• 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.
Emily's Cat said:
Well, sweetie, it's because in some cases, a sperm carrying an X chromosome was fastest, and in others, a sperm carrying a Y chromosome was fastest. That's why some people are 'women' and some people are 'men'. To add a little bit more to the core concept... reproductive biology requires one member of each of those two sexes in order to make babies.
Click to expand...
I would be all in favour of that definition, unfortunately it doesn't happen to be the way the words have ever been used in this world. In this world adult biological males are told they are "not a man". We get told that a man wearing a frock is an "unmanly" man. People who claim that sex is binary talk as though it was a spectrum.

Then they get offended and angry when some adult biological males say they are not men.

Let's not pretend that this "man/woman" thing used to be a simple matter. If it had been then it is doubtful that there ever would have been such a thing as a trans man or trans woman.
 
stanfr said:
Gender identity is determined in the first couple years of your life, if not at birth. If your thoughts can't change after age 2 or 3, you have some serious issues.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

If it helps, what I'm trying to say is that whether you think of yourself as belonging to the category of people I'm sexually attracted to, that should have no bearing on whether I should be sexually attracted to you.
 
theprestige said:
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

If it helps, what I'm trying to say is that whether you think of yourself as belonging to the category of people I'm sexually attracted to, that should have no bearing on whether I should be sexually attracted to you.
Click to expand...

I responded to your post 2573, not 2578. So i have no idea what you're getting at with sexual attraction. You said you stomach turned at the idea you might have to alter your feelings based on someone else's identity. I'm saying they can't help their identity, but you can help your accommodation of it.
 
stanfr said:
I responded to your post 2573, not 2578. So i have no idea what you're getting at with sexual attraction. You said you stomach turned at the idea you might have to alter your feelings based on someone else's identity. I'm saying they can't help their identity, but you can help your accommodation of it.
Click to expand...

Posts 2573 and 2578 are both addressing the topic of sexual attraction.

Some people are proposing that accommodation requires being sexually attracted to their self-identity. I.e., that their self-identity should be binding on my feelings. That proposal bothers me. You are welcome to envision yourself however you want. I am happy to accommodate that, within reason. Expecting me to be sexually attracted to your identity is not within reason. Unreason bothers me.
 
stanfr said:
How do intersex people fit into your reckoning?
Click to expand...
Isn't that a question for the intersex thread?

If every DSD was perfectly remedied tomorrow, we'd still have males who want to be women and females who want to be men.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Isn't that a question for the intersex thread?

If every DSD was perfectly remedied tomorrow, we'd still have males who want to be women and females who want to be men.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Emily's Cat's post that said boy-girl was as simple as chromosome determination. Do you think it is that simple?
 
theprestige said:
Posts 2573 and 2578 are both addressing the topic of sexual attraction.

Some people are proposing that accommodation requires being sexually attracted to their self-identity. I.e., that their self-identity should be binding on my feelings. That proposal bothers me. You are welcome to envision yourself however you want. I am happy to accommodate that, within reason. Expecting me to be sexually attracted to your identity is not within reason. Unreason bothers me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough I just found this thread today so I don't know the history. I was just going on your comment as it read to me.
 
stanfr said:
I was responding to Emily's Cat's post that said boy-girl was as simple as chromosome determination. Do you think it is that simple?
Click to expand...
I think that every single one of your ancestors produced either sperm or ova, and that's what I'd call a binary. I also think we need a separate thread for this oft-recurring derail.
 
theprestige said:
This is part 7 of a heated debate that's been going on for a couple years now.
Click to expand...

Coming up to the 4th anniversary, in fact. I think it probably deserves a Happy Birthday thread in a fortnight.

d4m10n said:
I think that every single one of your ancestors produced either sperm or ova, and that's what I'd call a binary.
Click to expand...

You can safely leave out the "I think" part. There's no doubt on it at all.

d4m10n said:
I also think we need a separate thread for this oft-recurring derail.
Click to expand...

To what end? We've been going round that mulberry bush since about page 2 of the first thread. Leave the entire cluster **** as it is, I say.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Well, sweetie, it's because in some cases, a sperm carrying an X chromosome was fastest, and in others, a sperm carrying a Y chromosome was fastest. That's why some people are 'women' and some people are 'men'. To add a little bit more to the core concept... reproductive biology requires one member of each of those two sexes in order to make babies.
Click to expand...


The only way an X chromosome could go faster than a Y chromosome is if the X was really a Y identifying as an X.
 
Matthew Best said:
JK Rowling calls police after being doxxed as trans-activists post photographs showing her home address:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1462758324177444870
Click to expand...

I'd like to know the numbers of those who support JKR against the detractors. I'd be very surprised if supporters didn't outnumber the detractors by a factor of 100.

From JKR's Twitter thread:

...all the way up to doxing and direct threats of violence, including rape.
Click to expand...

Saying someone isn't a woman because they have a penis is a horrific crime, but threatening to rape them isn't.

Welcome to opposite world.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
That's not an address in Edinburgh.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-59372838
Click to expand...

Takes a lot of work to dox the many mansions of the ultra wealthy.

Do you think that people in Edinbourgh don't know where Rowling's house is? The idea that a celebrity such as Rowling can be "doxxed" is nonsensical on its face. Is it doxxing when tour buses drive through fancy neighborhoods in Hollywood pointing out where all the rich actors live?



Here's a story about the city having to order her to trim massive hedges surrounding the large property.

The idea that Rowling was living in obscurity until "doxxed" is laughable. The idea that this information was private until now is absurd.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7252275/Council-demands-JK-Rowling-cut-30ft-Leylandii-trees-Edinburgh-mansion.html

Edit: an especially desperate example of the false victimhood that TERFs like Rowling frequently employ. A handful of people protested on the sidewalk outside the gate of her swanky mansion and she's the victim of doxxing. What a joke.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom