• 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.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Earthborn said:
"Intersex" is still the politically correct term, by/for people who do not want their genital variation be thought of as a disorder.
Click to expand...

Intersex is an ideological term intended to confuse the discussion and misinform people. It gets used to make people think that there is something in between male and female.

The preferred term by people who actually have the various conditions (as opposed to the trans-activists using their conditions and them for ideological purposes) is Difference of Sexual Development.

To be fair though, I think that's a bit silly. Not a huge deal, just an unnecessary concession to feelings over reality. It would be like me trying to insist that people start using "Difference of Neurological Function" for my epilepsy, instead of it being a Seizure Disorder. Because as the person on the receiving end of that crap, it's a ******* disorder. That doesn't give anyone license to mistreat or abuse me because of that disorder, but it doesn't make epilepsy part of the "normal spectrum" of brain function.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Yep. Just like how being transgender was once considered a 'disorder' and called Gender Identity Disorder, intersex people are also unfairly thought of as 'disordered' with the label DSD.

Hopefully that will change in the future.
Click to expand...

DSDs are disorders - they're actual medical conditions that cause problems! That doesn't justify treating someone with that condition in a malicious or disrespectful way, but it *is* a disorder.

So are epilepsy, cerebral palsy, down syndrome, and diabetes!
 
Earthborn said:
The term is "gender identity". It is not there same thing as "gender', which is a much broader concept. And yes, the term "gender identity" is kind of problematic too, as seems to imply that it refers to one's social gender role instead of how one feels about the sexual characteristics on one's body, but that is the term we are kinda stuck with.

It's because the guy who coined the term, John Money, was kind of problematic figure himself.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi "kind of"? That's the most polite term for Money I've heard in a while. I'd go more for child abuser and torturer who experimented on kids.
 
Earthborn said:
Quite a few of them may have been transgender.
Click to expand...

And yet, probably not.

I was quite nonconforming as a child, and still would qualify as gender nonconforming. In fact, a large number of strong, independent, willful, adventurous females throughout history have been gender nonconforming.

Which does not in any way at all make them even remotely transgender. Because not conforming to a socially imposed stereotype of behavior does NOT make one the opposite gender!

And this retroactive transing of people is really getting frustrating.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Except that term doesn't seem to exist.

I can't find any reference to 'CCSD' by anybody other than transphobes on Twitter. And just by reading this person's Twitter feed, he is certainly a transphobe. "Blaire White is my queen" - says it all right there.
Click to expand...

That... I just... What?

This person respects Blair White - an actual for realsies transwoman - and that makes them a transphobe? In what universe does supporting a transgender person make one a transphobe? Seriously, do words even have meaning anymore? Do you know what I'm saying? Do I? How can I know?
 
Emily's Cat said:
That... I just... What?

This person respects Blair White - an actual for realsies transwoman - and that makes them a transphobe? In what universe does supporting a transgender person make one a transphobe? Seriously, do words even have meaning anymore? Do you know what I'm saying? Do I? How can I know?
Click to expand...

Seems that Blaire White is "one of the good ones" much like Candace Owens. There's good money to be made being a pundit from marginalized communities and parrot right wing talking points.

ETA: It wouldn't be appropriate to call her a TERF, because it seems anti-feminism is a core part of her brand. Nothing she says really seems that outstanding compared to all the other reactionary weirdos online, but being a self-hating trans woman does seem like a successful hook.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Blaire_White#Antifeminism
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.
Click to expand...

This is a genuine question, not being antagonistic or argumentative.

In what specific ways are you like cis-females that you are NOT also like cis-males? What innate (not exogenously created) characteristics do you share in common with cis-females that are NOT also shared by cis-males?
 
Lplus said:
It looks like two new defintions are needed reduce the discussion to purely physical attributes - the Bedicked (BD) and Nonbedicked (NBD)
Click to expand...

It's only fair. I mean, females are now being referred to as "menstruators" and "birthing parents" and "cervix havers". I'm all for extending that privilege to males, and referring to them as "penis havers" or "prostate owners" or "sperm carriers".

My current favorite, which has been happily adopted by my spouse, is "testiculator". I'm going with "ovarian" for me.
 
Earthborn said:
Transwomen are often referred to as "Male-to-Female" and transmen as "Female-to-Male", so the definitions have been a bit muddled for quite a while. If it leads to confusion, just add "biological" or something, to make it clear you are talking about the biological definition of the term.
Click to expand...

Those terms historically referred to people who had undergone vaginoplasty or phalloplasty procedures. As with most of the other terms in use, it's now being intentionally redefined so that it means... well... anything at all.

And when words mean anything, they mean nothing.
 
Boudicca90 said:
Ultimately your views will die off like your political ideology will. Your bigotry will be tossed in the dumpster of history.
Click to expand...

Time will tell, I suppose.

The good thing is that my own policy positions are based on the belief that by segregating changing rooms and sports leagues based on biological sex, I am supporting the wishes of the majority of women and girls. I will continue to do so for as long as that appears to be the case.

I'm pretty sure you think that's all part of bigotry that will be tossed in the dustbin. If you are right, then we will eventually agree on policy matters.

Until then, I'll side with Selina Soule and "Cubans Angel".
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is incorrect, on a few levels.

Third, and most importantly, disorders of sexual development (not disorders of sex, mind you) have nothing at all to do with gender identity. Nothing at all. Don't use people with medical conditions as a ploy to push an ideological agenda. The overwhelming majority of people with a DSD do NOT experience Gender Dysphoria, and the overwhelming majority of people with Gender Dysphoria do NOT have a DSD.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I think these sorts of Trans-activists (consciously or not) are both implying that trans is another sort of DSD and/or trying giving legitimacy to sex being "assigned" at birth (since the only place this really holds is those with DSDs that had ambiguous genitalia).
 
Boudicca90 said:
Transphobes won't get to dominate this discussion. You can leave at any time.

Ultimately your views will die off like your political ideology will. Your bigotry will be tossed in the dumpster of history.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Sex is a biological fact. From here to the Singularity, I'll put my money on the facts prevailing over the ideology. After the Singularity, nothing either of us takes for granted will matter anymore anyway.

Meanwhile: Leaving aside matters of sex segregation for the moment, what does "being a woman" mean to you, in practical terms?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I don't really have much interest in tailoring my language to accommodate the dishonest jargon of biological-fact-deniers. The "male-to-female" folks need to get on my page, not me on theirs. Unless they're talking about the actual to-the-limits-of-our-technology medical process of converting a male body into a reasonable facsimile of a female body. Drastic hormone treatments and surgical replacement of a penis with a vagina? That's adequately male-to-female in my book. "I'm female because I think I'm female" is not.
Click to expand...

I think you're right in that as surgeries get better, there will be more males willing to 'date' these folks (i.e. see them as a reasonable facsimile for pleasure purposes). But unless the desire to procreate is eliminated, they are never going to be viewed as the same.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It's only fair. I mean, females are now being referred to as "menstruators" and "birthing parents" and "cervix havers". I'm all for extending that privilege to males, and referring to them as "penis havers" or "prostate owners" or "sperm carriers".

My current favorite, which has been happily adopted by my spouse, is "testiculator". I'm going with "ovarian" for me.
Click to expand...

I'd stick to my definitions - they emphasis the obvious external difference and when it comes down to the heart of the matter it's the instrument of penetration that you seem to be objecting to most strongly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom