• 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.
theprestige said:
I found the material hilarious, but Gervais is preaching to the choir with me. And I think there are limits to how far you can get with saying something offensive, and then following it up with "relax, it's just a joke!" At some point you stop being a comedian and start being a scumbag with a fig leaf. And I can see how Gervais may have reached that point with some of this material.
Click to expand...

That's been his career profile since he started.
 
theprestige said:
This is a bit of nuance that is probably lost on a lot of people, but "scumbag with a fig leaf" as a comedic persona is a different thing from just getting up on stage, being a scumbag, and using "comedian" as a fig leaf.
Click to expand...

I agree, he is by all accounts the former.
 
It's really a shame that the English language doesn't permit us to use descriptive words that modify category terms in order to indicate variant definitions of the category, such as more specific sub-categories and variations that are inclusive of cases not included in the basic category.
 
arthwollipot said:
I gave you the link to demonstrate that nonbinary gender is not something I'm just making up. It is a real thing that exists and that is becoming legally recognised in more and more jurisdictions.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you, personally, are making anything up. You are saying the very same thing I hear each time I ask anyone about this. The Atheist makes a great analogy: your approach is to say "they feel this in their hearts, so it is real and you should accept this". What I am countering with, just as I would to a roving band of Jehovah's Witnesses, is that what you feel in your heart does not jibe with reality. In the spirit of open-mindedness, I invite clarification. I get instead "they feel it in their hearts, so you have to as well. See, Wikipedia agrees!"

Everything else aside: do you understand why myself and others find the explanations rather severely inadequate?

Do you see why some of us find the clarifications to be right along the lines of "Bob over here channels the god Thor. You need to validate this at all times, even when not speaking directly to him"?

When you refer to the prophet Muhammad, do you say PBUH every time, even in the company of non-muslims or other unbelievers? If not, you are not validating how they think either. Disrespect and bigotry, yo.

So, in answer to this:

I would ask what further clarity or enlightenment you are looking for?
Click to expand...

You seem to think the clarity provided is adequate, and can't imagine anything further that someone might need. I guess that says it all, really, so there is no point for asking you to give clarification when you think a third-party's article of faith regarding things that don't even exist is acceptable. Thanks, and I mean that, for fairly trying.
 
Robin said:
When and in what context has that ever been the "typical" definition?

When and where was the term not overloaded with layers of meaning about social roles and expectations and behavioral rules?

Are you prepared to say that every man is, by definition, manly?
Click to expand...
Is every man a typical, or supreme representation of the type... of course not. A lion doesn't stop being a lion when his teeth fall out and he's all sad and pathetic.

Robin said:
Are you prepared to say that, by definition, no man is unmanly?
Click to expand...
There is this idea that language works like a logical construction in the manner of the Principia Mathematica. Manliness is not the property common of the members of the set of all men. That is never what it has meant. It is more like an ideal derived from that set. Some men are profoundly unmanly, they are still men.

Robin said:
Otherwise "man" is a social concept which admits of gradations.
Click to expand...
No "manliness" certainly, "man" certainly not.

Robin said:
So why should people who don't buy into those gender categories not go and pick their own.
Click to expand...
I would say, on an individual level it is about the most decadent, self absorbed, naval gazing, 12 year old girls on Tumblr in 2015 thing I can imagine. Beyond that though, we aren't just talking about somebody who has some epiphany and realises that they aren't just attracted to men and women, but all sexes, and only on Tuesdays and that this needs some special new gender... because bisexual and pansexual just don't quite cover it. The issue is that this ends up working out like the stereotype of the vegan who won't shut up about being a vegan and wants everybody else to change their lives to fit in around their veganism. What's next, picking our own species? I don't buy into the whole chronological age thing, where's my parade?

Did you ever spend too much time listening to how a word sounds, and after a while it's weird and somehow it stops quite making sense? That's gender. If people pick at it too much, it falls apart. No gender can fit everybody who is that gender 100% completely and fully all the time in an equal way to everybody else with that gender such that a more precise gender couldn't be conceived.
 
LondonJohn said:
"Haha we all know that negroes aren't actually intelligent, and the only ones who've made it into intellectual professions are only there because of affirmative action, hahaha"
Click to expand...
That's a pretty awful racial stereotype, encapsulating the core idea of white supremacy.

Which similarly pernicious transgender stereotype—presumably perpetuated by Gervais—is comparable thereto?
 
Last edited:
large number of posts moved here from the women identifying as LGBO Thread

Posted By: jimbob
 
I watched the Ricky Gervais show.

Not bad. Funny in spots.

When it comes to the trans bits, the early part, previously quoted, was my favorite, because it wasn't actually making fun of trans people. It was making fun of TRAs.
 
Thermal said:
I don't think that you, personally, are making anything up. You are saying the very same thing I hear each time I ask anyone about this.
Click to expand...
I reread the wiki page for non-binary genderWP and now it is perfectly clear to me what's going on. If you don't identify solely with the class of people who produce sperm and you don't identify solely with the class of people who were born with ova, then you may consider yourself non-binary, regardless of whether you personally produce sperm or ova, whether you consider yourself transgender, and whether you accept the idea of gender identity in the first place. It's all perfectly straightforward, so long as you understand what it means to identify oneself.
 
d4m10n said:
I reread the wiki page for non-binary genderWP and now it is perfectly clear to me what's going on. If you don't identify solely with the class of people who produce sperm and you don't identify solely with the class of people who were born with ova, then you may consider yourself non-binary, regardless of whether you personally produce sperm or ova, whether you consider yourself transgender, and whether you accept the idea of gender identity in the first place. It's all perfectly straightforward, so long as you understand what it means to identify oneself.
Click to expand...

All of which is fine as far as it goes. My issue is that it goes very far into territory that is essentially meaningless, and not near far enough into territory where it really matters.

For example, "non-binary gender self ID" is completely irrelevant to the question of whether you should be competing in men's sports or women's sports.
 
Meadmaker said:
I watched the Ricky Gervais show.

Not bad. Funny in spots.

When it comes to the trans bits, the early part, previously quoted, was my favorite, because it wasn't actually making fun of trans people. It was making fun of TRAs.
Click to expand...

That was one of the things about that last Chapelle special. When he was talking about his trans friend, it was pretty god damn clear that Dave really cared about her, and his description of her was, on balance, a pretty complimentary one. You really don't need to be hostile to trans people, as people, in order to draw the ire of trans "advocates".
 
jimbob said:
Don't forget this, which popped into my timeline today - from 2018

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...left-alone-school-lock-down-drill/1573950002/
Click to expand...

Well now that's pretty stupid. It's a lockdown drill. It's not like these kids were going to be taking off their clothes.


They aren't going to comment on the case, but why the heck would the question ever come up. The answer to which locker room to use in a lockdown drill is "Whichever one is closest." That's the answer for every student, not just the transgender kids.

Dumb. Just plain dumb. I would love to hear someone try and justify this.


It's so dumb, in fact, that I'm wondering if it's true. So often the stories that are so incredibly stupid that you can't believe they actually happened, didn't. However, I can't come up with any scenario that would create the issue unless it was true.
 
Thinking more about it.

Unless......there were people actively changing or showering at the beginning of the drill. In that case, "Go to the nearest locker room" would be a bad idea. And if the student didn't normally use either locker room, then it could make sense, sort of. It's one of those things that you would think that someone in the administration and/or the faculty might think of in advance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom