• 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.

Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
That's not really true. The gap between the sexes on the topic isn't very big. In the 2021 survey, women identify as pro-choice vs. pro-life 52% to 43%, whereas for men it's 50% to 45%. Men are only slightly more opposed to abortion than women.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your effort. This is not the first time EC has hawked this nonsense, and not the first time someone has quoted such statistics.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Genuine question: Do you actually care about transgender people? Or do you only care about hating on females and "right wingers" and conflating the two as often as possible?
Click to expand...

I saw an interview with, I wanna say Seattle's, first transgender police officer. I thought about sending it to SuburbanTurkey just to watch his head explode.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I saw an interview with, I wanna say Seattle's, first transgender police officer. I thought about sending it to SuburbanTurkey just to watch his head explode.
Click to expand...

Yes, the first time some token minority has been made a cop. Truly groundbreaking. :rolleyes:
 
Emily's Cat said:
I would say "Grow the hell up, American Males"

Females are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion bans in the US. There are always some religious hold-outs, but the numbers are not large.

Both of those "decisions" are being made by MALES and forced upon FEMALES who do not agree with them.
Click to expand...
Do you have stats for the States that would actually be implementing something approximating an abortion ban?
 
I heard an argument recently that I thought might be interesting to Emily's Cat and Rolfe. Basically, it was a reactionary talking about the slippery slope arguments that you used to get in the 80s from religious conservatives, and how much their worst fears would have been confirmed if they had had a window showing them 40 years into the future and seen the things you complain about. They then said that a lot of the arguments about children being able to take these kinds of decisions, sometimes without their parents knowledge and/or approval comes down to the idea that children are intentional beings who own their bodies and can consent to things happening to their bodies. The suggestion was that that is a dangerous idea to normalise since really children's inability to consent is the main argument in favour of age of consent laws and against paedophilia. In that vein many of the people involved in the development of queer theory, the ideas that sit behind much of this, either had abnormal predilections, or supported normalising child/adult sexual relationships.
 
Last edited:
I have also read the same argument. I'm not sure where I stand on that. I can see the reason for suspecting that a lot of this may very well lead to the legalisation of pederasty, and indeed I have seen people calling for exactly that, claiming that this is "the last remaining prejudice" to be overcome.

On the other hand, I'm not persuaded that the gay rights movement was originally like this, or that ceasing to treat male homosexuals as criminals is a bad idea.
 
Rolfe said:
I have also read the same argument. I'm not sure where I stand on that. I can see the reason for suspecting that a lot of this may very well lead to the legalisation of pederasty, and indeed I have seen people calling for exactly that, claiming that this is "the last remaining prejudice" to be overcome.

On the other hand, I'm not persuaded that the gay rights movement was originally like this, or that ceasing to treat male homosexuals as criminals is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I can't remember if I have posted this before. I would be very interested in your opinion. It's this leftie professor talking about the link between the founders of queer theory and paedophilia. There is a longer version of the talk, but this is only about 6 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-NseFg2kno

If you have more time the full talk is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo
It's 22 minutes, but I think it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
On the other hand, I'm not persuaded that the gay rights movement was originally like this, or that ceasing to treat male homosexuals as criminals is a bad idea.
Click to expand...
I think that is really the difference between the constrained and unconstrained vision of the world. The progressive, liberal, french enlightenment view and the Burkean one. In the unconstrained liberal enlightenment view, you can kind of choose these things like you are at a buffet.... maybe you want sexual equality, but you don't want to collapse of marriage, single parent families and all of the developmental problems children have as a result. You want to normalise homosexuality, but not transgenderism. Perhaps somebody else wants to normalise transgenderism but not paedophilia.

The constrained, Burkian idea is that life is much more like a set menu. You can't order the starter without getting the main course and dessert that goes with it.
 
There were a bunch of petitions signed by really significant intellectuals advocating for normalising paedophilia in the 70s. I'm looking for a copy of the letter signed by Sartre, de Beauvoir, two future French education ministers, Derrida, a future Green Party MEP, a leading Child Psychotherapist. The below Guardian article summarises the various letters and petitions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/feb/24/jonhenley

[Found it]Here is a copy of one of the petitions. This is the one signed by de Beauvoir and Sartre. Foucault signed another one. The people who founded queer theory make the argument we are discussing about why saying that children can consent to things means paedophilia shouldn't be regarded as a crime. This isn't a right wing myth.

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00aug29b2_le_monde.htm

"be condemned to a serious sentence of criminal imprisonment either for having had sexual relations with these minors, boys and girls, or for having favored and photographed their sexual games. We consider that there is a manifest disproportion on the one hand, between the qualification of "crime" which justifies such severity, and the nature of the alleged facts; on the other hand, between the obsolete nature of the law and the daily reality of a society which tends to recognize in children and adolescents the existence of a sexual life (if a thirteen-year-old girl is entitled to the pill, what is it for?) French law contradicts itself when it recognizes a capacity for discernment of a minor of thirteen or fourteen years old whom it can judge and condemn, whereas she refuses him this capacity when it comes to his affective and sexual life. Three years in prison for caresses and kisses is enough. We would not understand if on January 29 Dejager, Gallien and Burckhart did not find their freedom."
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I can't remember if I have posted this before. I would be very interested in your opinion. It's this leftie professor talking about the link between the founders of queer theory and paedophilia. There is a longer version of the talk, but this is only about 6 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-NseFg2kno

If you have more time the full talk is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb3-tlyuhVo
It's 22 minutes, but I think it is worth it.
Click to expand...


I listened to the long version. It was difficult in places because of the extraordinary rudeness of the girl who kept interrupting, and also I couldn't hear the questions.

I have heard all this before. It's not really my thing. I have heard and read enough to accept that this is really going on, but it seems to intersect with reality as I experience it so tangentially as to be almost irrelevant. My main thought is that a lot of young people are being badly let down by the people who should be educating them.

Is Queer Theory a front for pederasty? I don't know whether it was originally devised to be so, but the evidence that it's being used in that way seems pretty strong. And that is worrying, because the apparent ease with which the insane trans demands have gained traction and acceptance within governments and organisations is not a good omen when the advocates for abolition of age of consent laws move in using the same tactics.

On a completely different note, I was interested to hear some mention of incest, and the horror at the suggestion that there may be forms of incest that are not harmful. It's clear that the incest taboo is a very strong one indeed, even today, to the point where arguing that it is not always harmful (think Oedipus and Jocasta) is seen as unthinkable. I am currently engaged on critical analysis of a dramatic work first produced in the 1850s which presents (brother/sister) incest in about the most positive light imaginable. The intriguing point is that in the middle of the Victorian era this was not hounded off the stage and the author lynched. Yes there were some dissenting voices, but more of the tut tut how shocking kind than real visceral outrage. Most people simply went with it, and still do. I am working on an interpretation of this in the light of the brother/sister coupling being unconsciously recognised by the audience as a divine union in the tradition of Isis and Osiris and similar godly pairings (actually in this case reincarnations of Freyr and Freyja). And I think this was intentional on the part of the author. Now I just have to construct a coherent argument.

Your normal programming will now be resumed.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Is Queer Theory a front for pederasty? I don't know whether it was originally devised to be so, but the evidence that it's being used in that way seems pretty strong. And that is worrying, because the apparent ease with which the insane trans demands have gained traction and acceptance within governments and organisations is not a good omen when the advocates for abolition of age of consent laws move in using the same tactics.
Click to expand...
The other angle on this is that normalising paedophilia is much more acceptable in some significant parts of elite culture than it is in the mainstream such that academics can advocate for for decades. Being pro-paedophilia is much more academically acceptable than pushing the ideas around race based IQ differences.

Rolfe said:
On a completely different note, I was interested to hear some mention of incest, and the horror at the suggestion that there may be forms of incest that are not harmful. It's clear that the incest taboo is a very strong one indeed, even today, to the point where arguing that it is not always harmful (think Oedipus and Jocasta) is seen as unthinkable. I am currently engaged on critical analysis of a dramatic work first produced in the 1850s which presents (brother/sister) incest in about the most positive light imaginable. The intriguing point is that in the middle of the Victorian era this was not hounded off the stage and the author lynched. Yes there were some dissenting voices, but more of the tut tut how shocking kind than real visceral outrage. Most people simply went with it, and still do. I am working on an interpretation of this in the light of the brother/sister coupling being unconsciously recognised by the audience as a divine union in the tradition of Isis and Osiris and similar godly pairings (actually in this case reincarnations of Freyr and Freyja). And I think this was intentional on the part of the author. Now I just have to construct a coherent argument.
Click to expand...
That sounds interesting. What is the play? It makes me think of 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. Is there divine punishment for their relationship?
 
shuttlt said:
I heard an argument recently that I thought might be interesting to Emily's Cat and Rolfe. Basically, it was a reactionary talking about the slippery slope arguments that you used to get in the 80s from religious conservatives, and how much their worst fears would have been confirmed if they had had a window showing them 40 years into the future and seen the things you complain about. They then said that a lot of the arguments about children being able to take these kinds of decisions, sometimes without their parents knowledge and/or approval comes down to the idea that children are intentional beings who own their bodies and can consent to things happening to their bodies. The suggestion was that that is a dangerous idea to normalise since really children's inability to consent is the main argument in favour of age of consent laws and against paedophilia. In that vein many of the people involved in the development of queer theory, the ideas that sit behind much of this, either had abnormal predilections, or supported normalising child/adult sexual relationships.
Click to expand...

Rolfe said:
I have also read the same argument. I'm not sure where I stand on that. I can see the reason for suspecting that a lot of this may very well lead to the legalisation of pederasty, and indeed I have seen people calling for exactly that, claiming that this is "the last remaining prejudice" to be overcome.

On the other hand, I'm not persuaded that the gay rights movement was originally like this, or that ceasing to treat male homosexuals as criminals is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

If you look back at the history of the gay rights movement in the US, there's a pretty significant shift in support that occurred... right about the same time that the gay rights movement stopped including NAMBLA in its efforts.
 
shuttlt said:
That sounds interesting. What is the play? It makes me think of 'Tis Pity She's a Whore. Is there divine punishment for their relationship?
Click to expand...


I am going to put this in spoiler tags, because it's a derail that won't survive being split to its own thread.

It's an opera. Die Walküre. First performed in 1870 I now discover, although it was written somewhat earlier. (Big row between the composer and mad King Ludwig about performing rights. Ludwig eventually pulled rank and won.)

The question of divine punishment is really, really interesting. The twins are the children of Wotan (Odin), head god, but count as human because of their human mother. Except they're also werewolves but maybe don't go there. Love has been cursed at an earlier stage of the drama, I believe banished from the cosmos, leaving Freyr (Froh) and Freyja (Freia) empty husks. (He's an airhead and she's a cardboard cut-out who does nothing but scream.)

The male twin (Siegmund) has been bred by Wotan to be the Free Hero he believes is needed to regain the cursed ring of power, and the female twin (Sieglinde) seems just to have happened. They are separated as children, Wotan's doing so he can bring the boy up himself by training him in misfortune. The girl is trafficked into a forced marriage. They meet again as young adults without immediately recognising each other and fall so comprehensively in love that there really is a feeling of something supernatural behind it. Here's the rub. They recognise their relationship before the sex scene and carry right on regardless.

There is an extraordinarily telling scene during the recognition process which is always dismissed as a let's-hold-up-the-drama-for-a-love-song interlude, but which I think is crucially important. The door flies open, the moon (masculine in German) floods into the room, and everything is transformed. Siegmund (who doesn't admit to having realised that this woman is his sister until considerably later) sings about Spring (also masculine) breaking down the doors of winter to rescue his sister, Love (feminine), and making her his bride. Sieglinde immediately respondes with "Du bist der Lenz" (You are the spring), sung to the part of Freia's original motif that has become the twins' love motif but which I think carries the broader connotation of love as divinity. There's more, but whatever.

Anyway, next act, Wotan's wife Fricka (Frigg), goddess of marriage among other things is doing her nut because Sieglinde's husband has prayed to her for vengeance against the adulterer (he doesn't know that it's incest too, but Fricka certainly does - Blutschande in German). She demands that Siegmund must die as a punishment. Wotan is having none of that and never agrees, but he changes the subject to explain that Siegmund is the necessary free hero who will recover the ring and save the gods from the curse. It takes Fricka less than five minutes to demolish that one, how can he be free from the influence of the gods when Wotan fathered him and brought him up and trained him? It's cheating. Wotan is crushed and realises that he has to kill Siegmund.

Except he sends his favourite valkyrie daughter to do the deed, and she is so overcome with compassion for Siegmund that she disobeys her father and that is the major turning point in the drama. (She in fact becomes the eventual free hero because of her rebellion - she who was Wotan's will has turned against his will to do the deed he himself was forbidden to do, but he never realises this because he thinks the free hero has to be male, and that goes for most of the audience too, at least until relatively recently.)

Siegmund does indeed die, because Wotan is so incensed by his daughter's rebellion that he intervenes, and so does Sieglinde, but later, in childbirth. So is this divine punishment for incest? Some commentators think so, but I disagree. Wotan doesn't believe that what those two did was wrong. He actually kills Siegmund because he has realised he was deceiving himself with the plan to rear and groom a so-called free hero, and is so furious with himself he takes it out on the twins.

Another paradox is that we're constantly being told that Siegmund is no more than a clone of Wotan, practically a mindless construct, so how can he be free? Both Fricka and Wotan take that line. But in fact Siegmund as a person is about as different from Wotan (who is an absolute bastard at this point in the drama) as it is possible to be. I've never seen this discussed.

Anyway, I'll bet you're sorry you asked now. I was just working on it when I took a quick break to listen to your video and the incest reference struck me. This is what happens when you spend years reading scholarly tomes about the greatest work of art in western literature and find yourself violently disagreeing with pretty much all of them.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
The other angle on this is that normalising paedophilia is much more acceptable in some significant parts of elite culture than it is in the mainstream such that academics can advocate for for decades. Being pro-paedophilia is much more academically acceptable than pushing the ideas around race based IQ differences.
Click to expand...


That's a really interesting observation. Or to put it another way, the belief that men who LARP femininity are not women is not worthy of respect in a democratic society, but the belief that men should be able to have sexual relationships with any child they can groom into compliance is. In the minds of the elite, that is.
 
Rolfe said:
That's a really interesting observation. Or to put it another way, the belief that men who LARP femininity are not women is not worthy of respect in a democratic society, but the belief that men should be able to have sexual relationships with any child they can groom into compliance is. In the minds of the elite, that is.
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. I would say that the reason for that is that fundamentally, trans-women aren't women is a conservative that limits doubts utopian visions to remake the world such that everybody can freely pursue happiness without creating a tragedy of the commons. The MAP position is pure utopian, grand vision, we who are enlightened and not burdened by outdated moral taboos can remake the world by liberating everybody to freely explore their desires.

There are other factors as well of course. You are always going to get more funding for ideas that say that grand social projects are feasible, than those that say they aren't. It is also very much less effort to show that you are clever by focusing on interpreting and laying esoteric theory full of context specific jargon, than it is to discover true things in the real world. One of the markers of "original thought" and therefore academic achievement is to come up with something counter intuitive. Nobody is going to be blown away by you definitively proving that letting males, with long histories of mental health problems focusing on the female body, into female changing rooms may have some undesirable consequences. Claim that 6 year olds should be encouraged to masturbate and you are being brave and provocative and showing how stupid and arbitrary non-elite taboos are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom