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

[llwyd]

You mean, hostile and juvenile things like that?

No, even if your opponents would be like that, and I don't think that they all are, even still you are bound to be respectful and polite in the light of the grave historical - and even modern - unspeakeable brutalities. I mean what's the downside? You can still make you arguments unapologetically (as I have made mine almost equally politically incorrect) but not be insulting and sneering. I absolutely think that in the light of the very real gender dysphoria and the very real and absolutely disgusting persecution of trans people being undisputed empirical facts, we should be somewhat circumspect how we address this issue. Or do you really, genuinely disagree?

 

[Cavemonster]

Hypothesis: A position that argues for a limitation of trans rights, insofar as it is an attempt to balance competing interests between trans people and others, is not bigoted nor motivated by fear, hatred, etc.

Feel free to substitute some other group or identity for "trans" in the above statement to test it out.

I'd add in a "necessarily" there.

As long as you're inviting substitutions, think broadly. When balancing rights, certainly some limitations of rights for any group X to benefit competing interests of group Y can be based on fear or hatred or bigotry.

And traditionally, many acts of balancing competing rights have shown at least a lesser valuing of one group by favoring another.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sounds circular to me.:

"It's a delusion, so it's an invalid lived condition." and
"It's a valid lived condition, so it's not a delusion."

You perhaps need to brush up on your understanding of circular reasoning.

Hint:

"It's a (non-zero) positive number, so it's not a (non-zero) negative number", and

"It's a (non-zero) negative number, so it's not a (non-zero) positive number"

 

[Olmstead]

Invalid. Valid. There's some conditions that come pretty close to transgenderism. Transableism is one. That's an invalid condition. I mean, just look at them, they want their limbs removed. What's wrong with these people?

Transgenderism is valid though. There's all that stuff about gender, and I think homosexuals were discriminated against in the past, and black people were kept out of Mexican toilets. Maybe?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it's not. Because the quicker - and more accurate - way to describe an invalid lived experience is "delusion" or, a little more broadly, "mental health disorder".

What's your take on a person insisting that they have a female penis? Is that a valid lived condition?

What's your take on the claim that transwomen are women (full stop), and whether or not "women" has any valid meaning in that context?

As I've said previously, gender dysphoria is a valid lived condition under your definition. It is true that a person with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has the actual condition of dysphoria. It is true that such a person feels that their body and their mind don't match.

What is NOT necessarily true is that their mental state dictates reality and changes them into a "woman" in any remotely reasonable way that has any bearing on the experiences of females as women.

 

[Ron Obvious]

You perhaps need to brush up on your understanding of circular reasoning.

Hint:

"It's a (non-zero) positive number, so it's not a (non-zero) negative number", and

"It's a (non-zero) negative number, so it's not a (non-zero) positive number"

I have a clear understanding of what zero, positive and negative numbers are.

I've no idea what distinguishes valid lived experiences from invalid lived experiences, and neither do you it seems.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Things like mocking transgender identity, denying transgender identity, calling transwomen "chicks with dicks", referring to transwomen as males who are doing nothing more than playing at being women with lipstick and dresses. Things like that. Any of that sound familiar....?

Wow. Just wow. Things actually said in these threads about females, and to denigrate and insult females are just fine.

This really does reinforce my interpretation of the trans agenda as being innately misogynistic.

 

[Boudicca90]

If you don't want to put up with it, perhaps consider posting elsewhere. You might want to step back and review though. I think you've been "misgendered" (by which I mean that the grammatically correct pronouns were applied) maybe three or four times throughout these threads. For example, I don't believe I have EVER used a male pronoun in reference to you, despite the fact that it is grammatically errant.

On the other hand... how many people have you referred to as bigots, transphobes, TERFs, delusional, paranoid, or hysterical? How many times have you referred to me alone with such terms?

Perhaps you might consider showing others the respect and courtesy that you demand we grant you.

No, but you still continually refer to me as male, although I haven't reported any of that. You are respectful to me only to a certain point, the point you feel comfortable with.

And those examples of me using those terms are characterizing your arguments against trans rights in this thread. I have been called delusional many times in this thread as well, that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Paul2]

I'd add in a "necessarily" there.

Sure, that makes sense.

As long as you're inviting substitutions, think broadly. When balancing rights, certainly some limitations of rights for any group X to benefit competing interests of group Y can be based on fear or hatred or bigotry.

This mixes things up, I think. I'm referring to one's ultimate goal, not specific tactics. If one's goal is discrimination or oppression, one might use the ruse of balancing rights to achieve that goal. But if one merely thinks that competing rights need to be balanced, that is a much different goal.

And traditionally, many acts of balancing competing rights have shown at least a lesser valuing of one group by favoring another.

Balancing rights necessarily means, I think, that one group will win some things and maybe not others, and the other group will as well. It can well come down to a zero-sum game, in which case even a fair, neutral approach to balancing rights is going to favor one side or the other.

I'm trying to establish the principle that a fair approach to balancing rights between competing groups is possible and can not be rejected out of hand.

 

[Collin237]

It's tempting to quibble about which of those undeniable facts are actually undeniable. Yes, there is an aspect of undeniability about certain aspects of the transgender condition, but some people carry it well beyond the undeniable part.

However, instead, I will focus on one aspect," the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment."

I could quibble on this, by discussing how effective it is, and whether it is effective in all cases where it is tried, but that's not the point. Let's put that aside for a moment. The problem with your statement is that in the modern world, the trans rights activists say that transition is unnecessary. Never mind that it is effective, a person should not need to pursue this rather effective treatment. Doing so, or not, is their choice. However, we are told, it does not matter whether they pursue this effective treatment. They must be treated as the gender they identify with in any and all circumstances, and the only way to know that they identify with that gender is to ask them, and anyone who disagrees is a hateful bigot.

Being rational, I say that's not very rational.

That's because people have their own minds, and everyone is capable of deciding their own agenda. Nobody can compel someone to support the rights of a group they belong to, or to agree what those rights are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, even if your opponents would be like that, and I don't think that they all are, even still you are bound to be respectful and polite in the light of the grave historical - and even modern - unspeakeable brutalities. I mean what's the downside? You can still make you arguments unapologetically (as I have made mine almost equally politically incorrect) but not be insulting and sneering. I absolutely think that in the light of the very real gender dysphoria and the very real and absolutely disgusting persecution of trans people being undisputed empirical facts, we should be somewhat circumspect how we address this issue. Or do you really, genuinely disagree?

Why are they not equally obligated from making disrespectful and demeaning comments in light of the grave historical and even modern unspeakable brutalities practices against females?

 

[Boudicca90]

What's your take on a person insisting that they have a female penis? Is that a valid lived condition?

To clarify this once again, I never said I have a 'female penis'. A penis is just an appendage, it doesn't have a gender of it's own.

My penis is just a penis, it just happens to be part of a female body. Just as a trans man's vagina/vulva isn't a 'male' one, he is just a male with a vagina/vulva.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd add in a "necessarily" there.

As long as you're inviting substitutions, think broadly. When balancing rights, certainly some limitations of rights for any group X to benefit competing interests of group Y can be based on fear or hatred or bigotry.

And traditionally, many acts of balancing competing rights have shown at least a lesser valuing of one group by favoring another.

And in this case, the proposed approach is to favor the "rights" of males, raised as males, who identify as women through a completely subjective internal feeling, over the safety, dignity, and rights of females. Thus, assigning lesser value to females.

Not just lesser value, mind you, but actually placing the rights, safety, and dignity of females below the feelings of male-bodied people who identify as women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, but you still continually refer to me as male, although I haven't reported any of that. You are respectful to me only to a certain point, the point you feel comfortable with.

I'm also going to continue to refer to you as human, and not as a giraffe. I've been respectful to you for a very, very long time. You are male, and I'm not going to deny objective reality to kowtow to your feelings. Perhaps you are correct - I am uncomfortable taking an anti-science position and repeating falsehoods as a mantra.

But you have been aggressively rude, insulting, and demeaning toward me and other females in this thread for a very long time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To clarify this once again, I never said I have a 'female penis'. A penis is just an appendage, it doesn't have a gender of it's own.

I'm not talking about you. You are not the only transgender person on the planet.

My penis is just a penis, it just happens to be part of a female body. Just as a trans man's vagina/vulva isn't a 'male' one, he is just a male with a vagina/vulva.

Penises are not a part of a female body. Vulvas are not part of a male body.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To clarify this once again, I never said I have a 'female penis'. A penis is just an appendage, it doesn't have a gender of it's own.

My penis is just a penis, it just happens to be part of a female body. Just as a trans man's vagina/vulva isn't a 'male' one, he is just a male with a vagina/vulva.

This is why people have been just begging you to explain/expand upon/clarify or even just talk about what definition of things you are using.

You're talking nonsense. You are not using words the way (you damn well know) every other person uses them, and then you get angry when people ask you what definitions for these words you are using.

 

[Collin237]

Like... perhaps saying that if female athletes lost to male athletes, they should just quit bitching and train harder?

Like saying that female prisoners being raped by male-bodied prisoners forcibly placed with them in confinement aren't really being harmed?

Like saying that females have no right to expect visual privacy, thus decriminalizing voyeurism and peeping toms acting without the consent of their female target?

Like saying that females who feel that their biological sex is relevant and important to social issues and policy decisions (given that we have been oppressed and mistreated as a result of that biology) are being "hysterical" and should just get over it?

Like calling women delusional when they cite statistics referring to the degree of sexual assault and rape that females face?

Like calling women bigots and transphobes if they teach their children that if a person exposes their penis to them in a locker room or other private area, that female child should leave immediately and let an adult know?

Like insisting that women are being paranoid when they express concern about the effect that self-id with no requirement of a diagnosis or treatment would have on women's safety?

Like harassing, threatening, and vandalizing rape shelters that have a female-only policy, and referring to the female resident who don't want to share a room with a male-bodied person evil hate-filled bigots?

Like campaigning that rape victims should NOT be allowed to specify the biological sex of their medical examiner because it makes transpeople feel unsafe?

You mean, hostile and juvenile things like that?

You're conflating this forum with the entire world.

 

[Boudicca90]

This is why people have been just begging you to explain/expand upon/clarify or even just talk about what definition of things you are using.

You're talking nonsense. You are not using words the way (you damn well know) every other person uses them, and then you get angry when people ask you what definitions for these words you are using.

What you quoted was exactly that, me clarifying and explaining what I mean.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What you quoted was exactly that, me clarifying and explaining what I mean.

*Head desk*

You just said "I'm a woman because I say so." yet again. That's not an explanation for what you mean when you say woman.

I know everything you think the word "woman" doesn't mean, but have zero idea what you think it does mean but honestly I don't think you know. Honestly at this point I think you're just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

I know that define as a woman.

I have no idea what your definition of woman is.

 

[Boudicca90]

I'm also going to continue to refer to you as human, and not as a giraffe. I've been respectful to you for a very, very long time. You are male, and I'm not going to deny objective reality to kowtow to your feelings. Perhaps you are correct - I am uncomfortable taking an anti-science position and repeating falsehoods as a mantra.

But you have been aggressively rude, insulting, and demeaning toward me and other females in this thread for a very long time.

When you continue to mischaracterize my arguments as attacking the rights of all women, I think that is a very extreme position to take. And you don't speak for all females, there are plenty of cisgender women who have no issue with us and don't see us as infringing on their rights.

Hell, the very reason the term 'TERF' was coined in the first place was cisgender feminists didn't want to be associated with people that have such regressive views on womanhood.