Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Emily's Cat]

Nope you made effort mean anything. When you make effort to mean remembering anything about someone you have rendered it meaningless.

Tell you what, you spend one week not using sex-based pronouns, only using "they" for every interaction on this forum... and then get back to us on whether or not it required effort, or was completely routine with no conscious thought required.

 

[Darat]

The exception, I think, is wrapped up in language. Transmen play no small part in erasing female-centered language. Transmen are the ones pushing "menstruator" and "people with uteruses" and similar such dehumanizing language. They excluded themselves from the category of women... and then when their sex is material and relevant, they insist that all of the other females on the planet must change our language so they can be included back into the category that they excluded themselves from in the first place.

Really?

 

[Darat]

It's also not a neutral thing to do. The more people go along with this, the more pressure there is on people to go along with it.

...snip...

Do you not already use "he" and "she"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You need to try to read without preconception.

What preconceptions are you assuming that I have, Darat?

Two females cannot reproduce with each other in the human species. Reproduction takes a male and a female. There is no preconception in that.

The context of this interaction regarding the term "birth parent" replacing the term "mother" on birth certificates in Australia is also not a preconception.

My understanding of the distinction between literal language and figurative language is also not a preconcpetion.

So I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what preconception you have assumed I hold that is in any way relevant to my post.

 

[Darat]

If that's the only objective characteristic that distinguishes them from other men, I don't see any basis for making accommodations for them in public policy.

...snip.,,

I see the addition of "only" - that's called creating a strawman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again drop your preconceptions and read what I actually posted - you are reacting to something I didn't actually post.

I think you think you're saying something different than what you're actually saying. If you think I've misunderstood your post in a meaningful and material way, I invite you to rephrase yourself in an effort to be better understood.

I also invite you to share what preconceptions you have assumed I hold, that are relevant to this interaction.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Really?

Yes, really.

The appropriation of the debate on reproductive rights in the US by advocates for "neutral" language with respect to pregnancy and abortion are coming from transmen.

I suppose one could make the argument that they're coming from trans advocacy organization, and that they're only using transmen in order to push an agenda for transwomen, but that seems rather conspiracist to me.

 

[Darat]

Is it truly just magic words, then? It's the "objective" observation that they said a magic phrase, and some other males did not say the magic phrase?

Are there any actual objective characteristics that distinguish this subset of males from other males?

You seem to be also trying to create a strawman by ignoring the exchange where that came from.

You also very much misunderstand what "objective" means.

20 people saying they like strawberry ice cream in a poll is an objective fact.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you not already use "he" and "she"?

Sometimes, I end up wondering if you're arguing just to argue. I wonder if you're just naturally wired to be contrarian.

Pretty much everyone in this thread uses "he" and "she", it's how our mutual language works. But we use them to recognize SEX, not gender. Asking people to apply them to the opposite sex takes effort. It's akin to insisting that people should refer to cats as puppies and to dogs as kitties. It takes effort, because that's not what those words mean, and it requires conscious attention to remember to use the wrong word.

 

[Darat]

Tell you what, you spend one week not using sex-based pronouns, only using "they" for every interaction on this forum... and then get back to us on whether or not it required effort, or was completely routine with no conscious thought required.

Again strawman creation. Why can't you address what people have posted?

Again go back and you will see the exchange was about "he" and "she" not "they". If you want to discuss "they" then by all means do so but I would prefer it that you didn't try to pretend what I said was about something else.

 

[Darat]

What preconceptions are you assuming that I have, Darat?

My post about "preconception" was about your preconceptions of me!

 

[Rolfe]

Sometimes, I end up wondering if you're arguing just to argue. I wonder if you're just naturally wired to be contrarian.

Pretty much everyone in this thread uses "he" and "she", it's how our mutual language works. But we use them to recognize SEX, not gender. Asking people to apply them to the opposite sex takes effort. It's akin to insisting that people should refer to cats as puppies and to dogs as kitties. It takes effort, because that's not what those words mean, and it requires conscious attention to remember to use the wrong word.

It's asking us to consciously over-ride the most hard-wired part of our language that exists. It's doing this in order to force compiance with the religious demands of the trans lobby. Good grief, I can respect Muslims without saying "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet" six times a day. No Muslim would dream of trying to force that on other people. But the trans lobby want to force everyone to make verbal obeisance to their religion.

Compliance gives them a win. Not complying.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You seem to be also trying to create a strawman by ignoring the exchange where that came from.

It was MY exchange! There is no strawman involved in reading what you actually wrote, in context of the question you were asked.

You also very much misunderstand what "objective" means.

20 people saying they like strawberry ice cream in a poll is an objective fact.

Sheesh.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Characteristic: a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify it

A count of 20 people who respond that they like strawberry ice cream is an objective fact. That those people like strawberry ice cream is subjective. Their opinion, preference, taste, and feelings about ice cream are completely subjective.

That some males say a magic phrase can be an objective observation of an event that occurred. But their belief about themselves is not a characteristic, and it is not an objective characteristic.

Given a line-up of five males in dresses going to a "ladies drink free" night at the pub, what characteristics identifies the one transwoman as opposed to the four in costume? You could ask them all if they "identify as a woman"... but three are in character and want free drinks, and one is a lying predator intending to accost a female in the restroom. How do you sort them out?

What objective characteristic do you use to determine which one of the five is actually transgender, which three are merely opportunistic, and which one is a predator?

 

[Emily's Cat]

My post about "preconception" was about your preconceptions of me!

Fine. You could still answer the question - what preconceptions do you think I hold?

 

[theprestige]

I see the addition of "only" - that's called creating a strawman.

It's the only objective characteristic you came up with when responding. If you have other, better characteristics you'd like us to consider, now would have been a good time to present them. Instead, I see the subtraction of "if" - that's called creating a strawman.

 

[Darat]

Sometimes, I end up wondering if you're arguing just to argue. I wonder if you're just naturally wired to be contrarian.

Pretty much everyone in this thread uses "he" and "she", it's how our mutual language works. But we use them to recognize SEX, not gender. Asking people to apply them to the opposite sex takes effort. It's akin to insisting that people should refer to cats as puppies and to dogs as kitties. It takes effort, because that's not what those words mean, and it requires conscious attention to remember to use the wrong word.

Glad to see you've dropped your strawman. We obviously disagree on what amounts to effort, if I am introduced to someone named " Delores" it takes no effort for me to refer to them as she or her than it would he or him. It would take me effort to go through "oh hang on Delores is a badly dressed man, he's one of these trans-women so I need to call them he and not she". I hold that the default of most people is to simply use whatever the other person wants, like we do with names and nicknames.

If you want me to go further and address something I didn't initially i.e. the use of "they" as a new(ish) pronoun to go alongside "he" and "she" then I would agree that takes more effort. I freely admit I have found it a tad awkward when it has come up in real life. But I can't see any reason why not to put in a bit of effort in to make someone feel welcome and included, I have to have a strong reason to make me want to be rude to someone. My adoption of "they" has been helped by fiction, I often discuss Dr Who with people and we can no longer refer to the Dr as "he" or "she" outside of specific incarnations so using "they" has been "forced " on me.

And of course the topic of this thread is he or she not they.

 

[Darat]

It's the only objective characteristic you came up with when responding. If you have other, better characteristics you'd like us to consider, now would have been a good time to present them. Instead, I see the subtraction of "if" - that's called creating a strawman.

Again playing word games rather than engaging in constructive discussion - I never said "only". I was asked for one and I gave one that matched up with my claim that trans-women are a subgroup of men.

Is your need so strong that you are saying that trans-women are not a sub-group of men?

 

[shuttlt]

<double post>

 

[shuttlt]

The word bigotry means "...obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group...."

How that is akin to a political term like "suppressive person" or "counter-revolutionary" is known only to yourself.

And of course you conveniently forget I did provide one example of Rolfe's opinions that made me consider her view bigotry... but don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative eh?

Darat, I didn't conveniently forget, obviously there are going to be things that made you think that [the opinions of] Rolfe are hateful and vile. You pointing to your reasons is laughably circular. They are convincing only to people who share your moral/political perspective. I didn't think you just randomly picked Rolfe for no reason, any more than I would randomly pick a forum member not to like and start throwing epithets at that member['s views].

If I said you[r views] were degenerate and vile, I wouldn't have plucked that out of the air. You might well disagree with my interpretation, or feel that the whole idea of degeneracy was a self serving concept that allowed me to make things I didn't like sound bad. The same is true of your characterisation of Rolfe's [ideas] bigotry.

 

[shuttlt]

It's asking us to consciously over-ride the most hard-wired part of our language that exists. It's doing this in order to force compiance with the religious demands of the trans lobby. Good grief, I can respect Muslims without saying "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet" six times a day. No Muslim would dream of trying to force that on other people. But the trans lobby want to force everyone to make verbal obeisance to their religion.

Compliance gives them a win. Not complying.

Is it really such an inconvenience to say "God is great and Muhammad is his prophet", or have a quick class prayer? I can't imagine anybody objective to such a small accommodation to somebody else's delusions, certainly not on this forum. Just be polite and say the words.