Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could be. I haven't been taking extensive notes!

I have completely given up being "respectful" when debating this issue. That is a large part of how this sleight-of-hand has been pulled.

This morning in church the two main themes of the service were gratitude to women (mothers - we all had one) and kindness and looking after each other. There was no hidden agenda there, our current minister is no transactivist as far as I know. However our previous minister, who was sacked for having a lesbian affair with a married parishoner, was. We got an absolute earful about how awful it was for some particular "transwoman" who was in a male prison, and how we should all write to our elected representatives and support "her".

I didn't write to anyone, but after the service I advocated the "be kind" position pretty forcefully to an elderly lady who was pretty disgusted by the sermon. Some time later, after I had wised up (peaked), I apologised to the lady (who is my neighbour), saying "you were right all along." Being kind and considerate and accepting and including is all very well, but if we don't stop to notice when we're being thoroughly exploited this will only get worse.
 
Last edited:
You don't want to know. Life's too short.

Also, given that "woman" = "adult female human being", you can test for that too.
 
p0lka said:
You can test for male or female, how are they getting around that?
Click to expand...

By redefining 'female' and 'male' to be 'identities', declaring references to biological sex to be transphobic, and threatening the reputation and careers of anyone who defines sex based on biology.
 
mgidm86 said:
They who? Tell you what. Make a poll that only biological women (i.e. women) can respond to and then we'll do what THEY say.
Click to expand...
Biological women is a mixing of categories to me, Your poll might be problematic.
Male female is biology, man woman is gender.

It's the way society seems to be going,

what is the issue with 'they'?
you capitalised it like I referenced 'they' or something. quote what I said please as I don't recognise what you're reacting to?
 
Elaedith said:
By redefining 'female' and 'male' to be 'identities', declaring references to biological sex to be transphobic, and threatening the reputation and careers of anyone who defines sex based on biology.
Click to expand...
I do not think that will be necessary since they have more than enough institutional power to prevent any redefinitions of words, or the changing of women's sports to female sports, if it not to their liking.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. It's a fact that we teach children to wear clothes. We do not know what children would do in the absence of any instruction, or if modesty might manifest without an example. It would be unethical, if not impossible, to find out. Seriously, think what kind of experiment would be required to test this hypothesis, and then think about what an IRB would say to its proposal.
Click to expand...
There might be some real life examples where we could ask whether it's modesty or utility, interesting.
 
Rolfe said:
If you actually read the article you would see that it's from Canada.

Do you think that covers it? Oh it's just a guest opinion piece and Murkans are nuts anyway? This is a serious problem and it's happening in multiple countries across the world.




It would only solve the problem in your head, where you have decided that "woman" is not the word for a female of the species homo sapiens.

Let's have "female" sports. I'm sure I can find a female cheetah that would sprint quite well. (Pun intended.)

As Roboramma already said, concede one word to the trans lobby and they just come after the next one. And we're not conceding this one anyway. Women are the female of the human species. We will not give up our word to be labelled by a word that also describes ewes, mares, cows, bitches, nanny-goats and even female plants.
Click to expand...
An opinion piece is what it is, it's in the title and everyone has an opinion but if it's not backed up by anything I care very little.

It seems to me that all of this is just the constant fight against changes over time that every generation has when they see the younger generation changing.

Get used to it, it's happening the same as it always has for previous generations.
 
Why in the world, even if you had the power, would you change the wording in the classification of women's sports? The trans-activists aren't some group of radicalized lexicographers. Their issue is not that the people who are allowed to do women's sports doesn't match some definition of "woman" that they have become fixated on. They are activists who want to change the world such that there is no categorical difference that anybody dares utter between Rolfe and a bepenised individual who wants to be on the women's wrestling team. If you change the definition and Rolfe will still be able to do it, but the bepenised one wouldn't, they will not be happy. It's like thinking you could have solved racial segregation to the satisfaction of civil rights activists by changing all the laws to be about nose shape, or hair curliness.
 
p0lka said:
An opinion piece is what it is, it's in the title and everyone has an opinion but if it's not backed up by anything I care very little.

It seems to me that all of this is just the constant fight against changes over time that every generation has when they see the younger generation changing.
Get used to it, it's happening the same as it always has for previous generations.
Click to expand...
Are all changes good by definition because of this? Must all changes succeed by definition, or can they sometimes be turned back?

Eugenics was the bright progressive future once, and that was turned back, at least in the form it appeared in the early 20th century. There have been many attempts to normalise pedophilia. Should we accept all these things without struggle because, if they are thrown up by a progressive voice, they must inevitably be the great and irresistible future?
 
Last edited:
p0lka said:
An opinion piece is what it is, it's in the title and everyone has an opinion but if it's not backed up by anything I care very little.

It seems to me that all of this is just the constant fight against changes over time that every generation has when they see the younger generation changing.

Get used to it, it's happening the same as it always has for previous generations.
Click to expand...

Have other changes threatened to destroy women’s sport and safe spaces?
 
Rolfe said:
That will get you accused of transphobia on its own.

Right now, in Australia (or maybe it's NZ?), a woman who runs a social media app for women only, which uses personal approval and face-recognition software to ensure that only women can join, is currently being pursued for a human rights breach for not allowing "transwomen" to join. The very aggressive complaint demands that she should be re-educated, should immediately open up her app to all self-identified "women" and should police women's posts to eliminate anything that might cause hurty-feelings in the male "women".

It might well be chucked out as a nonsense, one would hope so, but who knows these days. Even if it is though, it's costing her a lot of money and a lot of stress right now.
Click to expand...
Should have called it female only, it would have solved the problem or not made it a problem in the first place.

It's the way it's going, get used to it.
 
The cry of the loser throughout history. "I can't justify my position but I assert it is inevitable anyway,"

And if you seriously think there is a magic form of words that will make the transactivists say "OK then, this isn't for us, we;ll drop it," you are in cloud-cuckoo land. (For all I know the app does say it's for female people only.)
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
The cry of the loser throughout history. "I can't justify my position but I assert it is inevitable anyway,"
Click to expand...
This brings back the line from Lawrence of Arabia (which I'm sure you've seen, but I'll explain as if you hadn't). The Arabs are fatalistic and keep saying that this or that is "written", meaning that it is God's will and can't be helped. Lawrence defies this and succeeds saying "nothing is written". One can never be 100% sure what the Gods have willed and what they have not. I believe that claiming to know the mind of God is the sin of hubris.
 
shuttlt said:
Are all changes good by definition because of this? Must all changes succeed by definition, or can they sometimes be turned back?

Eugenics was the bright progressive future once, and that was turned back, at least in the form it appeared in the early 20th century. There have been many attempts to normalise pedophilia. Should we accept all these things without struggle because, if they are thrown up by a progressive voice, they must inevitably be the great and irresistible future?
Click to expand...
Change is not good or bad, change is change and the consequences are after.

If you are against it then fight vote with all your might to oppose it, you should fight against something you are against.

New generations can also do that, there's normally more of them though.
 
p0lka said:
Should have called it female only, it would have solved the problem or not made it a problem in the first place.

It's the way it's going, get used to it.
Click to expand...

It is called female only. Apparently it uses face recognition AI to verify sex.
 
p0lka said:
Change is not good or bad, change is change and the consequences are after.
Click to expand...
And yet you seemed to be waving away the possibility of resisting specific changes as if doing so was the same as trying to stop the tides, or the motion of the heavens. I don't necessarily disagree, but it seemed to clash with my understanding of your world view.

p0lka said:
If you are against it then fight vote with all your might to oppose it, you should fight against something you are against.
Click to expand...
That won't do any good. All the political parties I could vote for are in favour of this, while the majority of the population are against. There would be about as much use in voting on this issue as there would be in thinking voting could end mass immigration in my country. These simply aren't issues where the popular will matters.

p0lka said:
New generations can also do that, there's normally more of them though.
Click to expand...
New generations are ignorant morons with no experience of life, so they get conned into the same ridiculous ******** that is always being peddled and they lack the experience of life to realise it's only being promised to get their votes. The young are led by the nose. They are not the ones who determine policy.
 
Rolfe said:
The cry of the loser throughout history. "I can't justify my position but I assert it is inevitable anyway,"

And if you seriously think there is a magic form of words that will make the transactivists say "OK then, this isn't for us, we;ll drop it," you are in cloud-cuckoo land. (For all I know the app does say it's for female people only.)
Click to expand...
Stop caring about the transactivists, activists of any sort are annoying as hell as they're really active......so annoying. Too emotional, the burden of us all, well most of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom