• 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:
That being said, I can see making a case for being trans-exclusionary a prerequisite for being a feminist.
Click to expand...

Why? If you're being consistent in applying the criterium of sex rather than gender identity then there's no reason to exclude transmen. If you mean transwoman-exclusionary then that would seem to fall under the general male-exclusionary, again if you're being consistent in using the criterium of sex rather than gender identity.
 
caveman1917 said:
Why? If you're being consistent in applying the criterium of sex rather than gender identity then there's no reason to exclude transmen. If you mean transwoman-exclusionary then that would seem to fall under the general male-exclusionary, again if you're being consistent in using the criterium of sex rather than gender identity.
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant male exclusionary (including TW). The UK feminists (even the more 'radical' ones) seem fairly consistent on this - all females - including trans-men - welcome. Edited that last post to clarify.
 
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...

I'm not shocked that you're offended. (I don't think you should be, but that's just my opinion - plus you're an actual guy, and the problem here is a perceived stereotype about guys, so yeah, haha. My opinion only really holds so much weight.)

I'm a tiny bit shocked that you would honestly want to get rid of men's and women's bathrooms entirely, though. I don't know, maybe I've been indoctrinated by the status quo, but I think it's good to have a space to get away from each other for certain things. I'm not shy, and yet - if there were always guys in the bathroom every time I was out (assuming I ever get to go out again, **** this pandemic), I'm not sure I'd enjoy that. It's embarrassing to put on or touch up makeup in front of men, for example. I'll pee and fart and change in front of y'all, but touching up makeup is mortifying for some reason.

It just seems like a recipe for a hella awkward world. Surely there are ways to accommodate trans women without resorting to such a radical step.
 
d4m10n said:
I take your point, but pattern recognition algorithms (at least the ones I've studied and occasionally written) tend to use the least subtle signals first and use more subtle features to update the initial assessment. What's your assessment when the obvious features (e.g. bald head, beard stubble, lack of breasts) are in conflict with the less obvious ones such as those you describe above? My approach is usually to go with whatever signals the individual in question has under their conscious control.
Click to expand...

By your logic, you would perceive Eddie Izzard to be a female, because he consciously wears women's clothing and makeup? Would you perceive old-school Sinead O'Connor to be male because her head was shaved?

I think you're underestimating how much sex-differentiated morphology plays into your perception.
 
caveman1917 said:
Why? If you're being consistent in applying the criterium of sex rather than gender identity then there's no reason to exclude transmen. If you mean transwoman-exclusionary then that would seem to fall under the general male-exclusionary, again if you're being consistent in using the criterium of sex rather than gender identity.
Click to expand...

It gets glossed over, but the radical feminists don't exclude transmen. They include them because they are female.

It's part of why the term is a misnomer as well as being used as a slur. It's almost always a case of "Male-Exclusionary" not "Trans-Exclusionary". And despite any catchy slogans, transwomen are still male.
 
caveman1917 said:
Why? If you're being consistent in applying the criterium of sex rather than gender identity then there's no reason to exclude transmen. If you mean transwoman-exclusionary then that would seem to fall under the general male-exclusionary, again if you're being consistent in using the criterium of sex rather than gender identity.
Click to expand...


Criterion. Just saying.
 
Rolfe said:
Criterion. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Oh right, thanks. English uses an anglicized version, never noticed that. In Dutch we use the original criterium. ETA: Oh, it's from Greek, not anglicized. Huh, that's funny, some languages took the Greek and some the Latin.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
That's a... disturbing.. read.
Click to expand...

'Tie your campaign to more popular reform'

Conflating trans rights with gay rights is major factor behind the emerging dominance of the affirmation-only approach for early gender dysphoria. There is no science behind this whatsoever; all existing evidence shows that without affirmation the majority of children with gender dysphoria reidentify with their natal sex during puberty. Social transition increases the likelihood of gender dysphoria persisting, and with puberty blockers almost 100% persist and go on to further medical treatment such as cross-sex hormones.

Earlier in the thread I linked to expert testimony on the legislation in Canada to ban conversion therapy where gender identity was tacked on to gay conversion therapy (there is no such thing as conversion therapy for gender identity).

Contrary to arrant nonsense previously posted in this thread along the lines of 'I'm right because the government agrees with me, and the government always consults experts on these matters', the world's leading expert on gender dysphoria, Ken Zucker, was not consulted in drawing up the legislation, despite living in Canada. He and James Cantor had to apply for five minutes to testify at the hearing and ask for gender identity to be removed from the proposed legislation. Prior to this, the politician proposing the Bill had declared that their legal advisors had already approved it, and he would need some convincing to make any amendments. This Bill was described by Zucker as being 'completely silent' on any relevant science related to gender dysphoria. It simply tacked gender identity on to the existing literature on the harmfulness of conversion therapy for sexual orientation.

Cantor also published an article giving showing how the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed affirmative only for 'trans kids' on the basis of misrepresenting evidence that actually related to sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
We've seen it time and time again in this thread. "Oh but if you were discriminating against homosexual people that would be wrong. Oh but if you were discriminating against black people that would be wrong."

But we're not.
 
Collin237 said:
What do you think you're "opening" me to? Believing a fake pamphlet?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's fake? Because it's too extreme?

That's naive.

Look, there is certainly fake pro-trans material out there. I've pointed to Titania McGrath before as an example. But there are certain hallmarks of most parody that you can see in McGrath's work that aren't in that link. I see no indications that it's fake. What do you see that makes you think so?
 
Collin237 said:
Because I'm being ganged up on.
Click to expand...

Then ask people to slow down a bit. Or, just take a break for a bit, you're under no obligation to respond to all the posts directed at you or to post on any kind of schedule. Dismissing stuff as fake doesn't really work as a tactic.
 
Ziggurat said:
Then ask people to slow down a bit. Or, just take a break for a bit, you're under no obligation to respond to all the posts directed at you or to post on any kind of schedule. Dismissing stuff as fake doesn't really work as a tactic.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one using tactics here. Rolfe said I'm going to reach "peak trans". So I looked up that phrase. This is what it means:

https://medium.com/@SadistHailey/the-terrifying-thought-process-behind-peak-trans-4765ced450c1

Peak trans means the moment of being convinced that fake news is real. :mad:

I know the pamphlet is fake because, by using those words, Rolfe admitted it was.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom