• 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.
Olmstead said:
That's an excellent argument for why it shouldn't be considered a delusion. It's a bad argument for why it isn't a delusion.

But I disagree with the last part. I don't think delusion is the right word, but if it's low-impact and can only be treated by accommodating it, why wouldn't there be a legal or ethical requirement for it?
Click to expand...


Because otherwise, lawmakers and regulators would need to amend or create all sorts of legislation/regulations to accommodate transgender people. And in itself, it would be sending out the implication that, for example, transmen are women but we're creating this opt-in so that they can be treated in the same way as men in this instance. In other words, there's an implication that, eg, transmen aren't actually men. Which is..... a denial of transgender identity.

By putting in place - and legislating for - the central tenets that transwomen are women, and transmen are men, progressive jurisdictions are doing two important things: 1) enshrining in law that transgender identity is a valid condition (and not a delusion or disorder), and 2) automatically making it such that all gender-specific legislation applies to a transgender person's trans gender (and not the gender corresponding to their biological sex).

Legislators are empowered and justified in doing (1) on account of current mainstream medical/scientific conclusions on transgender identity, and because (1) makes (2) possible, it also saves legislators from having to go back into every gender-specific piece of legislation (eg, in the case of women-specific legislation, it saves them having to effectively amend each piece of such legislation to "women, plus transwomen").
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I prefer his earlier work, when he was personally throwing grenades at fascists.
Click to expand...


Ironically, 1984 was Orwell's cautionary tale about the destructive effects of repressive totalitarian regimes and police states (Orwell was influenced by Nazi Germany, and USSR in the Stalin era).

And I say "ironically" because for those legislatures which have introduced laws validating, allowing for and protecting the rights of people with transgender identity.....far from being repressive and totalitarian, they are actually progressive and responsive.

But nevertheless, it's both interesting and instructive to observe people drawing the comparison with Orwell's 1984 dystopia....
 
LondonJohn said:
Because otherwise, lawmakers and regulators would need to amend or create all sorts of legislation/regulations to accommodate transgender people. And in itself, it would be sending out the implication that, for example, transmen are women but we're creating this opt-in so that they can be treated in the same way as men in this instance. In other words, there's an implication that, eg, transmen aren't actually men. Which is..... a denial of transgender identity.

By putting in place - and legislating for - the central tenets that transwomen are women, and transmen are men, progressive jurisdictions are doing two important things: 1) enshrining in law that transgender identity is a valid condition (and not a delusion or disorder), and 2) automatically making it such that all gender-specific legislation applies to a transgender person's trans gender (and not the gender corresponding to their biological sex).

Legislators are empowered and justified in doing (1) on account of current mainstream medical/scientific conclusions on transgender identity, and because (1) makes (2) possible, it also saves legislators from having to go back into every gender-specific piece of legislation (eg, in the case of women-specific legislation, it saves them having to effectively amend each piece of such legislation to "women, plus transwomen").
Click to expand...

Assumptions and handwaving of what you imagine to be true.

Furthermore, transmen are NOT actually men. Transmen are actually females who have opted into living as men to the best of their ability.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ironically, 1984 was Orwell's cautionary tale about the destructive effects of repressive totalitarian regimes and police states (Orwell was influenced by Nazi Germany, and USSR in the Stalin era).

And I say "ironically" because for those legislatures which have introduced laws validating, allowing for and protecting the rights of people with transgender identity.....far from being repressive and totalitarian, they are actually progressive and responsive.

But nevertheless, it's both interesting and instructive to observe people drawing the comparison with Orwell's 1984 dystopia....
Click to expand...

Denial of observable reality in favor of propaganda slogans? Check.
Revision of history to support a current narrative? Check
Replacing science with belief and insisting that belief be accepted as fact? Check
Creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to state the truth? Check
Bastardization of language to control our ability to understand reality? Check
Power of government used to punish people who engage in wrongthink? Well on its way...

I really do find it... let's go with your 'instructive'... to see people defending the silencing, threatening, and harassment of females, the reduction of females to body parts devoid of humanity, and the coercion of lesbians to submit to penetrative sex with penises as "progressive".
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
By putting in place - and legislating for - the central tenets that transwomen are women, and transmen are men, progressive jurisdictions are doing two important things: 1) enshrining in law that transgender identity is a valid condition (and not a delusion or disorder[...]
Click to expand...
( italics added)

Validity or invalidity is logically tethered to the accompanying noun. What we expect of a valid passport or library card or theatre ticket is different from what we expect of a valid argument.

So what condition are you speaking of? And what makes the difference between a valid and an invalid candidate?
 
The Atheist said:
Small win for the idiotic trans lobby, and hopefully a massive blowback against that group as I'm sure every person capable of critical thinking is equally disgusted with this as I am:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...en-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row
Click to expand...

Oh Christ, careers destroyed because people express opinions deemed anti-trans (but aren’t).

I remember my late mother-in-law, a saint, saying in her 90s “the way the world is heading, I’m glad I’m not going to be here for much longer”. I fully understand her point.
 
Still curious about this:

Meadmaker said:
(I shouldn't, but.....)

I got curious, and I just feel like I have to ask.

The subject of Andy Ngo came up, this time, because of his reporting about Wi Spa.

Forget politics for a moment. Forget left and right, Democrat and Republican, fascist and woke, and just think about the Wi Spa incident itself. Just the people involved. Just Darren Merager, "Cubana Angel", a handful of other ciswomen who were spa customers, one "underage" girl, but that could mean 5 or it could mean 17. One or two staff members. Those were the only people present. Those were the people directly affected.

In your opinion, did anything bad happen that day? If so, could you describe what it was?


(And of course, politics and/or ideology might influence your opinion. I'm not asking you to disregard your general opinion about trans rights or any other aspect of the interaction at Wi Spa. What I'm asking is that you think of those people as individuals, not representatives of a "side", and the incident itself as something that occurred and affected real people, independent of the political implications of the associated news story. Did anything bad happen to any of the people involved that day?)
Click to expand...

It was addressed to SuburbanTurkey, but if any other trans-inclusive supporters wants to take a crack at it, that would be cool, too.
 
Ban on Conversion Therapy consultation underway

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy

Also covers gender identity. From the Times
From next spring it will be illegal to convince someone to change their sexuality or gender identity, with extra safeguards to protect adolescents.
Government sources suggested that organisations such as Mermaids, a charity that offers advice and counselling to children with gender dysphoria, could be outlawed. Trans rights groups said that the proposals risked having a “chilling effect” on free speech.

Nancy Kelley, chief executive of Stonewall, welcomed the “huge step forward” on gay conversion therapy but urged the government to go further on prayer and support for victims.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
Ban on Conversion Therapy consultation underway

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-conversion-therapy/banning-conversion-therapy

Also covers gender identity. From the Times
Click to expand...


The proposed protections are universal: an attempt to change a person from being attracted to the same-sex to being attracted to the opposite-sex, or from not being transgender to being transgender, will be treated in the same way as the reverse scenario. They therefore protect everyone.
Click to expand...

Interesting word choice. That suggests that they at least realize that there is some grooming going on in the world.

It is important that a person experiencing gender dysphoria is able to openly explore what works for them without feeling pressured into any particular outcome. The government is determined to ensure that no person is put on a clinical pathway that is not right for them, and that young people are supported in exploring their identity without being encouraged towards one particular path. Forcing or coercing a person into this position would be considered conversion therapy.
Click to expand...

This is a long read. I'm going to try to muddle through it, but I think I'll mostly be waiting to see how it actually plays out in practice.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Interesting word choice. That suggests that they at least realize that there is some grooming going on in the world.



This is a long read. I'm going to try to muddle through it, but I think I'll mostly be waiting to see how it actually plays out in practice.
Click to expand...

My first impression is this sounds like Section 28 all over again. The boundaries of "promotion", "convince" etc. are vague enough to have a chilling effect on conversations amongst open-minded people who want to remain within the law, and leave children vulnerable to more extreme views from those who are less punctilious.

And that's independent of direction of persuasion, etc, etc.
 
Just found a review of a rather surreal French film, where the author of the review suggests that the filmmaker is trying to critique both trans-activism and gender roles.


I'm quoting the conclusion of the review because it does reflect a point that is continually lost in these discussions.


In all of this, the message I take away is that Julia Ducournau is saying the one that many trans activists are pushing right now – that gender roles are all matters of what we believe in our minds or roles we choose to adopt. Or in the case of Vincent Lindon and his injections, they are roles that are socially prescribed and some people are under a pressure to maintain. The ending of the film where Agathe Rouselle reveals herself to the firemen with her dance and then to Vincent as she starts to go into labour is perhaps critical of these attitudes in saying that deep down despite what gender roles we choose that is something that will always be betrayed by biology.
Click to expand...


(Emphasis mine)


https://www.moriareviews.com/horror/titane-2021.htm
 
The Atheist said:
Small win for the idiotic trans lobby, and hopefully a massive blowback against that group as I'm sure every person capable of critical thinking is equally disgusted with this as I am:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...en-stock-resigns-after-transgender-rights-row
Click to expand...

The usual suspects will rejoice at having another gender critical voice put on mute.

No need to argue about what she said (or did) that was wrong, just say she's phobic and call it social justice.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The usual suspects will rejoice at having another gender critical voice put on mute.

No need to argue about what she said (or did) that was wrong, just say she's phobic and call it social justice.
Click to expand...

Hard to make a martyr out of someone who voluntarily resigned after her employer made an explicit statement of finding no problems with her speech.

I'm sure the TERFs would prefer if their viewpoints were treated as broadly unobjectionable, but that's not their decision to make.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Hard to make a martyr out of someone who voluntarily resigned after her employer made an explicit statement of finding no problems with her speech.
Click to expand...
You're bascially making my point by avoiding any mention of what Stock did wrong here.

That said, try working in any workplace after your union takes a stand against you.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You're bascially making my point by avoiding any mention of what Stock did wrong here.

That said, try working in any workplace after your union takes a stand against you.
Click to expand...


Maybe think about why her union - when most unions will defend their members & their members' actions vigorously - "took a stand" against her......

(I'm assuming you think her union is a) wrong, and b) acting unfairly, in this particular instance...?)
 
d4m10n said:
You're bascially making my point by avoiding any mention of what Stock did wrong here.

That said, try working in any workplace after your union takes a stand against you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, any union worth their salt don't really like when workers take bigoted views that are corrosive to member solidarity. It's not worth coddling some TERF when it means trans members are going to feel alienated from their fellow worker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom