• 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.
Sideroxylon said:
Come on! I wanted to hear how they are getting their “role playing” wrong.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous.

They can role play and perform as much as they want to. That does not make them "women". No more than a minstrel performer in black face is magically transformed into a person with a high melanin content.

They are PERFORMING A STEREOTYPE OF "WOMEN". And it's often a very regressive and insulting stereotype of "women". But it is still just a performance.

Sideroxylon said:
While you are at it. Explain where you get off judging their sincerity or even someone’s right to dare to behave performatively in public.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about Rachel Dolezal identifying as black? Or Oli London identifying as Korean?

Sincerity is irrelevant. Someone could with 100% perfect sincerity truly believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Their belief, no matter how deeply held, does not make it true. Someone who with 100% sincerity truly believes that there is a god and they will go to heaven when they die doesn't make you or I wrong in our lack of faith, nor does it give those religionists the right to impose their belief on us.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I disagree. A1 is a gender essentialist answer. A2 is a sex realist answer.
Click to expand...

"No, she's male", would be a sex realist answer.


And if we were speaking the English language, that would mean the same as "No, she's a man." and the teacher would also mark the sentence wrong because of gender agreement issues.

However, if we are speaking the newspeak, it gets more complicated and we have to define our terms, and all meaningful definitions will get rejected.


The point I was tring to make to Sideroxylon is that there is this thing called "gender", and people demand that practical issues, like who gets to swim in the competition in the category labelled "women" are being subordinated to this thing called "gender" which is considered all important. That's "gender essentialism", the belief that there is an inherent aspect of a person called "gender" that is an essential aspect of their identity.

I ediited out part of the answer in that previous post, but I'll include it here.

My own answer to the question would be "The category labelled "women" exists for the people who do not have the biological advantage that comes from being born and developing as a male, especially going through puberty as a male. Lia Thomas has those advantages, and should therefore be excluded."

I'm not mentioning her gender at all. It doesn't play a role. I am not saying she can't race against women "because she is a man". I am saying she can't race against women because she has attributes that are derived from being male......or whatever other language construct you want to use, because the language doesn't define reality.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
Yes, if TRAs don't like his material they should stop writing it.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

Females: Women have uteruses.
TRAs: No, you're wrong, some women have penises.
Females: He raped me with his penis.
TRAs" SHE raped you with HER penis!

Gervais: The old kind of women with wombs, versus the new women with penises
Gervais: Old kind of women says 'he raped me with his penis', New kind of women says 'SHE raped you with HER penis'
TRAs: Gervais is a transphobe and is punching down! He's evil!

^^^ That is exactly what actually happened.
 
shuttlt said:
Something feels wrong here to me. Where ever people's identity lies, it's in their brains. I don't think you and Rolfe regard gender as being an internal identity. I think for you, it's more like if I identified as a teapot.... I'm just wrong. My wrong teapot notion is in my brain, and perhaps some day science may have advanced to the point where it can be found, but that still wouldn't make me a teapot. If I understand you and Rolfe correctly, the consequences of being a woman are unquestionably imprinted on your brains, just as much as they are imprinted on your bodies, but that is a consequence of you being an adult human female, not the thing that makes you an adult human female.
Click to expand...

You're conflating psychological and neurological.
 
shuttlt said:
Something feels wrong here to me. Where ever people's identity lies, it's in their brains. I don't think you and Rolfe regard gender as being an internal identity. I think for you, it's more like if I identified as a teapot.... I'm just wrong. My wrong teapot notion is in my brain, and perhaps some day science may have advanced to the point where it can be found, but that still wouldn't make me a teapot. If I understand you and Rolfe correctly, the consequences of being a woman are unquestionably imprinted on your brains, just as much as they are imprinted on your bodies, but that is a consequence of you being an adult human female, not the thing that makes you an adult human female.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for EC or Rolfe, but I don't think you have their positions correct. I think they would say that no matter what is imprinted in their brans, or why, the thing that is imprinted on their bodies is what makes a person a man or a woman.

There is a storng correlation between what is imprinted in bodies and what is imprinted in brains, but the body part is the derfinitive characteristic.

And, I agree with them, although I'm slightly more willing to compromise on the linguistics of it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Sincerity is irrelevant. Someone could with 100% perfect sincerity truly believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte. Their belief, no matter how deeply held, does not make it true. Someone who with 100% sincerity truly believes that there is a god and they will go to heaven when they die doesn't make you or I wrong in our lack of faith, nor does it give those religionists the right to impose their belief on us.
Click to expand...
Your problem, Emily's Cat, is that you are trying to describe how you think the world is. Try and imagine what the world could be. Dream a little....

What are all these things like "woman" and so on... they are just things people think, ideas in people's heads. You are afraid of strange men sexually assaulting people and other unpleasantness under the guise of being a trans-woman.... well again, that problem really only exists in the mind of the man in that situation, and maybe the women who are psychologically impacted by him. All of these problems are because of the content of people's minds. Well, then all we have to do is get people to think differently. Let's teach men not to rape, and women to regard trans-woman as their beautiful brave sisters. If we all just believed, we could will this world into being. The only thing preventing everybody getting along is people like you Emily's Cat.
 
shuttlt said:
Your problem, Emily's Cat, is that you are trying to describe how you think the world is. Try and imagine what the world could be. Dream a little....

What are all these things like "woman" and so on... they are just things people think, ideas in people's heads. You are afraid of strange men sexually assaulting people and other unpleasantness under the guise of being a trans-woman.... well again, that problem really only exists in the mind of the man in that situation, and maybe the women who are psychologically impacted by him. All of these problems are because of the content of people's minds. Well, then all we have to do is get people to think differently. Let's teach men not to rape, and women to regard trans-woman as their beautiful brave sisters. If we all just believed, we could will this world into being. The only thing preventing everybody getting along is people like you Emily's Cat.
Click to expand...

FYI - You're very difficult to engage with. I think your post here is intended as satire... but it's nearly impossible to tell. You bounce around between what I think might be your actual view and what you think other people's views are and satirical representations of hypothetical views... but you do it so often that it's impossible to figure out which is which.
 
Meadmaker said:
I can't speak for EC or Rolfe, but I don't think you have their positions correct. I think they would say that no matter what is imprinted in their brans, or why, the thing that is imprinted on their bodies is what makes a person a man or a woman.

There is a storng correlation between what is imprinted in bodies and what is imprinted in brains, but the body part is the derfinitive characteristic.

And, I agree with them, although I'm slightly more willing to compromise on the linguistics of it.
Click to expand...
I don't know. There are women who are born without vaginas. There are women without breasts. Rolf gave a pretty good rundown of her definition, and it didn't involve breasts. Breasts and so forth are just normal consequences of being a woman, not the things that make you a woman. You are male or female when you are just a small bundle of cells. A woman is just the adult that that female bundle of cells is going to turn into.
 
Emily's Cat said:
FYI - You're very difficult to engage with. I think your post here is intended as satire... but it's nearly impossible to tell. You bounce around between what I think might be your actual view and what you think other people's views are and satirical representations of hypothetical views... but you do it so often that it's impossible to figure out which is which.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is satire. Equally, I was honestly trying to explain a position... just not mine. I guess it's a case of Poe's Law. It just seems to me you are arguing with people as if they held positions that were kind of similar to yours expect that you were having a practical disagreement about managing risk. I do not think that is true. What I said about hierarchies and oppressors and so forth was not satire. I was genuinely describing positions that look a lot like those of the people you are arguing with.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
It's a software vs hardware distinction. Even more, we're talking about modified and user-altered software, not OEM software.
Click to expand...
Software is just the state of the hardware. For memories and behaviours to persist over long periods of time, you are talking about the wiring of the brain.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:thumbsup:

Females: Women have uteruses.
TRAs: No, you're wrong, some women have penises.
Females: He raped me with his penis.
TRAs" SHE raped you with HER penis!

Gervais: The old kind of women with wombs, versus the new women with penises
Gervais: Old kind of women says 'he raped me with his penis', New kind of women says 'SHE raped you with HER penis'
TRAs: Gervais is a transphobe and is punching down! He's evil!

^^^ That is exactly what actually happened.
Click to expand...

I’m watching his show just because of the faux outrage.
 
shuttlt said:
Software is just the state of the hardware. For memories and behaviours to persist over long periods of time, you are talking about the wiring of the brain.
Click to expand...

God Almighty should be well-hardwired into our brains by now then...
 
sphenisc said:
That's how statistics work. 88.6% of the women in the UK don't actually exist.
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read the survey (unlike allhell)?

There was no T because it was about sexual orientation and not gender identity.

The categories were (as I recall):

Heterosexual / Straight
Gay / Lesbian
Bisexual
Other

and it didm add up to 100%.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
3/4 of the world's population believe an invisible fairy rules the universe.

What people think/claim doesn't make something real.
Click to expand...
Well unless you agree that there is no such thing as an unmanly man or an unfeminine woman then you are also one of those who believes there are gradations of 'man' and 'woman'.

So what do you say? Are all men manly? Are all women feminine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom