Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
I agree. What "state repression" of trans people "here in the US" is ST talking about? I am not in the US so I wouldn't necessarily know. Are trans people being fired merely because they are trans? Or evicted? Or denied normal service? Somehow I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Texas intends to imprison parents and doctors who provide gender affirming care to trans children.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
And yet other countries, including countries with mandatory conscription, require women to serve. Increasingly women are allowed to serve in combat roles.

I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

Women can make fine guerrillas.

ETA: Do you think the average 25 year old Ukrainian woman is less combat effective than the average 60 year old Ukrainian man? Perhaps there's more than pragmatism at work in such decisions.
Click to expand...


There are women who are fighting in the Ukraine. Many women who could have left have stayed and have joined up. Some have been killed.

I think the point that Meadmaker is making is that only men are being conscripted, that men are being compelled to remain in the country while women are free to leave. Somehow, everyone seems to know which is which. Sex isn't a spectrum, or a vague woolly undefinable concept, in this context.

Or are they really conscripting by gender identity and everyone who declares a feminine gender identity is being allowed to leave? Somehow I doubt it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Texas intends to imprison parents and doctors who provide gender affirming care to trans children.
Click to expand...


I think Texas might have the right idea. Children's lives are being ruined by this cult. I do not consider legislation designed to protect children from sterilisation and major disfiguring surgery to be "state repression".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Texas intends to imprison parents and doctors who provide gender affirming care to trans children.
Click to expand...

That's quite the euphemism. What exactly is "affirming care"? Why is it called that, when that name hardly provides any indication of what it is? It's almost like misrepresenting it is the point.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's quite the euphemism. What exactly is "affirming care"? Why is it called that, when that name hardly provides any indication of what it is? It's almost like misrepresenting it is the point.
Click to expand...

Is your google broken or do you just prefer to be spoon fed?
 
In practical terms, Texas and Sweden are now on the same page when it comes to medical procedures for transgender children.


I don't like what's going on in Texas for different reasons. The US legal system gets weird sometimes, and bad things could happen in Texas because of the interaction of executive and judicial power. The governor in this case is trying to use an executive order to do something he couldn't accomplish with legislation. For reasons related to philosophy of government, I don't like it, and it creates situations where doctors, parents, and kids, are not really sure what is and is not legal until the court case is decided.
 
Rolfe said:
Have the courage of your convictions and own the fact that you're talking about chemical and surgical castration.
Click to expand...

When you're right, you're right. Clearly my "courage" comment does not apply to you. You're quite open in your support for the state making bigotry the law of the land. Apologies for implying otherwise.

Yes, in this case gender affirming care means, as everyone with even a cursory knowledge of this debate is aware, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and/or surgical interventions as prescribed by a doctor in accordance with best practices.

In a way, this Texas push to criminalize trans care has clarified things a bit. Fence sitting and pretending to care about athletics is not as palatable now that overt bigotry is in play in this way. It's not longer a mostly hypothetical thing for the disinterested public. The frothy mouthed mobs don't have to pray each night that some trans kid tries to join the softball team, now they can seek out their victims at doctor's offices and start a criminal prosecution.

I imagine more than a few people are coming to the realization of the stakes here, and it's no coincidence that this push to persecute trans people is also occurring at the same time these states are attempting in earnest to criminalize abortion. Lines in the sand are being drawn
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
In practical terms, Texas and Sweden are now on the same page when it comes to medical procedures for transgender children.

I don't like what's going on in Texas for different reasons. The US legal system gets weird sometimes, and bad things could happen in Texas because of the interaction of executive and judicial power. The governor in this case is trying to use an executive order to do something he couldn't accomplish with legislation. For reasons related to philosophy of government, I don't like it, and it creates situations where doctors, parents, and kids, are not really sure what is and is not legal until the court case is decided.
Click to expand...


I understand there are problems with the political way Texas is going about this. However, the basic aim of protecting children from chemical and surgical castration is in my view a good one.

Some will say, but where's the harm in just letting the wee boy change his name to Jazz and have everyone refer to him as she? The harm is that this leads later to chemical castration and then to actual surgical castration, as we've seen, on a road that doesn't have an exit ramp.

If someone, as an adult, wants to undergo these procedures, once he has reached an age when he's capable of making a truly informed decision, then good luck to him. But one of the things that matures the brain to be able to make informed decisions is puberty. Normal puberty, occurring when the body is ready, triggered by the body's own hormones.
 
Rolfe said:
I understand there are problems with the political way Texas is going about this. However, the basic aim of protecting children from chemical and surgical castration is in my view a good one.

Some will say, but where's the harm in just letting the wee boy change his name to Jazz and have everyone refer to him as she? The harm is that this leads later to chemical castration and then to actual surgical castration, as we've seen, on a road that doesn't have an exit ramp.

If someone, as an adult, wants to undergo these procedures, once he has reached an age when he's capable of making a truly informed decision, then good luck to him. But one of the things that matures the brain to be able to make informed decisions is puberty. Normal puberty, occurring when the body is ready, triggered by the body's own hormones.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you focus on trans girls here, as far as I can tell this guidance from the Texas AG applies as much to trans boys as it does to trans girls.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
When you're right, you're right. Clearly my "courage" comment does not apply to you. You're quite open in your support for the state make bigotry the law of the land. Apologies for implying otherwise.

Yes, in this case gender affirming care means, as everyone with even a cursory knowledge of this debate is aware, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and/or surgical interventions as prescribed by a doctor in accordance with best practices.
Click to expand...


So, chemical castration and surgical castration. We're on the same page.

Now, the question is, who decides what is "best practice"? That is the nub of the current dispute. Procedures the trans activists have promoted into their idea of "best practice" are increasingly being seen to be extremely harmful. Doctors who get all excited about chemically castrating kids and sell it as "making their body go through the 'right' puberty" are increasingly being regarded as being of the Mengele school of childcare.

Once upon a time lobotomy was regarded as "best practice". This one is in the same category.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Interesting that you focus on trans girls here, as far as I can tell this guidance from the Texas AG applies as much to trans boys as it does to trans girls.
Click to expand...


Oh, you want me to start (again) on the extreme harm being done by those who advocate cutting off a young girl's healthy breasts as a cure for the body discomfort we almost all feel when these things grow, and their dislike of the male gaze their breasts attract? These girls are often obsessed with Tumblr influencers who tell them that the way out of their discomfort with their burgeoning feminine bodies is to mutilate themselves in the belief they can turn into men. This is what's driving this phenomenon, and you only have to read a few of the many heartbreaking accounts from the women themselves who realised too late they'd been sucked into a cult, and can't get their breasts or their voice or their hair or sometimes even their uterus and ovaries back.

How long have you got?
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
So, chemical castration and surgical castration. We're on the same page.

Now, the question is, who decides what is "best practice"? That is the nub of the current dispute. Procedures the trans activists have promoted into their idea of "best practice" are increasingly being seen to be extremely harmful. Doctors who get all excited about chemically castrating kids and sell it as "making their body go through the 'right' puberty" are increasingly being regarded as being of the Mengele school of childcare.

Once upon a time lobotomy was regarded as "best practice". This one is in the same category.
Click to expand...

In the case of Texas, it's quite clear that this decision is not supported by the medical community nor even the general public which rejected legislation to this effect. It's clearly a pander to the reactionary right wing base.

TERFs gotta take the good with the bad. Sure, women can't get abortions in the state without risk being sued by some religious zealot, but someone is finally sticking it to the parents of trans children. Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Interesting that you focus on trans girls here, as far as I can tell this guidance from the Texas AG applies as much to trans boys as it does to trans girls.
Click to expand...

People are always finding things "interesting", as if somehow they've seen some flaw or exposed a simmering hatred or something.

I'm confident Rolfe is every bit as concerned about mastectomies, hysterectomies, and the effects of male hormones and puberty blockers on females. She has said so in the past.

She has an unwavering commitment to reality on this subject.

Rolfe said:
the Mengele school of childcare.
Click to expand...

....even if she does get a bit carried away with the rhetoric occasionally.
 
I don't think it's all that "carried away" to compare what's being done to these children to Mengele. It's revolting. It's unconscionable. They are being irreversibly mutilated to advance the agenda of adults who for their own reasons want to break down the distinction between the sexes. Do you have a more appropriate comparison?

By the way, here is a transcript of the podcast I listened to the other night, or at least the first part which was the contribution of the mother of one of the swimming girls.

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/...campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=url

There is an audio stream as well. This is the first time I have seen that picture of the erstwhile Will Thomas and his shoulder muscles. No wonder these girls are spooked.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
In the case of Texas, it's quite clear that this decision is not supported by the medical community nor even the general public which rejected legislation to this effect. It's clearly a pander to the reactionary right wing base.

TERFs gotta take the good with the bad. Sure, women can't get abortions in the state without risk being sued by some religious zealot, but someone is finally sticking it to the parents of trans children. Every cloud has a silver lining I suppose.
Click to expand...


Fallacy of the inappropriate comparison, or something like that. Texas does something that's very bad for women. So that's bad. So we have to condemn everything Texas does? Would we have to condemn Texas for legislating against murder because they also legislated against abortion? Should we support the right to murder or be murdered, because Texas wants to outlaw that, and it also wants to outlaw abortion?

Make your case without dragging hoplessly inapproproate comparisons into ir. Explain why you think it's good to castrate children (and cut their breasts off) when they're too young to be trusted to drive a car or to drink alcohol or to vote.
 
theprestige said:
Same old trans-activist dodge. Don't have to answer questions or defend positions if can think of some other topic that isn't being raised at the moment.
Click to expand...

Was there a question I haven't answered?

The escalation of the situation in Texas has, if anything, provided far more clarity. Turns out that "should parents go to jail for taking their kids to get trans-affirming care from a doctor" turned out to be a pretty good litmus test.

There's a refreshing bit of transparency in this thread compared to many previous exchanges in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom