Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[xjx388]

Yet another batch of posts have been sent to AAH because they are mostly accusations and responses about other posters and not about the topic of the thread. It's possible some salient points were part of the purge, so feel free to reiterate them if you must and it is indeed related to the thread topic.

To be very clear: Accusing other members of being TERF's, transphobes, etc is not generally acceptable, even when it is disguised or convoluted. The topic is not each other.

Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

 

[Rolfe]

Here's another beauty, another demonstration that everybody knows who is male and who is female when it really matters.

One of the things (the only thing?) that was made a specific exemption in the British GRA law was that no daughter may usurp the hereditary title her younger brother is due to inherit by legally changing her sex to male. Primogeniture-entailed titles are reserved for real males, not pretend ones. A person changing 'gender' “does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour”.

Now an absolutely delicious anomaly has arisen. A man who has inherited one of these male-only primogeniture titles has changed his legal sex to female. This obviously does not affect his entitlement to the title. However, he has an older sister.

First trans peer a step closer as hereditary candidate claims seat

When really important things are at stake, everyone can correctly identify male and female, and correctly apply the rules as to which group always wins out. Two "sisters", and the younger one gets the title. In fact the older one would never have been allowed to inherit the title even if the younger sibling had never been born, because only males can inherit.

Oh.

 

[Rolfe]

Here is a piece in the Weekly Worker, arguing that there is 'common ground between the patriarchal right and some advocates of trans rights'.

Orthodoxy and its discontents

"But the debate is not just about trans rights - it is about what sex and gender actually are - which is relevant to all humanity. So, when we consider gender in relation to the whole of humanity, the picture flips around: trans rights orthodoxy has far more in common with socially conservative views than gender-critical feminism does."

Strangely, I linked to gender critical pieces in the Weekly Worker before, and I don't recall any well-poisoning.

I just had a read at that. It's very good.

 

[Rolfe]

And on the subject of the harm done to children by the gender industry, this one does NOT miss and hit the wall.

An open letter to Australia's doctors

There is a simple reason why Ms. Deves tweeted about children being surgically mutilated and sterilised.

It’s because children are being surgically mutilated and sterilised.

They are creating a cohort of adults with children’s bodies, just adulterated by testosterone or oestrogen.

If a child has their body arrested at Tanner stage 2, how does that child develop fertility? The simple answer is, they can’t. We all need the later stages of puberty to fully develop sperm and eggs. They have been sterilised by medical means. They have been sterilised by doctors at our children’s hospitals.

If a child has their body arrested at Tanner stage 2, how does a child develop sexual function? The simple answer is, they can’t. They have been rendered sexually dysfunctional adults by medical means, by doctors at our children’s hospitals.

If a child has their body arrested at Tanner stage 2, then is subjected to abnormal levels of exogenously administered hormones for which that body is not equipped, how do they escape harm? The simple answer is, they can’t. They have been committed to a lifetime of hormone-induced iatrogenic disease by doctors at our children’s hospitals.

Primum non nocere.

 

[p0lka]

When a person says "I am a man", but they have boobs and a vagina and they bleed out of their cervix once a month and then get knocked up and have a baby... I'm pretty sure they're not a man in any meaningful sense of the word "man".

When a person says "I am a woman", but they have a giant adam's apple, a prostate, a penis and testicles, and they regularly shoot out some sperm-filled goop... I'm pretty sure they're not a woman in any meaningful sense of the word "woman".

Despite your bellyaching over the topic, it's not actually that challenging, Joe. A person can claim to be whatever the **** they want. But they do not control your mind. So unless YOU perceive them to be what they claim to be, how they feel about themselves is pretty much irrelevant.

This isn't limited to sex or to socially contrived 'gender identity'. This extends to all elements of anybody's claimed identity. I've lost track of how many times I've told people on ISF that I'm not a conservative, I've never been a Trump supporter, and I'm neither trans-exclusionary nor a radical feminist... It doesn't stop other people from applying labels to me based on their perception. No matter how incorrect I think that perception is, I can't force them to perceive me differently.

Just because some people really, really, REALLY want to be perceived in a certain way doesn't mean that anyone else has any obligation to rewire their own brains to support that other person's self-concept.

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

 

[shuttlt]

And on the subject of the harm done to children by the gender industry, this one does NOT miss and hit the wall.

An open letter to Australia's doctors

Nothing they wouldn't let them in to woke heaven over.

 

[Rolfe]

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

Give it up. We've been over this often enough. A man is an adult male human being and a woman is an adult female human being. This is how language has been used since English crawled out of the Mercian dialect of Anglo-Saxon, it's how it's used today, and you and a handful of your mates don't get to change it on your say-so.

Still less do you get to dictate that other people should adopt your Newspeak, or interpret normal speech as if the person speaking was speaking your Newspeak.

 

[Ziggurat]

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

No, she is not.

"Male" and "man" are definitely not synonymous, that much is true. In particular, "male" doesn't have to be human or adult, "man" does. But those distinctions aren't relevant to EC's post.

 

[Olmstead]

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

I've been thinking about this. Personally, I find this idea of gender sexist, and I don't think I want to be associated with this concept of "man". The question of where that places me is an interesting one.

I cannot be considered "neutral", as I reject the premise itself. Most people who'd want to place me would probably consider me a "man", but unless we're discussing biology, this becomes an issue of identity. If I'm not on board with the idea of genders, "man" can't be my identity.

I might be delusional, and simply don't perceive the reality of my gender. For a theory that places such a large emphasis on personal perception, this seems like a dangerous road to thread. Maybe "utter apathy" is a gender in itself. Or maybe a lot of it is drenched in ideology.

 

[theprestige]

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

Fringe reset. This has already been addressed. You've acknowledged that it's already been addressed. But you're still stuck on it. Why?

 

[shuttlt]

Give it up. We've been over this often enough. A man is an adult male human being and a woman is an adult female human being. This is how language has been used since English crawled out of the Mercian dialect of Anglo-Saxon, it's how it's used today, and you and a handful of your mates don't get to change it on your say-so.

Still less do you get to dictate that other people should adopt your Newspeak, or interpret normal speech as if the person speaking was speaking your Newspeak.

There is an idea of the dissident right that I think is growing in prominence. For a long time they tried to turn words like racist around. "Reverse-racism" goes back to the 80s, I think. You've got "the left are the real racists", and various other formulations. I don't think that was just cynical, they genuinely think the left are racist. They point at various things and try to call them racist and it never works. The conclusion many of them have come to is that, what ever one might think in theory, in practice some groups own the definition of certain words, and some don't. If the media, the academy, and politicians are lined up behind some groups use of the word, it can mean whatever that group says it means... even if the meaning is self contradictory or barely defined.

As much as you are trying to hold a line here that, I think, is perfectly reasonable.... I wonder whether the definitions of these words are really down to you, or people like you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

you're mixing up male with man, and female with woman.

No, I'm not. I'm using the traditional, well-established, well-understood, widely-accepted meaning of the terms.

I do not accept your freshly-minted coercive redefinition of terms.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been thinking about this. Personally, I find this idea of gender sexist, and I don't think I want to be associated with this concept of "man". The question of where that places me is an interesting one.

I cannot be considered "neutral", as I reject the premise itself. Most people who'd want to place me would probably consider me a "man", but unless we're discussing biology, this becomes an issue of identity. If I'm not on board with the idea of genders, "man" can't be my identity.

I might be delusional, and simply don't perceive the reality of my gender. For a theory that places such a large emphasis on personal perception, this seems like a dangerous road to thread. Maybe "utter apathy" is a gender in itself. Or maybe a lot of it is drenched in ideology.

Agenderist. Gender Heretic. Gender Apostate. Take your pick of terms. One way or another, no matter what you call me, the truth is that I reject the religion of gender identity.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I'm not on board with the idea of genders, "man" can't be my identity.

Why not? Why can't "man" just refer to your biological sex? Why can't that be your answer irrespective of gender?

Or are you not on board with the idea of biological sex either? And if you are, why do you need an "identity" beyond your biology?

 

[shuttlt]

Why not? Why can't "man" just refer to your biological sex? Why can't that be your answer irrespective of gender?

Or are you not on board with the idea of biological sex either? And if you are, why do you need an "identity" beyond your biology?

I don't want "middle aged" to be my identity. I want early 20s to be my identity. Age isn't even biological.... some people look like they are in their 30s into their 50s, while other people look old and you find they are in their mid-30s. I should be able to date 18 year olds without judgement and they should treat me just as they did when I was 20.

 

[Olmstead]

Why not? Why can't "man" just refer to your biological sex? Why can't that be your answer irrespective of gender?

Or are you not on board with the idea of biological sex either? And if you are, why do you need an "identity" beyond your biology?

Because it's kind of arbitrary to consider it an identity when it's just the biological background? It affects my life, but so does the fact that I'm 6 foot tall instead of 5. I can say I'm a man from a biological point of view, but what does that actually mean from the perspective of identity?

 

[shuttlt]

Because it's kind of arbitrary to consider it an identity when it's just the biological background? It affects my life, but so does the fact that I'm 6 foot tall instead of 5. I can say I'm a man from a biological point of view, but what does that actually mean from the perspective of identity?

I'm a tall man, that's part of my identity. My aunt was tall too, I remember her saying how much she liked walking beside my dad because he made her feel small.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because it's kind of arbitrary to consider it an identity when it's just the biological background? It affects my life, but so does the fact that I'm 6 foot tall instead of 5. I can say I'm a man from a biological point of view, but what does that actually mean from the perspective of identity?

Elaedith linked to a really well written article recently, that had this bit of wisdom in it:

But the notion of ‘woman’ as ‘identity’ creates a difficulty in engaging with trans ideologists, because it is virtually impossible to get them to take on board the understanding that we are not talking about an identity. To them an identity translates as, roughly speaking, a sense of self - what is important to someone about themselves, the central pillar of how they think about themselves. So if you say, ‘I am a woman, and woman means adult human female’, what they hear is: ‘I think of myself as a walking reproductive system; my reproductive body parts are the most important things about who I am’ - when in fact all you are doing is identifying yourself as someone who is female, which can be important in a number of circumstances, for material reasons. It does not mean that you think it is the most important thing about yourself, or the only thing that people should know about you.

Here's the initial post, if you're interested in the rest of the article.

Here is a piece in the Weekly Worker, arguing that there is 'common ground between the patriarchal right and some advocates of trans rights'.

Orthodoxy and its discontents

"But the debate is not just about trans rights - it is about what sex and gender actually are - which is relevant to all humanity. So, when we consider gender in relation to the whole of humanity, the picture flips around: trans rights orthodoxy has far more in common with socially conservative views than gender-critical feminism does."

Strangely, I linked to gender critical pieces in the Weekly Worker before, and I don't recall any well-poisoning.

 

[shuttlt]

If it's common ground, I would be stunned if it's common ground that leads to common cause between the trans-activists and the reactionary right.

 

[theprestige]

I can say I'm a man from a biological point of view, but what does that actually mean from the perspective of identity?

I have a serious question. It's one of the only really unanswered questions I have about this whole topic:

What does it mean to you, from a perspective of identity, for you to say you're a man from any other point of view? What point of view would you be saying it from? What would it imply to anyone else, in terms of how they treat you? What provisions should be made in public policy to accommodate your sense of manhood, from that point of view?