Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[theprestige]

Is there any evidence that liberalism in America has a goal of normalizing sexual contact with children and that voting republican is the only way to protect children from being assaulted?

There's some evidence that various bad actors have from time to time co-opted the trappings of progressivism and liberal values to promote and normalize socially-destructive ideals and practices, and that mainstream progressives are so committed to anti-conservatism that they lack any tools to try to conserve things even they think are worth conserving.

But we don't need to debate the general case here. This thread is already well-focused on the specific case of trans-inclusionary activism.

There is also evidence that some liberals are actually quite conservative when it comes to things like sex segregation and women's sports.

 

[shuttlt]

For anyone who didn't click the links - they are about incidents that happened in Berlin and France. Luckily those countries have now caught up w/ the rest of us that children cannot consent and that sexual contact with them is a terrible form of abuse.

Is there any evidence that liberalism in America has a goal of normalizing sexual contact with children and that voting republican is the only way to protect children from being assaulted?

Well, there is obviously the whole MAP thing going on at the moment. The whole Queer Theory academic discipline comes out of Foucault and the thinkers who signed that petition back in the 60s.

I found this video a bit tricky to locate, so I can't speak for the site.... but this is an academic talking about the link between Queer Theory and paedophilia:
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/der...ory-paedophilia-jeopardy-banned-from-youtube/

You also have George Lukacz work in education in Hungary between the wars which was very influential and delved into these kinds of things. It keeps bubbling up in radical progressive thought.

Today the obvious example of moving in this direction is the argument over the bill in Florida preventing kindergarten-grade 3 teachers doing lessons on sexuality and gender identity. Not so long ago there was that child drag artist who was being celebrated. Drag queen story hour to little kids. So, queer theory that has all this connection to paedophilia is guiding education in a way that normalises children being encouraged to think about themselves as sexual beings and to be thought of as sexual beings at a younger and younger age.

I know it's a meme at this point "It's not rocket science guys. They are just evil and want to diddle kids"... but seriously... have a look at what the main intellectuals behind all these ideas were actually like.

 

[shuttlt]

There is also evidence that some liberals are actually quite conservative when it comes to things like sex segregation and women's sports.

Conquests first law:
Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

 

[p0lka]

When it is worn as a costume, it's called "drag".

I said 'like' a costume? ie the whole 'girls princesses boys soldiers' thing that kids were forced into but wasn't them. what is drag?

Seriously... Is "ewe" a feeling in the head of a female sheep? Is "doe" a costume put on by female deer? Is "mare" something that is put upon female horses, and they're expected to comply?

I don't get the point you're making here?

Try this from a different angle.
The term "female" applies equally to all mammals of the sex that produces large gametes. The term "human" applies to all members of the species homo sapiens, regardless of their reproductive role.

What's the word for a female of the species homo sapiens?

Female.

If it's a trick question I'm missing it. They're not mutually exclusive or anything. Humans are a subset of mammals.

 

[shuttlt]

I said 'like' a costume? ie the whole 'girls princesses boys soldiers' thing that kids were forced into but wasn't them. what is drag?

Forced? My daughter wanted to dress as Princess Elsa. My son wanted nerf guns. Maybe it isn't for everyone, but most kids aren't forced and I can't think of any I know of who have been. What they are is learning aspects of roles that they will one day inhabit. Drag feels like something much more specific than that and different to that. With drag the whole point is the frisson from playing the role of a woman while not being a woman.

Female.

If it's a trick question I'm missing it. They're not mutually exclusive or anything. Humans are a subset of mammals.

The word was "woman", as I imagine you know. It has been redefined by ideologically driven sociopaths just as "racism" was redefined to win arguments without having to make an argument.

 

[shuttlt]

 

[Rolfe]

I said 'like' a costume? ie the whole 'girls princesses boys soldiers' thing that kids were forced into but wasn't them. what is drag?

I don't get the point you're making here?

Female.

If it's a trick question I'm missing it. They're not mutually exclusive or anything. Humans are a subset of mammals.

No. There is a specific word for a female member of the species Homo sapiens. It is a word that has been in the English language (and all other languages I know about) for a very long time. That word is not "female", which can equally apply to a mare or a ewe or a cow or a bitch. It would be very weird if we had all those words for female members of other species, but not for our own. Howevr, we do have such a word.

I think you know what that word is.

ETA: There's nothing wrong with the word "transwoman". Women don't particularly mind it being used. If for some reason you want to specify a group that consists of women and transwomen, you can just say "women and transwomen". The only reason dishonest people are trying to play silly buggers with the English language is to score some sort of a win they can't achieve any other way. But, as the title of the thread says, transwomen are not women. They are people who have in some way transitioned. We don't need any new words.

We really, really don't need any new words, because whatever is chosen to refer to "the group formerly known as women", the TRAs will just start a campaign to be included in that too.

 

[p0lka]

Seriously... Is "ewe" a feeling in the head of a female sheep? Is "doe" a costume put on by female deer? Is "mare" something that is put upon female horses, and they're expected to comply?

Ah I do get your point now,

I would say neither the sheep, deer or horse has any outside pressure to be anything other than themselves, no societal pressures so to speak.
So I would say no.

Unfortunately, human societies have a tendency to give that outside pressure to be a princess or a soldier, or other gender differences, to their kids.

So in a humans case it could indeed be correct to say they might be carrying a gender definition in their head.
I feel that is the problem.

Be like sheep, deer and horses etc, gender is not a thing and there's no judgement.

 

[Rolfe]

Maybe we should try to lessen that pressure in human society then. I wonder how that might be achieved?

 

[shuttlt]

This is what will happen Rolfe. It's just like 1984. The word "woman" changes it's meaning, and then people forget it was changed, and people who use the old meaning will be corrected.... then you will be in the position of wanting to reject the newly established meaning that everybody thinks it always had and then the concept of "woman" they use to understand the world will be one that includes penises and you will have lost. Maybe someday the word "woman" will be done away with entirely.

To paraphrase 1984 - If you are a woman, Rolfe, you are the last woman. Your kind is extinct; they are the inheritors. Do you understand that you are alone? You are outside history, you are non-existent.

 

[Rolfe]

In the TRA's dreams. Women don't give up that easily.

 

[p0lka]

Forced? My daughter wanted to dress as Princess Elsa. My son wanted nerf guns. Maybe it isn't for everyone, but most kids aren't forced and I can't think of any I know of who have been. What they are is learning aspects of roles that they will one day inhabit. Drag feels like something much more specific than that and different to that. With drag the whole point is the frisson from playing the role of a woman while not being a woman.


The word was "woman", as I imagine you know. It has been redefined by ideologically driven sociopaths just as "racism" was redefined to win arguments without having to make an argument.

Forced was the wrong word, indoctrinated possibly? Kids naturally follow the roles they are shown on tv and internet and everything else.

The highlighted is a symptom of the societal problem I think, roles?

anyway Thankyou for telling me woman, I genuinely didn't know, I answered female cos that was the correct answer I thought.

 

[shuttlt]

In the TRA's dreams. Women don't give up that easily.

I think you are wrong, but I hope you are right.

 

[Rolfe]

Forced was the wrong word, indoctrinated possibly? Kids naturally follow the roles they are shown on tv and internet and everything else.

The highlighted is a symptom of the societal problem I think, roles?

anyway Thankyou for telling me woman, I genuinely didn't know, I answered female cos that was the correct answer I thought.

Don't be disingenuous. You have been told multiple times that "woman" is the English word for a female member of the species Homo sapiens. In the same way that we have words for female members of other species, such as Canis familiaris (bitch) of Equus caballus (mare).

"Woman" does not include males of any type, just as "mare" does not include males of any type.

This is quite simple, easy to understand and easy to remember, and it is the sense in which you have been using the word since childhood. It is also the legal definition of the word.

Redefining basic English words is not a good way to win an argument. Sure, you might be able to say "ducks are mammals" if you redefine the word mammal to mean something else, like warm-blooded creatures, but you haven't proved anything, all you have done is confused the language and ducks still aren't mammals (because mammals are species in which the female feeds her young with mild secreted by mammary glands, and ducks don't do that).

 

[p0lka]

Maybe we should try to lessen that pressure in human society then. I wonder how that might be achieved?

I don't know.
My first opinions in this ever ever so long thread were 'transwomen were not women but I would treat them as such as it makes people happier',

over time as I experienced more in real life and peoples contributions to this thread, my opinion has changed a bit.
Maybe it just takes time?

 

[p0lka]

Don't be disingenuous. You have been told multiple times that "woman" is the English word for a female member of the species Homo sapiens. In the same way that we have words for female members of other species, such as Canis familiaris (bitch) of Equus caballus (mare).

"Woman" does not include males of any type, just as "mare" does not include males of any type.

This is quite simple, easy to understand and easy to remember, and it is the sense in which you have been using the word since childhood. It is also the legal definition of the word.

Redefining basic English words is not a good way to win an argument. Sure, you might be able to say "ducks are mammals" if you redefine the word mammal to mean something else, like warm-blooded creatures, but you haven't proved anything, all you have done is confused the language and ducks still aren't mammals (because mammals are species in which the female feeds her young with mild secreted by mammary glands, and ducks don't do that).

My natural honest answer was 'female',

Who are you?
Are you like my aunty or something with your 'you have been told multiple times!' stuff?
I love it, be my aunty please

 

[shuttlt]

Forced was the wrong word, indoctrinated possibly? Kids naturally follow the roles they are shown on tv and internet and everything else.

Well, up to a point. Unless we raise them in sensory deprivation chambers they are going to find something to copy and model themselves after. They still have innate differences between sexes though, so you will still be working with some basic boy-girl templates there.

What I'm a bit puzzled by is why, given that some tiny number of children don't follow the normal path of identifying with the appropriate gender, that the solution is to throw out the examples to follow for all the other children. I mean, they copy their parents in order to adapt themselves to the world they are going to have to live in. Hiding the markers along the path from all the children because some small number of them don't follow them seems perverse and harmful. It's not as if they will be born into a society where men and women are the same, so by raising them as if that wasn't the case, surely you are making them less prepared for the world?

The highlighted is a symptom of the societal problem I think, roles?

You want a society without roles? That is an insane utopian project that if it were to succeed would make the world immeasurably more confusing and difficult for everybody. Why would you want this? It's like aspiring for the Tower of Babel.

Maybe some people are so dislocated from the society that they have to make up their place in it from scratch. The solution to that is not to put everybody in that position. This is the cult of equality. Because some people are born blind, we don't poke everybody else's eyes out.

anyway Thankyou for telling me woman, I genuinely didn't know, I answered female cos that was the correct answer I thought.

The way you are understanding it was invented in the 1950s by John Money. He had some uncomfortable views on paedophilia, but his fame was based on the David Reimer case. This case where he supposedly helped a child who'd lost his penis in a botched circumcision by persuading his parents to let him do a sex change on the child. He glossed over a lot to claim it was a success, and his claims about gender being plastic and malleable rested pretty heavily on this case. There is a lot of very dodgy stuff about getting David and his brother to perform "sex play" on each other. The boy detransitioned, but Money carried on citing it as a success. The boy eventually killed himself.

Money's ideas about gender being a social construct were convenient for feminists in the 1970s as it fitted their philosophical beliefs about the world and were politically useful, so they picked it up and ran with it. Where it has gotten to is just that the weapon they helped forge is coming back to strike them on the back swing.

 

[Rolfe]

I think if people (especially young people) were allowed to "present" any way they liked without any pressure to conform to a gendered stereotype then a lot of them would be a lot happier. If we understood that how you dress or whether you put on makeup or what toys or hobbies you like does not define you as one sex or the other, and doesn't change your sex either.

And then we'd still have the AGP mob wanting to indulge their fetish by colonising female single-sex spaces, but they'd be short of many of the tools they're currently using to do that.

 

[shuttlt]

I think if people (especially young people) were allowed to "present" any way they liked without any pressure to conform to a gendered stereotype then a lot of them would be a lot happier. If we understood that how you dress or whether you put on makeup or what toys or hobbies you like does not define you as one sex or the other, and doesn't change your sex either.

I really think you are sawing away at the branch you are sitting on here. You want people to be able to define themselves, and not have these gender categories policed so that nobody bats an eye at a man in a tutu, since there is no association between tutus and any particular sex.... but you want to maintain a hard line where penises are concerned.

If you want to play the game of erasing boundaries, then deal with the consequences of boundaries getting erased. You don't have a whistle you can blow to make the game stop when it gets to a boundary you find important. The more you undermine traditional concepts of sex and gender the harder you will find it to defend changing rooms and sports.

Also, maybe young people would be a lot happier if they spent less time navel gazing about their gender and the trauma that it causes? A tiny number of kids will feel a compulsion to focus on it, but maybe it would be less of a problem if adults weren't forcing these issues down their throats? Maybe it's just me, but it smells a lot like grooming to me. Almost like some people want there to be more LGBT+ kids....

And then we'd still have the AGP mob wanting to indulge their fetish by colonising female single-sex spaces, but they'd be short of many of the tools they're currently using to do that.

What tools would they be short?

 

[p0lka]

Well, up to a point. Unless we raise them in sensory deprivation chambers they are going to find something to copy and model themselves after. They still have innate differences between sexes though, so you will still be working with some basic boy-girl templates there.

There are innate differences between sexes I agree. The basic boy-girl templates are not innate though, they're societally created.

What I'm a bit puzzled by is why, given that some tiny number of children don't follow the normal path of identifying with the appropriate gender, that the solution is to throw out the examples to follow for all the other children. I mean, they copy their parents in order to adapt themselves to the world they are going to have to live in. Hiding the markers along the path from all the children because some small number of them don't follow them seems perverse and harmful. It's not as if they will be born into a society where men and women are the same, so by raising them as if that wasn't the case, surely you are making them less prepared for the world?

I want all that to change.

You want a society without roles? That is an insane utopian project that if it were to succeed would make the world immeasurably more confusing and difficult for everybody. Why would you want this? It's like aspiring for the Tower of Babel.

Maybe some people are so dislocated from the society that they have to make up their place in it from scratch. The solution to that is not to put everybody in that position. This is the cult of equality. Because some people are born blind, we don't poke everybody else's eyes out.

re the hilighted, no. I want a society without unnecessary gender labels that serve no purpose.

The way you are understanding it was invented in the 1950s by John Money. He had some uncomfortable views on paedophilia, but his fame was based on the David Reimer case. This case where he supposedly helped a child who'd lost his penis in a botched circumcision by persuading his parents to let him do a sex change on the child. He glossed over a lot to claim it was a success, and his claims about gender being plastic and malleable rested pretty heavily on this case. There is a lot of very dodgy stuff about getting David and his brother to perform "sex play" on each other. The boy detransitioned, but Money carried on citing it as a success. The boy eventually killed himself.

Money's ideas about gender being a social construct were convenient for feminists in the 1970s as it fitted their philosophical beliefs about the world and were politically useful, so they picked it up and ran with it. Where it has gotten to is just that the weapon they helped forge is coming back to strike them on the back swing.

Yeah, that's a tragic case of what can happen when you make people fit in to a gender label. Should have just let them be themselves.