Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

"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

I'm saying the outcomes of the policies being advocated are substantially anti-women, regardless of the intent of the advocates.

Similar to how the outcomes of the pacifist policies being advocated in Great Britain during WW2 would have been effectively pro-fascist, even though the advocates were not themselves pro-fascist.

I've explained as much more than once. I'm running out of novel ways to say the same thing I've already said. I'm also kind of surprised I need to explain it at all.

ETA: I'm saying that if you support transsexual accommodations in public policy, the outcomes you're supporting are effectively anti-woman. Even though I'm sure you would never think of yourself as being anti-woman, and have never had a reasoned anti-woman idea in your adult life.

 

[Francesca R]

(The thing is, it didn't really take on me. I was a pushy brat assertive 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.)

Ha, don't do that then, it's almost like a man told you to. My experience could be almost identically described, except I went to a bunch of schools in three countries before the only one I liked which was a girl's day secondary one here, and I have 2 older sisters and no bros, and my profession still is male dominated, though I have recently left it after 26 years and I did rather well in it.

 

[Rolfe]

I was trying for irony. Oh well.

 

[Francesca R]

That's what you think. Really it is just that the system has got to you. Yes I am joking and I was before.


(BTW cool custom title. I am way ahead though, mine dates from 2007. And I have always claimed "girl" as an adult badge of honour. Actually to be accurate, I chose the title originally because I was overwhelmingly assumed to be a bloke for the first year here, I had a gender-neutral forum handle)

 

[theprestige]

I have a traditionally female name as a handle on another forum. It's interesting to see people there address me as female, or even attribute to me a "woman's" perspective on whatever topic. I tend towards the view that online interactions between anonymous strangers is one place gender literally does not matter.

I mistakenly referred to a member here using feminine pronouns, and got a very angry PM about how they were actually a dude and how wrong I was for misgendering them. I politely and sincerely apologized, of course. But I also thought, "dude, it really doesn't matter. Your masculinity isn't actually threatened. The strength of your positions doesn't actually depend on being perceived as male. Get over it."

 

[Francesca R]

It wasn't interesting for very long when fellow members repeatedly thought "acuity" was male. Got fed up with it quite quick apparently

 

[Lplus]

I'm saying the outcomes of the policies being advocated are substantially anti-women, regardless of the intent of the advocates.

Similar to how the outcomes of the pacifist policies being advocated in Great Britain during WW2 would have been effectively pro-fascist, even though the advocates were not themselves pro-fascist.

I've explained as much more than once. I'm running out of novel ways to say the same thing I've already said. I'm also kind of surprised I need to explain it at all.

ETA: I'm saying that if you support transsexual accommodations in public policy, the outcomes you're supporting are effectively anti-woman. Even though I'm sure you would never think of yourself as being anti-woman, and have never had a reasoned anti-woman idea in your adult life.

Yep, got that - but it still isn't mysoginy as defined, since that involves active animosity towards women, not just disadvantaging women as a result of other behaviour.

Eh, to blazes with it, use whatever word you like. It isn't as if anyone else is using the word correctly either :shrug:

 

[theprestige]

Yep, got that - but it still isn't mysoginy as defined, since that involves active animosity towards women, not just disadvantaging women as a result of other behaviour.

Eh, to blazes with it, use whatever word you like. It isn't as if anyone else is using the word correctly either :shrug:

I guess it's a lot easier to stomach the anti-woman policies you're supporting if you claim you don't have any anti-woman sentiments.

But this is a good opportunity. If you're not anti-woman, why are you supporting anti-woman policies?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm saying the outcomes of the policies being advocated are substantially anti-women, regardless of the intent of the advocates.

Isn't that just sexism?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexism (def. 3)

 

[theprestige]

Isn't that just sexism?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexism (def. 3)

I don't know. Is it? You've asked the question.
Now blind us with the rhetoric behind it.

 

[Lplus]

I guess it's a lot easier to stomach the anti-woman policies you're supporting if you claim you don't have any anti-woman sentiments.

But this is a good opportunity. If you're not anti-woman, why are you supporting anti-woman policies?

What? Complaining about you using the wrong word is anti-women?

Don't be daft.

 

[theprestige]

What? Complaining about you using the wrong word is anti-women?

Don't be daft.

It's not the wrong word.

Don't be disingenuous.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't know. Is it?

Yes.

Advocating policies which are substantially anti-women (regardless of one's feelings about it) is literally sexism.

 

[Lplus]

Yes.

Advocating policies which are substantially anti-women (regardless of one's feelings about it) is literally sexism.

It's not the wrong word.

Don't be disingenuous.

You were saying?

 

[theprestige]

You were saying?

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you could possibly be confused about what I was saying.

Did you imagine I idolized d4m10n, and would struggle to reconcile my viewpoint with his?

This is the most pants on head retarded appeal to authority I've seen in a long time. Do you really regard d4m10n as your authority here? Because I don't.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't either, FWIW.

ETA: I still think we need a word for systemically disadvantaging one sex, probably that's "sexism," (IMO) and examples abound.

Here's a very recent one:
https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/1562922052239048705

 

[Lplus]

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you could possibly be confused about what I was saying.

Did you imagine I idolized d4m10n, and would struggle to reconcile my viewpoint with his?

This is the most pants on head retarded appeal to authority I've seen in a long time. Do you really regard d4m10n as your authority here? Because I don't.

I'm not sure what you were saying, though it looked like one of those "tell me you're mysoginistic by refusing to agree that the word mysoginistic means much more than its dictionary definition" attempted gotchas.

I don't either, FWIW.

ETA: I still think we need a word for systemically disadvantaging one sex, probably that's "sexism," (IMO) and examples abound.

Here's a very recent one:
https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/1562922052239048705

Seems reasonable.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Forstater, a tax bod, is a social campaigner and was arguing with medical researchers.

https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1261/rr-8

That is like a racist arguing with biologists that they are wrong to state that biologically there is no such thing as race.

I believe in freedom of speech. I might not agree with what Forstater has tp say but I support her right to say it.


What I do not agree with is that her view is soon to be the law. People spouting hatred of transgender people are a 'protected class' and can sue you under the to-be-revised Equality Act! Do you not understand the implications of the government's push for 'bring back free speech'? What they really mean is that people can now spout hate speech and woe betide any employer who acts to shield their staff from the hatred. In other words, the Equality Act turned Bill of Rights will now mean the haters are protected and the hated are the new criminals.


It means I can go into my workplace and tell my transgender work colleagues - if I had any - they must not enter my space, demote them, deny them promotion, hound them out of their job, and you know what? The law is on my side!!!

 

[Vixen]

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.

What do you mean 'behaves himself'? They are not children.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Why? Why is it important to keep a transgender kid out of the toilets he or she identifies with?