionary, just repeat the above and substitute X for every word in the English language.
 
Emily, Rolfe (and anyone else.)

Serious proposal which I am presenting without malice or ill intent and I would appreciate a response in kind.

Would something along the lines of pushing (maybe legally, maybe just socially) for more privacy in spaces such as locker rooms and public bathrooms at least be steps toward (not necessarily 100% perfect solutions, but just steps toward) providing you with the comfort and safety you are seeking? Because I feel it would also tone down the feeling that men are being assumed to be predators.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom