• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm simply stating what seem to me to be obvious observations based on this thread and some google searches. I have no hypothesis about any kind of fancy behind-the-scenes deals that would qualify as a conspiracy theory.

Let me try to clear this up:

In my opinion, many of the goals of trans advocacy organizations, as well as the methods that they employ, are ultimately harmful to transgender people, and are likely to be ineffective and to produce backlash that loses grounds for transgender people. The very short version of this is that trans advocacy organizations are bad for transpeople.

On the other hand, however, they actually really are acting as trans advocacy groups. They actually really are employing those tactics, with the actual real goal of shaping policy to meet their stated goals.

A logical and rational person, capable of understanding the consequences of that approach, can look at it and say "that's as bad as if it were anti-trans". It's along the same lines as saying "Trump as a republican is as bad for republicans as if he'd been a democrat".

But that doesn't make those organizations actually anti-trans groups trying to undermine trans rights on purpose.

Rational logical people recognized that Trump was a horror show of a republican and set the party back by decades... but that still doesn't make Trump a secret democrat plant trying to bring the republican party down from the inside ;).
 
In a strange way I think Collin has a point. Not as a 'conspiracy', but I think that the current toxic trans activism is a type of cult, not all of the key players are transgender, and they are using people who are transgender for their own interests. Bret Weinstein said something similar in one of the videos I linked to a while back - that very few transgender people he knew were actually interested in 're-writing the rules of logic' or 'telling biologists what to think' (as TRAs are). Rather, transgender people are being used as an excuse for bullying and to gain the power to hard code preferred ideologies into society.

I think it may have started that way... but it seems that the more the ideology is pushed, the more true believers they gain.

Very L. Ron Hubbard sort of a thing going on.
 
Interesting point. Martina Navratilova was coached by a post-operative transwoman (Renee Richards) for some time. She said that at the time when she was women's world no 1, at the absolute peak of her fitness and her career and her tennis skills, she could barely hang on against Richards, who had never been that close to the top in men's tennis, and was by then in his late 40s, that is over the hill.

Richards wasn't just on female hormones, Richards was fully castrated. No testicles, no testosterone. Not even the low-level testosterone females have, secreted by the ovaries. (OK maybe a trace from the adrenals.) And was still able to stand at least equal to one of the best female players of all time, when she was at her peak and he was at the age when the men are all playing each other for laughs after their stints in the commentary box.
 
Last edited:
Also... for the "nobody's just going to pretend to be trans just to compete in sports" side of this ****-show...

“I just clicked a box saying I was female” – male Trinity student comes 2nd in women’s race

I registered online and clicked a box saying I was female. When I came to collect my race number from the Trinity Sports Centre, the lady there said “So you’re male?” as she went to make an adjustment to her spreadsheet. In a slightly triggered tone I said “No, I am female”, and that solved the matter.
 
Then what does?



Define female in a meaningful way that isn't pure, arbitrary self-determination.
For scientific and medical purposes, the ability to become pregnant is a distinction. But for all other matters, I don't see biology as that relevant when it comes to sex.

Like the census discussion earlier, I would put my sex as female, as I always do when I am given the option. Likewise a transgender man would put male.
 
For scientific and medical purposes, the ability to become pregnant is a distinction. But for all other matters, I don't see biology as that relevant when it comes to sex.

Like the census discussion earlier, I would put my sex as female, as I always do when I am given the option. Likewise a transgender man would put male.

Do you understand that your personal beliefs, and what is important to you, doesn't dictate that anyone else has to have the same view?

Just because something is not important to you doesn't mean that it's unimportant across the board.

Consider: Gender identity just isn't important to me. It's just not a big deal, it's irrelevant.

I assume that the lack of importance to me doesn't make it unimportant across the board, and shouldn't in any way indicate that it should be unimportant to you.
 
They are male.

Being able to become pregnant doesn't automatically mean they are female.

Sponge cakes pontificate when small rivers sublet their drills. Which is why the Kizinti belong to the substrate of tempered steel commonly referred to as "blancmange".

If you don't understand the above then you should understand why words have to have agreed-upon meanings to have any utility what-so-ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom