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

[Emily's Cat]

The person seems to have her head on straight in a way that not a lot of trans people or trans rights activists do. She seems capable of recognizing reality.

I think there are quite a few transgender and transsexual people out there who are NOT extremists. But their views aren't being represented by the LGBT+ organizations any more than the LGB are these days. And they get shouted down, de-platformed, and harassed just like females do.

It's that whole "truscum" versus "tucute" thing. Personally, I find those labels to be gross and offensive.

 

[theprestige]

FTFY

If this thread makes you so angry, feel free to find another one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Jeez. Can you really not get your head around the fact that many transgender people face a struggle to understand their own lived condition: they know they don't strictly conform to the gender which correlates to their biological sex 100% of the time, but they don't know quite why they experience this condition. And there's also the fact that for a (very small) proportion of males who desire to live and present as women, their desire is wholly or partially driven by autogynephilia.

But neither of these things should have anything more than a very slight impact upon society's need to recognise and protect transgender rights, and nor should they (or, indeed, nor do they) impact on the way the world's experts in the relevant fields understand and categorise gender dysphoria and transidentity.


What you're trying to do here, in essence, is similar to a) discovering a condition where a very small proportion of gay males determine in their minds that they're just "playing" at being gay, rather than being intrinsically gay, and they b) using this as some sort of rationale for denying/disavowing homosexuality itself as a genuine lived condition.

WElcome back LondonJohn! In case you've forgotten in the intervening day since you last posted...

Can you provide a definition of "woman" and "man" by the experts you keep appealing to? Can you also provide a link to the relevant experts definition or explaining what a "valid lived condition" is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Perhaps your statement should be modified to something like:

This particular thread is foundering because the "anti-TRA side" refuses to accept (or even, apparently, notice) that at least one "TRA side" poster has now repeatedly supplied definitions - the "anti-TRA side" mendaciously pretends instead that no such definitions have been provided, and uses that (entirely incorrect) conclusion as some sort of weapon to attack the "TRA side"

Once again, you provide links to a definition of "gender" and "gender identity"... but there is no definition of "woman" or "man" within your link.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I thought it was the DSM that said that transwomen are women, not the office of national statistics?

LJ has a LOT of appeals to authority that are seemingly invented on the spot.

For a self-proclaimed lawyer, you'd think he'd be better at providing support for his arguments.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Agreed.

Francesca! Long time no read!

 

[theprestige]

Not sure if you're aware, but the "enraging" part about it is that Turing was forced to take estrogen as a form of chemical castration by the court which found him guilty under anti-sodomy laws. He hated it so much, especially the fact that he grew breasts, that he committed suicide not long after.

I was aware of the mandatory chemical castration, and how it drove him to suicide. I wasn't sure if the estrogen was a part of that, so I focused on the other aspect of the claim.

But yeah, claiming that Alan Turing was taking estrogen to transition is indeed super enraging. And also super stupid, since the conventional wisdom these days is that medical transitioning is not a necessary step to becoming transsexual.

On the other hand, it's Twitter. My rule of thumb is that anything stupid and enraging that's posted on Twitter is probably a troll or a joke that didn't land, unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Turns out that it is not just the "cotton ceiling" for lesbians who won't date transwomen but there's a "boxer ceiling" for gay men who won't date transmen too.

https://twitter.com/daandyboy/status/933072085492142082

Amazeballs.

It's so strange. In addition to equality for females being clawed back, they're also clawing back equality for gay and lesbian people too. It's something I really never expected to see happen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep, and also when attitudes based on the notion that access to sex was more important than a potential partner's preferences, desires, or consent was called "rape culture."

Think of how much time MRAs have wasted calling reluctant women "teases" or "c-words." If they'd thought of calling them "regressive misandrists" and "phallophobic bigots" they could have got 'em locked up in the house barefoot by now.

Inorite? It's... frightening.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I got "cancelled" again.


This time for saying that sex in homo sapiens is binary. Interesting how that goes actually, I insult and disrespect them all the time but that's not what gets you cancelled. No, stating a perfectly true empirical fact...that is what gets you cancelled. Well the previous time was because I couldn't help myself mocking the nutty vegans again, but that one was a single exception, all the other times it was for stuff like this. What a hoot!

It's all about controlling the narrative by controlling the language.

They took Orwell as a "how to book" instead of a cautionary tale

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is just the weirdest ****.

Of course A gay man wouldn't be down with a trans man. This is a contentious thing too? Wtf, guys?

I mean, if you are a straight guy, you are sexually attracted to the female body. Whip out a schlong and and sexual attraction abruptly withers. Same for a gay man or lesbian and their relative objects of desire.

Is the contention seriously that a gay man should be expected to overlook/ignore the fact that the partner's body before him is not of the sex he is attracted to? That's ridiculous.

It's an attempt to coercively redefine attraction to be based on gender identity rather than sex. Seems to go hand-in-hand with the efforts to replace every reference to sex with "gender", and to eliminate the terms "woman" and "man as being related to sex. Thus we see "uterus havers" and "birthing parent" and "cervix owners" and "menstruators" and "chest feeders".

I'm doing my part though - trying to normalize "sperm producer" and "testicle owner" and "prostate haver" and "erection experiencers" instead of the bigoted uninclusive "men"

 

[theprestige]

So is there an actual word that means "adult human biological female"?

I thought it was the DSM that said that transwomen are women, not the office of national statistics?

LondonJohn's reference doesn't even say that transwomen are women, only that feminine people are women. For example an effeminate gay man is a woman according to this website, whereas a masculine lesbian is a man.

Once again, you provide links to a definition of "gender" and "gender identity"... but there is no definition of "woman" or "man" within your link.

LondonJohn, I'm sorry. Personally I think your reference to the UK Office for National Statistics' definition of sex and gender was good enough to continue the discussion, but this doesn't seem to be the consensus view.

I do think it's a valid criticism that your reference does not actually include a definition of "man" and "woman".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, according to Stonewall:

Hold on, I got this...

Stonewall isn't a real Trans-Rights organization. They're actually an anti-trans group trying to make trans activists look bad!

 

[theprestige]

LJ has a LOT of appeals to authority that are seemingly invented on the spot.

For a self-proclaimed lawyer, you'd think he'd be better at providing support for his arguments.

Well, lawyers do have certain stereotype in popular culture.

What I find interesting is the repeated woo pattern of providing supporting links to sources that don't support the claim at all. Sometimes they flatly contradict it. Jabba's thread about the Shroud of Turin was constantly having this problem.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think there are quite a few transgender and transsexual people out there who are NOT extremists. But their views aren't being represented by the LGBT+ organizations any more than the LGB are these days. And they get shouted down, de-platformed, and harassed just like females do.

It's that whole "truscum" versus "tucute" thing. Personally, I find those labels to be gross and offensive.

Well that's a good point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As an aside, I think it's kind of silly to link to the Stats office definition, rather than to a primary source.

The Stats office simply references the UK government's definition.

Presumably if we track down the UK government's definition, it would reference the UK department of health or some such.

And if we tracked that down, we'd probably find the definition preferred by some established and reputable medical authority.
I'm happy to accept the Stats office definition provisionally as LondonJohn's definition. I think it would be better if he were to track it down to it's originating authority, and cite that instead.

And of course I think it would best if he just gave his own definition in his own words, with a citation back to the sources of his reasoning. But it's a very long thread, and it's quite possible that he's already done so. I welcome correction on this point if it's happened already and I just missed it.

I suspect that you'd actually come up against a definition provided by Stonewall, rather than one established by a medical authority.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well...yeah, I get that you wouldn't be attracted to all women. But it's fair to categorically be unattracted to all male bodies. Except during the Olympics. My wife and I both get unapologetically a little bi then.

My spouse & I have had this discussion. We've concluded that it's not really sexual attraction... it's appreciation of an aesthetically pleasing human form, which isn't limited to appreciation for only the opposite sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Liar! You got warned for taking advantage of my dearth of posts by making fun of that guy on Twitter. Nothing's been "cancelled" except Damion's giant laughs.

DoO you personally know caveman from this "social-anarchist-liberal setting"?

 

[theprestige]

I suspect that you'd actually come up against a definition provided by Stonewall, rather than one established by a medical authority.

I prefer to give LJ some benefit of the doubt as long as possible. Nothing would make me happier than to see him break the cycle and cite a truly authoritative original source for his definitions. And also to give his definitions himself, in his own words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My goodness this one is just enraging.

That's some serious revisionist history.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/alan-turings-body/282641/

When Turing was convicted for gross indecency, the British government forced him to choose between chemical castration and imprisonment; he chose castration, which meant taking estrogen pills.

Turing wasn't trans at all.