• 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.
d4m10n said:
Saying that someone is mistaken to assume they belong in some space hitherto reserved for females (e.g. women's rugby) isn't waging war on self-identity or expression. It is a defensive reaction at most.
Click to expand...

What a silly I am. Cheers for clarity.
 
Meadmaker said:
Hmmm.....from past experience, I think this is going toward one of the common dodges, which is a slight variation of dodge 1 mentioned previously. However, I'll try not to jump to that conclusion and just answer the question seriously.

First, girls who "sexualize the context".

I don't know what's going on in their heads, so they might very well be sexualizing the context. If they make no overt display of sexualizing the context, I would never know. People who make an overt display of sexualizing the context would be restricted.

Second "Girls who fail to respect the modesty of others using the space."

I'm having a hard time understanding the question. If you use a girls' locker room, there is an expectation that people will see you fully or partially disrobed. That might violate your sense of modesty, but if all of those people who see a girl disrobed are, themselves, girls, the girl whose modesty is offended in that situation would not have recourse to fix the problem. It's normal. It's expected. The other girls, the ones who are not respecting the modesty of the shy girl, are still allowed to use the locker room. So, yes.


In short, in the normal use of locker rooms, girls who use the locker room do not overtly sexualize that use, but they do see each other fully or partially disrobed, which might offend someone's sense of modesty. Girls who overtly sexualize the use of the locker rooms will likely be prohibited from future use. However, girls who "fail to respect the modesty" of other girls are not excluded. Lack of modesty in same sex situations is expected. That's why we have two locker rooms.


Now, you asked about girls. By "girls", I mean the concave variety of human. If you asked about the convex sort of human, I would answer differently.

I was asking you about convex sorts who, despite their convexity, feel that they ought to be allowed to use the girls' locker room. Do you think that should be allowed?

(If your answer goes beyond "yes" or "no", feel free to use anything in my answer about girls as part of your explanation, if that is useful.)
Click to expand...

Just as a fairly radical person, the notion that something is normal carries little weight to me.
 
Sideroxylon said:
...
This a ... debate and war on self identity expression.
...
Click to expand...

I snipped out parts of your post that I thought were more reflective of personal attitudes than civil discourse, but let me address this part.


"Self identity expression". That's a combination of words I haven't encountered in the previous eight continuations.

Although calling it a "war" is hyperbolic, I don't disagree. That is the crux of the debate. If someone self identifies as a woman or a man, must we honor that self identification in every circumstance? I say no.

In those situations where someone's self identity or the expression thereof doesn't matter, then let freedom of expression reign. If you want to wear a dress, then wear a dress. Call yourself Sheila? No problem. Get your girlfriends (regardless of anatomy) together to go watch "Fifty Shades of Grey"? Enjoy yourselves. See me naked? Absolul......wait....uhhhh....what was that last one?

No. Just no. You can't. Well, ok. I'm a guy. It's probably ok. But if you have boy bits, and a girl says no, then just no. I'm taking her side.

If that be war, then let's make the most of it.

ETA: And, to repeat something said before ad nauseum, if "her side" is "that's fine with me", then it's fine with me, too.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I snipped out parts of your post that I thought were more reflective of personal attitudes than civil discourse, but let me address this part.


"Self identity expression". That's a combination of words I haven't encountered in the previous eight continuations.

Although calling it a "war" is hyperbolic, I don't disagree. That is the crux of the debate. If someone self identifies as a woman or a man, must we honor that self identification in every circumstance? I say no.

In those situations where someone's self identity or the expression thereof doesn't matter, then let freedom of expression reign. If you want to wear a dress, then wear a dress. Call yourself Sheila? No problem. Get your girlfriends (regardless of anatomy) together to go watch "Fifty Shades of Grey"? Enjoy yourselves. See me naked? Absolul......wait....uhhhh....what was that last one?

No. Just no. You can't. Well, ok. I'm a guy. It's probably ok. But if you have boy bits, and a girl says no, then just no. I'm taking her side.

If that be war, then let's make the most of it.
Click to expand...

You are doing it. Making the assumption and assertion that this is merely performance. Some others here have not been coy on that.
 
Sideroxylon said:
You are doing it. Making the assumption and assertion that this is merely performance. Some others here have not been coy on that.
Click to expand...

No. You are absolutely wrong. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is performance. None whatsoever. You're just wrong.
 
I want to elaborate on my previous answer. As of the time I am writing this, no one has responded, but they might while I'm typing.


It has nothing to do with "performance", or even with "identity". Two male bodied individuals walk into a girls' locker room. One of them identifies as a man. The other identifies as a woman. The TRA position is that the girls in the locker room should treat the two differently based on some internal mental state, in this case something known as "identity". My position is that the two should be treated the same, based on externally identifiable characteristics.

There's nothing about whether or not one or the other of them is "performing". I think her natural reaction is based on the things she can see, not on any "identity" of the person involved.

She wants privacy from the male gaze. She doesn't care about the identity of the male, or how that male perceives himself. How he really feels is not her problem.

Convince her it's ok, and I'll go along.
 
An interesting piece from of all places the New York Times, a newspaper that of late has been obsessed with telling people what to think, or else...


This time they seem to be asking the reader to think for themselves, not something the average NYT reader is comfortable with doing since that causes 'harm'.



ATLANTA — The women on the Princeton University swim team spoke of collective frustration edging into anger. They had watched Lia Thomas, a transgender woman who swam for the University of Pennsylvania, win meet after meet, beating Olympians and breaking records.


On Jan. 9, the team met with Robin Harris, executive director of the Ivy League athletic conference.


The swimmers, several of whom described the private meeting on condition of anonymity, detailed the biological advantages possessed by transgender female athletes. To ignore these, they said, “was to undermine a half-century fight for female equality in sport.”
Click to expand...


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/us/lia-thomas-women-sports.html
 
TRAs: We'd like certain males to compete in women's sports.

Skeptics: That seems a bit unfair to the current competitors, who've never experienced male puberty and all the athletic advantages thereof.

TRAs: This a cruel and horrible debate and war on self identity expression.

Skeptics: How so?

TRAs: Don't be such a bastard.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
. . . . If you find yourself arguing alongside nasty reactionary ***** like Ben Shapiro and evangelical preachers with the same talking points you need to take a hard look at yourself.
Click to expand...
This is not a position based in science or skepticism. The value of an argument resides solely on its internal characteristics, logic, evidence, etc., and not on which people support it. Depending exactly what "alongside" looks like.
 
For the trans-inclusionists trying to ignore the claims of transgenderism being a slippery slope to transsexualism, I give you the New York Times:
"I’m beginning to question the idea of sex segregation in sport. We need to learn to sit with discomfort."​
According to the article, the speaker is "a former pole-vaulter who [...] sees notions of gender disadvantage in sports as rooted in culture and an outdated view of what women can achieve."

Apparently the way to solve the problem of sports actually mattering to a lot of people is to try to convince them that sex doesn't matter.
 
theprestige said:
According to the article, the speaker is "a former pole-vaulter who [...] sees notions of gender disadvantage in sports as rooted in culture and an outdated view of what women can achieve."
Click to expand...

The fact that someone could even write that sentence is very disappointing.

Unreality has a strong hold in America right now. This issue is just one area where it is manifesting itself.
 
theprestige said:
For the trans-inclusionists trying to ignore the claims of transgenderism being a slippery slope to transsexualism, I give you the New York Times:
"I’m beginning to question the idea of sex segregation in sport. We need to learn to sit with discomfort."​
According to the article, the speaker is "a former pole-vaulter who [...] sees notions of gender disadvantage in sports as rooted in culture and an outdated view of what women can achieve."

Apparently the way to solve the problem of sports actually mattering to a lot of people is to try to convince them that sex doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Constructivism taken to outright nuttery.

Dear fellows: please, first build an epistemology, and then an ideology, not the other way around. The latter tends to produce question beggary, at best; flatearthery and the likes, at worst.
 
Sideroxylon said:
It all comes back to this. Not being a bastard in this context is the hill I die on start being rude from as it is too fundamental to my personal moral aesthetic and empathy.

This a cruel and horrible debate and war on self identity expression. If you find yourself arguing alongside nasty reactionary ***** like Ben Shapiro and evangelical preachers with the same talking points you need to take a hard look at yourself.
Click to expand...

What is "self identity expression?"
 
theprestige said:
For the trans-inclusionists trying to ignore the claims of transgenderism being a slippery slope to transsexualism, I give you the New York Times:
"I’m beginning to question the idea of sex segregation in sport. We need to learn to sit with discomfort."​
According to the article, the speaker is "a former pole-vaulter who [...] sees notions of gender disadvantage in sports as rooted in culture and an outdated view of what women can achieve."

Apparently the way to solve the problem of sports actually mattering to a lot of people is to try to convince them that sex doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

This was behind a paywall, which is disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom