Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Ziggurat]

That's absurd. You're conflating a derogatory slang term with a factual medical term.

When you start with conflating males and females, that's small potatoes.

 

[theprestige]

Obviously calling a transwoman female to her face, or even in passing, is probably rude in most circumstances, regardless of how factually correct it is. Whether that rudeness rises to the level of criminality remains to be seen. Personally I don't think it should. Nor would I agree with or support a law that made it criminal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which seems to touch upon people claiming sex exists along a bimodal spectrum. Except everybody has two biological parents. Even if one of your parents is intersex, they contributed either male sex cells or female sex cells. They didn't contribute a combination.

Yea but you try to actually tie sex to being actively fertile and then people get upset that they are no longer women because they had a hysterectomy. As if a Steer was a Bull to these people.

 

[theprestige]

Yea but you try to actually tie sex to being actively fertile and then people get upset that they are no longer women because they had a hysterectomy. As if a Steer was a Bull to these people.

You may have noticed that the only people trying to tie sex to being actively fertile are pro-trans saboteurs.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You may have noticed that the only people trying to tie sex to being actively fertile are pro-trans saboteurs.

Is that so?

Any politician who says "people who menstruate" instead of women is bound to get a bunch of deranged responses from transphobes. It is odd seeing these TERFs get up in arms using such a an argument from biological essentialism, given the track record of misogyny being justified that way, but it's a pretty reliable response.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is that so?

Any politician who says "people who menstruate" instead of women is bound to get a bunch of deranged responses from transphobes. It is odd seeing these TERFs get up in arms using such a an argument from biological essentialism, given the track record of misogyny being justified that way, but it's a pretty reliable response.

Yes, that's so. And you just proved his point: females who are not actively fertile don't menstruate. So "people who menstruate" is a really bizarre substitute to use in place of "females" or "women".

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, that's so. And you just proved his point: females who are not actively fertile don't menstruate. So "people who menstruate" is a really bizarre substitute to use in place of "females" or "women".

Not if you're selling tampons. [emoji14]

 

[theprestige]

Not if you're selling tampons. [ emoji14 ]

Even then.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is that so?

Any politician who says "people who menstruate" instead of women is bound to get a bunch of deranged responses from transphobes. It is odd seeing these TERFs get up in arms using such a an argument from biological essentialism, given the track record of misogyny being justified that way, but it's a pretty reliable response.

Damn those ******* women who won't just let themselves be reduced to a bodily function, and demand to be seen with some basic humanity! Don't they know they don't really matter as people, they only thing worth mentioning about those goddamned harridans is their body parts. We can't call those *things* women, that gives them the false impression that they matter and are valued. Better to call them menstruators and breeders and bleeders and people with a cervix and birthing bodies. Let's make absolutely sure that they know their place, right?

Calling female humans "menstruators" is completely misogynistic dehumanization. That's why the vast majority of female humans object to it. It has nothing at all to do with views toward transgender people. It has EVERYTHING to do with the implied view toward female humans. It has EVERYTHING to do with females - specifically females - being denigrated and dehumanized and expecting us to give up our basic dignity in order to affirm the feelings of a small number of people. We're being asked to accept a deep and serious insult to our entire existence so that some other people feel good.

**** that. It's misogynistic and degrading.

 

[Meadmaker]

********. Pretty much every poster in this thread is well aware that gender dysphoria is a genuine mental health condition.

On the other hand, the lobbyists and activists that you advocate on behalf of believe that gender dysphoria is not required in any fashion at all in order to be transgender.



Can you elaborate and specify exactly what rights and protections transgender people deserve? Which rights have they recently been granted? Which are they still denied?

I have this strange feeling of deja vu.


This question is so familiar to me.I feel like i must have had a dream where this question was asked. It seemed so real. But I must have woken up just after it was asked, because I don't remember any answer.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Damn those

Calling female humans "menstruators" is completely misogynistic dehumanization. That's why the vast majority of female humans object to it. It has nothing at all to do with views toward transgender people. It has EVERYTHING to do with the implied view toward female humans. It has EVERYTHING to do with females - specifically females - being denigrated and dehumanized and expecting us to give up our basic dignity in order to affirm the feelings of a small number of people. We're being asked to accept a deep and serious insult to our entire existence so that some other people feel good.

**** that. It's misogynistic and degrading.

Completely agree. What I find *almost* as disturbing as this ideology is the fact that an increasing number of those that putatively have good intentions must be aware that the movement is increasingly pissing women off - but they (including those in this thread) apparently just don't care. I was glad to see that NYT opinion piece objecting to the ACLU censoring the word woman from RBG's quote and the backlash to terming Rachel Levine the first female of that rank - I hope it is a sign that the tide is turning.

 

[theprestige]

One wonders exactly how many self styled champions of women's rights become positively misogynistic, the moment a man steps forward to claim those women's rights.

 

[theprestige]

Literally misogynistic, since transwomen by definition lack the gynae

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, that's so. And you just proved his point: females who are not actively fertile don't menstruate. So "people who menstruate" is a really bizarre substitute to use in place of "females" or "women".

Depends on the context. If you're communicating about menstruation products, it's quite literally the truth. Transmen might need a tampon where a post-menopausal ciswoman does not.

 

[d4m10n]

Calling female humans "menstruators" is completely misogynistic dehumanization.

We generally do not consider it dehumanizing to refer to humans by referencing things they do, e.g. sperm donors, midwives, firemen, pyromaniacs, medics, haemophiliacs, sous chefs, supertasters, officiants, communicants, lesbians, crossdressers, etc.

Why is it considered dehumanizing to put a conceptual circle around people who menstruate? It is because it's an involuntary bodily function, or because it's intensely personal, or something else?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why is it considered dehumanizing to put a conceptual circle around people who menstruate? It is because it's an involuntary bodily function, or because it's intensely personal, or something else?

Referring to someone by their bodily functions is dehumanizing because it’s unnecessarily reductive. “Ejaculators” and “defectors” may be factually correct descriptors of males and human respectively, but they are also insulting terms for people.

 

[Ziggurat]

One wonders exactly how many self styled champions of women's rights become positively misogynistic, the moment a man steps forward to claim those women's rights.

Beware the male “feminist”.

 

[Roboramma]

Referring to someone by their bodily functions is dehumanizing because it’s unnecessarily reductive. “Ejaculators” and “defectors” may be factually correct descriptors of males and human respectively, but they are also insulting terms for people.

I think the highlighted was meant to be "defecators"?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think the highlighted was meant to be "defecators"?

Yes, it was.

God damn autocorrect.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is that so?

Any politician who says "people who menstruate" instead of women is bound to get a bunch of deranged responses from transphobes. It is odd seeing these TERFs get up in arms using such a an argument from biological essentialism, given the track record of misogyny being justified that way, but it's a pretty reliable response.

Huh. That's weird, because transphobes in progressive governments all around the world are nowhere near the levers of power, or so I'm told. You would think that the politicians, who are very near the levers of power, and who got that way by being elected, wouldn't have to worry about transphobes so much, and would just say what they were thinking, or at least what would appease the people who put them near the levers of power.