TheGoldcountry
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,382
That's the point. No one should be attacked for being a bigot because they don't want penises involved in their sex life.
Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
That's the point. No one should be attacked for being a bigot because they don't want penises involved in their sex life.
Francesca R
Girl
I will acknowledge en passant some world-class apologism for rape-threateners here, complete with blaming the targets of those threats for their plight.
But that is not terribly relevant, unless you are saying that you think issuing a threat of rape is not a misogynistic thing to do. Is that your position?
Because that was my statement (that it is a misogynistic thing to do) to which you are responding.
Last edited:
Francesca R
Girl
This, or rather, the reverse of this, is central to Kate Manne's consideration in "Down Girl" which I linked above. Her argument is that the opposite is happening, in respect of misogyny.
If its definition is hatred of women or dehumansation of women, then these definitions shrink it out of existence. After all, who really hates women? The troll who threatens to rape a woman online probably loves his mum and/or might even have a girlfriend. Women can hardly be accused of viewing themselves as inhuman specifically because they are female. So hey presto, nobody is a misogynist really. It's all, what, silly word games.
Since several of your posts seem to replicate this minimisation of things like misogyny, racism etc, I predict you already disagree with that book. My review is the briefest of summaries that can't capture much. Maybe you'll read it anyway with an open mind . . .
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
She claims Forstater was sacked for her beliefs. However, Forstater was on a fixed term contract. It was simply not renewed. Forstater, a tax specialist - nothing to do with her job - took her 'biological sex' crusade into the workplace. Thought she was qualified to challenge British medical researchers. Good luck to her but Rowling's opening claim makes out she was persecuted for her beliefs. Forstater - like all good crusaders - took it to tribunal. Judge Tayler, who is a very fine judge and expert in his field, did not find she qualified under the Equality Act for a protected characteristic. This was later overturned on Appeal, British judiciary now terrified of upsetting the neo-fascist government and Forstater treated as though she had been persecuted for religious belief. What does that tell you about the unreasonableness of her stance?
JK Rowling
A moment's reflection tells you this is crazy. AG Braverman knowing that the Equality Act doesn't really cover transgender phobia, has rewritten it so that it does. We have Kemi Badenough obsessing about labelling toilets and Liz Truss claiming to know what a woman is, whilst at the same time championing an England Woman's Football team which is one third openly gay; and determined to tear up the Human Rights Act and cut off the UK from the ECHR and the EctHR.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Define the parameters for me. A penis is OK if it belongs to a heterosexual man but not OK otherwise...?
Read this ******* thread.
I would have thought people are referring to the same set of rules governing this that existed and ubiquitously operated until 5 minutes ago. They weren't really secret rules. They weren't based on language games. Language grew up around the rules. You aren't going to change what a lesbian is attracted to by changing the definition of "woman". If you changed the definition to college frat bros, lesbians wouldn't start being attracted to them.
To interrupt the fascinating turn this thread has taken, I wanted to post a link to Dr Cantor's summary of the evidence related to childhood gender transition, presented as expert testimony in a recent Texas lawsuit. It is probably the most thorough recent overview I've seen and includes analysis of the quality of different sources of evidence, showing how the affirmation-only side cherry pick and rely on predominantly lower-quality studies and anecdotal clinical experience (the weakest form of evidence) to support their case.
ETA: I particularly like Cantor's description of the nature of 'gender identity' as a construct:
"The declaration defines gender identity as an inner sense. The phrase is increasingly popular, but neither “inner sense” nor any similar phrase is scientifically valid. In science, a valid construct must be both objectively measurable and falsifiable. The concept of an “inner sense” is neither. If claims of one’s inner sense represented scientifically meaningful evidence, then science would have evidence of people’s past life experiences. To base decisions on subjective and unfalsifiable accounts is to fail to provide evidence-based medicine. Gender identity is unlike emotions, which are associated with physiological changes such as heartrate and brain activity. Gender identity is unlike sexual orientation, which is associated with objectively ascertained evidence, including brain anatomy. Gender Dysphoria is unlike disorders of sexual development (DSD’s, also called “intersex conditions”), again in that DSDs are objectively verifiable with physical measures, whereas gender identity is not. DSDs include, for example, genetic disorders which prevent a person’s body from responding to testosterone, a disease called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.9 Still more unlike gender identity, the physical nature of such disorders allows many of them to be detected before birth, whereas gender identity has no such feature."
ETA: I particularly like Cantor's description of the nature of 'gender identity' as a construct:
"The declaration defines gender identity as an inner sense. The phrase is increasingly popular, but neither “inner sense” nor any similar phrase is scientifically valid. In science, a valid construct must be both objectively measurable and falsifiable. The concept of an “inner sense” is neither. If claims of one’s inner sense represented scientifically meaningful evidence, then science would have evidence of people’s past life experiences. To base decisions on subjective and unfalsifiable accounts is to fail to provide evidence-based medicine. Gender identity is unlike emotions, which are associated with physiological changes such as heartrate and brain activity. Gender identity is unlike sexual orientation, which is associated with objectively ascertained evidence, including brain anatomy. Gender Dysphoria is unlike disorders of sexual development (DSD’s, also called “intersex conditions”), again in that DSDs are objectively verifiable with physical measures, whereas gender identity is not. DSDs include, for example, genetic disorders which prevent a person’s body from responding to testosterone, a disease called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.9 Still more unlike gender identity, the physical nature of such disorders allows many of them to be detected before birth, whereas gender identity has no such feature."
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
This was at least a year or two after Rowling initially came to Forstater's defense. Get your facts straight.
Which beliefs specifically did Forstater claim she should be allowed to maintain without retaliation?
It tells me that you're unwilling to examine any actual details of her stance, preferring instead to rely upon the judgement of others.
Last edited:
This is giving me strong flashbacks to the evidence that supposedly supported chiropractic.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm going to regret this, but...
A penis is OK no matter who it belongs to, so long as its owner behaves himself. That includes not taking said penis where it shouldn't be and isn't wanted, which includes women's single-sex spaces.
It doesn't matter in the slightest whether the penis's owner thinks he's a woman, or a cat, or Lucia de Borgia. He has a penis, therefore he is a man, and he has no business trying to insert either himself or it into places that are closed to men.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I would agree with that. Not a hatred of women, but a contempt for women. A mindset that sees women as something slightly less than fully autonomous human beings. As beings who are lesser in intellect and status than men, and who should shut up and know their place when men deign to enter the conversation and explain everything to them.
Lots and lots of women absorbed this mindset with their mother's milk.
Rolfe
Adult human female
To respond to a post that went to AAH, rephrasing it neutrally, reference was made so someone "not wanting trans kids in her daughter's school toilets."
This is incorrect. There is no problem at all with female trans kids in anyone's daughter's school toilet. The "trans kid" may think she's a boy, she may wish she was a boy, but she's a girl, and as a girl her rightful place is in the girls' toilets. Female single-sex spaces are not trans-exclusionary, they are male-exclusionary.
It is not "trans kids" that anyone wants to see kept out of their daughter's school toilets, it is boys. All boys.
This is incorrect. There is no problem at all with female trans kids in anyone's daughter's school toilet. The "trans kid" may think she's a boy, she may wish she was a boy, but she's a girl, and as a girl her rightful place is in the girls' toilets. Female single-sex spaces are not trans-exclusionary, they are male-exclusionary.
It is not "trans kids" that anyone wants to see kept out of their daughter's school toilets, it is boys. All boys.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And that's why I keep harping on the idea that the "trans" we're talking about is actually "transsexual".
The boy who says he should be in the girl's bathroom doesn't understand this, because the people supplying his trans-affirmation aren't explaining it to him. Probably in most cases they themselves don't understand it either, because of the ongoing efforts by the trans-inclusionary lobby to equivocate on this point.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also refer you to my previous posts pointing out why allowing men who have had genital surgery into women's single-sex spaces is neither desirable or practical.
It doesn't apply to schoolchildren, because thankfully nobody is as yet allowing school-age boys to have their penises lopped off, but it most certainly applies in the adult world.
It doesn't apply to schoolchildren, because thankfully nobody is as yet allowing school-age boys to have their penises lopped off, but it most certainly applies in the adult world.
Francesca R
Girl
While I don't intend to slide into being Kate Manne's spokesperson, she eschews the contempt and less-than-human assignments as well. If you see my review here, it's more about the designation of the female role in a rules-based (informal, cultural) system. She suggests the term "human givers" for women rather than human beings.
This no longer requires misogynistic women to actually see themselves as less than human (a tall order, too tall) but more as willing participants in the patriarchal system. And women derive various rewards from the system by participating, if they are content to submit to the role. If they resist, it is harder. Same for men both ways, incidentally.
For women who do not wish to adopt the role of human giver as it exists--then, yes, the system has "contempt" for that stance, because it is obviously a destabilising threat to it continuing to prevail, and various enforcement experiences will result.
Oh, and I am sure it is possible to read the above three paragraphs as some kind of crazy man-hating screed if one is so minded. It isn't but as I said, folks are often polarised.
Francesca R
Girl
And to relate this to the topic (it's not supposed to be a complete sidebar), men can be misogynistic, women can be misogynistic, transwomen can be misogynistic, trans rights activists can be misogynistic. In general, behaviour that places the roles, rights, preferences etc of females as junior to those of males, especially in cases where they conflict, could likely be misogynistic.
And . . . . issuing rape and death threats to women for speaking up for their desired rights and preferences--which are not, generally speaking, requests for the right to kill and rape men--is to say the least a red flag in respect of which party is being misogynistic.
And . . . . issuing rape and death threats to women for speaking up for their desired rights and preferences--which are not, generally speaking, requests for the right to kill and rape men--is to say the least a red flag in respect of which party is being misogynistic.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
And to be clear: I'm not talking about feelings and opinions of the individuals involved. I suspect very few of them are misogynists in the conventional, intentional sense. Just like Orwell's pacifists weren't conventionally, intentionally pro-fascist.
What I'm talking about is the practical implications and outcomes of the trans policies they are advocating.
What I'm talking about is the practical implications and outcomes of the trans policies they are advocating.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't disagree at all, I think it's mostly a matter of the language used. You and the book you cite have given more thought to the language and the connotations of the words chosen, but I think we're trying to describe the same thing.
(The thing is, it didn't really take on me. I was a pushy brat anyway, without any brothers to be taught to defer to. I went to a girls-only secondary school where it's quite difficult to train girls to give way to men because there aren't any men to give way to, and I went straight into what was at the time a previously male-dominated profession that was rapidly and reasonably comfortably opening up to women. So it's always a bit of a double-take when I come across other women doing it.)
"dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women" Ok, which part of the dictionary definition is not a direct reference to feelings and opinions?
I reckon you should be looking to use a completely different word
- Status