Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Perhaps explain (a) why we should care that transgender recognition is 'misogyny'

Mainstream trans advocacy includes specific policies that come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers. It is exactly the not caring about the cost to women, from these policies, that marks the effective misogynist.

(b) who told us it was

I did. It is my observation. Lia Thomas wanting to compete as a woman, and being allowed to compete as a woman, and being celebrated as a competitive woman, is effectively misogynistic.

Putting men in women's prisons simply because they ask to be put there is effectively misogynistic.

Recognizing a man as the first "female" to hold high office is effectively misogynistic.

These are my claims. They are my arguments. They are my reasoning and conclusions. I don't need to appeal to some other authority to figure these things out for myself. You don't need to appeal to some other authority, to rebut my arguments with your own reasoning. If you can. Which you can't. Hence the squirming to avoid wearing the shoe that fits.

and (c) why would a misogynist stop being a misogynist just because you called them a misogynist?

It is my hope that more people who do not actually hate women will come to understand that, in their enthusiasm for showing more love to people who suffer from gender dysphoria, they have come to espouse policies that are effectively woman-hating policies. I think there are actual woman-haters involved in pushing what is currently the mainstream of trans-inclusionary activism. I don't expect them to change. I do sincerely hope that you and others that do not hate women will come to understand what's going on, and stop contributing to its enablement.

 

[d4m10n]

It is the act of making hate speech of the anti-transexual protected in law which is concerning, and in fact par for the course of a government aiming for facist totalitarianism, wherein former Human Rights are torn up and hatred is free for all under the guise of 'free speech'.

What hate speech did Forstater promulgate and how does it compare to the aforementioned childish giggles?

If you want to see her arguments against the BMJ article you can look it up on wiki.

I was actually hoping you'd engage with her arguments here.

 

[Vixen]

Oops, you forgot to answer. Can you?

Again I am a bit slow here but:
This is you saying that Rowling is asking for / deserves the violence, rape and death threats she receives. She is the bad guy. Not the violence / rape / murder threateners, who are kids having a childish giggle.

Right?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

 

[Vixen]

I agree, appeals to emotion and emotional blackmail are fallacies.

Small problem: basically the entire trans activist platform is built on emotional blackmail, often with explicit threats of suicide. You can't deny chemical castration to children, they'll kill themselves!

And while you have perhaps avoided the blackmail part of it yourself, you're hardly innocent of having used appeal to emotion fallacies.

Let me point out the difference between me and JK Rowling. I am on a forum which is designed for people to exchange and debate their views on current topics. People will use whatever tools of debate are at their disposal. I would dispute your accusation that I am 'hardly innocent of having used appeal to emotion fallacies'. You just made that up.

 

[Vixen]

Mainstream trans advocacy includes specific policies that come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers. It is exactly the not caring about the cost to women, from these policies, that marks the effective misogynist.


I did. It is my observation. Lia Thomas wanting to compete as a woman, and being allowed to compete as a woman, and being celebrated as a competitive woman, is effectively misogynistic.

Putting men in women's prisons simply because they ask to be put there is effectively misogynistic.

Recognizing a man as the first "female" to hold high office is effectively misogynistic.

These are my claims. They are my arguments. They are my reasoning and conclusions. I don't need to appeal to some other authority to figure these things out for myself. You don't need to appeal to some other authority, to rebut my arguments with your own reasoning. If you can. Which you can't. Hence the squirming to avoid wearing the shoe that fits.


It is my hope that more people who do not actually hate women will come to understand that, in their enthusiasm for showing more love to people who suffer from gender dysphoria, they have come to espouse policies that are effectively woman-hating policies. I think there are actual woman-haters involved in pushing what is currently the mainstream of trans-inclusionary activism. I don't expect them to change. I do sincerely hope that you and others that do not hate women will come to understand what's going on, and stop contributing to its enablement.

I would disagree that "Mainstream trans advocacy includes specific policies that come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers" ipso facto. I am sure that you could quote an example or two of a trans advocate doing precisely this but that doesn't mean that it is
inherently 'misogynist'. Women wear make up that causes allergic reactions, chunks of mascara stuck on their eyelashes, chipped nail varnish, tights that ladder or only go half way up their legs. That doesn't make any of these things 'misogynist' per se just because they are uncomfortable or unsafe, even.

 

[d4m10n]

Let me point out the difference between me and JK Rowling. I am on a forum which is designed for people to exchange and debate their views on current topics.

Whereas Rowling had the temerity to support Forstater on Twitter of all places.

Sent from my Sarcastigator 9k2 using Tapatalk

 

[LondonJohn]

In summary: Transsexual accommodations in public policy come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers.

This would be, perhaps, tolerable if there were any sound medical basis for these accommodations, or any coherent moral reasoning behind them.

But no such medical basis, no such coherent reasoning. So it's just anti-women.

Strange then, isn't it, that there are so many (cis)women involved in a) formulating the medical/scientific assessment of transgender identity, and b) formulating and legislating the policies that you believe to be "anti-women".

Are all these women "anti-women"? Are all these women somehow under the persuasive control of misogynistic males? Are all these women actually transgender women? Conundrum, huh....?

(Might be worth asking the First Minister of Scotland, who is championing transgender rights - and bringing in legislation to that end - in the face of some pretty extreme opposition. I mean, he must be pretty "anti-women" to be doing all that, right? Oh, wait...... the First Minister of Scotland is a woman???!!! Mannnn, that woman must really hate women, right?)

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: it's "transgender", not "transsexual"

 

[Vixen]

What hate speech did Forstater promulgate and how does it compare to the aforementioned childish giggles?

I was actually hoping you'd engage with her arguments here.

Please can you quote me in context.

What I said and I will repeat it for the third time, is that Forstater is entitled to her views and I have no problem in her stating them. I didn't say it was 'hate speech'. The hate speech comes when it is enshrined in law that a belief in 'biological sex' is now a protected characteristic, as a result of Forstater's case precedent. Do you now understand?

In the case of JK Rowling, a poster asked for my opinion on her opinion piece in support of Maya Forstater. I gave my honest opinion of the piece.

Like Forstater, Rowling is entitled to hold whatever opinion she likes. I would add the caveat, that as a well-known author beloved by millions of children worldwide, she has a higher duty of care to have an awareness and insight of the ethics of anything she puts out for publication.

If you take a controversial stance on any sensitive issue, people will answer back. Sadly, there are illiterate trolls who can only churn out gibberish. Just block them, reportt them to the police and get twitter to act.

 

[theprestige]

I would disagree that "Mainstream trans advocacy includes specific policies that come at the expense of women's comfort, safety, recognition, and careers" ipso facto. I am sure that you could quote an example or two of a trans advocate doing precisely this but that doesn't mean that it is inherently 'misogynist'.

<bizarre 'analogy' snipped>

I've listed specific examples of effectively misogynistic outcomes from pro-trans policies. These policy proposals and their necessary outcomes, with concrete examples, have been discussed at length in this thread.

 

[theprestige]

Strange then, isn't it, that there are so many (cis)women involved in a) formulating the medical/scientific assessment of transgender identity, and b) formulating and legislating the policies that you believe to be "anti-women".

Not really. The reasons for this have been discussed already.

Are all these women "anti-women"? Are all these women somehow under the persuasive control of misogynistic males? Are all these women actually transgender women? Conundrum, huh....?

"Under the persuasive control of misogynistic males" isn't a terrible way to put it, actually

(Might be worth asking the First Minister of Scotland, who is championing transgender rights - and bringing in legislation to that end - in the face of some pretty extreme opposition. I mean, he must be pretty "anti-women" to be doing all that, right? Oh, wait...... the First Minister of Scotland is a woman???!!! Mannnn, that woman must really hate women, right?)

She's a politician in high office, so for me the simplest explanation is that she's a corrupt idiot who simply hasn't thought things through, mostly because she's in a secure position where the worst effects of her advocacy won't reach her.

ETA:

PS: it's "transgender", not "transsexual"

I thought so too! But it turns out that "gender" is essentially meaningless in the context of public policy. And it turns out that all the current major controversies about trans rights are controversies about transcending sex segregation. Women's sports, women's shelters, women's prisons, women's recognition... all these things are segregated by sex, not gender. We're not arguing over respect for preferred pronouns. We're not disputing a man's right to wear a dress and not be harassed or discriminated against because of it. We're arguing against a man's right to be housed a woman's prison simply because he says he wants to be. We're disputing a man's right to be recognized as the first "female" anything, simply because he says he feels like a woman. So you can call it transgender if you want, but the actual policy issues under discussion are all transsexual in nature.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let me point out the difference between me and JK Rowling. I am on a forum which is designed for people to exchange and debate their views on current topics. People will use whatever tools of debate are at their disposal.

You... didn't point out any difference. You said something about yourself, but have not specified how this is actually different from Rowling in any meaningful way, and most importantly, have given no reason why it's even relevant to the topic at hand. And lastly, this isn't even responsive to my post.

Rowling has long hair and I have short hair. That's a difference between me and Rowling. I don't expect anyone to give a ****, because it's not relevant to anything.

I would dispute your accusation that I am 'hardly innocent of having used appeal to emotion fallacies'. You just made that up.

No, I did not make that up. For example:

I really cannot stand people like JK Rowling. Devious, manipulative and exploitative. Then acts the wounded innocent, when she is the agent provocateur of the brouhaha she herself whipped up in the first place.

Nothing about this post of yours actually says anything about the merits of her argument. In fact, this post says nothing about her argument at all. Instead, you're trying to create an emotional reaction to Rowling herself, which you then hope will color people's opinions of her position.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've listed specific examples of effectively misogynistic outcomes from pro-trans policies. These policy proposals and their necessary outcomes, with concrete examples, have been discussed at length in this thread.

And bravo to you and your fellow travellers for working it all out correctly!

Now, if you'd only impart your findings to the clearly stupid, ignorant and inexpert people (including a fair share of (cis)women) who've made medical/scientific assessments of the validity of transgender identity, and who are involved in developing & legislating transgender-rights public policies. They'll be pleased and impressed to learn from you how they're getting everything so very wrong!

 

[LondonJohn]

Not really. The reasons for this have been discussed already.


"Under the persuasive control of misogynistic males" isn't a terrible way to put it, actually


She's a politician in high office, so for me the simplest explanation is that she's a corrupt idiot who simply hasn't thought things through, mostly because she's in a secure position where the worst effects of her advocacy won't reach her.

Yes, that all sounds both plausible and reasonable. And it certainly explains why you are right and all of them are wrong. Good work!

 

[Ziggurat]

The hate speech comes when it is enshrined in law that a belief in 'biological sex' is now a protected characteristic, as a result of Forstater's case precedent. Do you now understand?

I don't understand this at all. How does the belief in biological sex being protected constitute hate speech? Is it the protection that's hate speech? Is it stating the belief that's hate speech?

What exactly is the hate speech here? I've got no idea. Perhaps you can give an example of a sentence which would constitute hate speech but which is somehow affected by this ruling.

Under US law, BTW, there's no such thing as hate speech. It isn't a thing. So what may seem obvious to you isn't obvious to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, if you'd only impart your findings to the clearly stupid, ignorant and inexpert people (including a fair share of (cis)women) who've made medical/scientific assessments of the validity of transgender identity

Yeah, no. Nobody has made "scientific assessments of the validity of transgender identity". Nobody can even define transgender identity is an objective way. As of now, it's an intrinsically unscientific concept. There are no objective tests or measurements of it. And that is by design.

 

[theprestige]

Please can you quote me in context.

What I said and I will repeat it for the third time, is that Forstater is entitled to her views and I have no problem in her stating them. I didn't say it was 'hate speech'. The hate speech comes when it is enshrined in law that a belief in 'biological sex' is now a protected characteristic, as a result of Forstater's case precedent. Do you now understand?

In the case of JK Rowling, a poster asked for my opinion on her opinion piece in support of Maya Forstater. I gave my honest opinion of the piece.

Like Forstater, Rowling is entitled to hold whatever opinion she likes. I would add the caveat, that as a well-known author beloved by millions of children worldwide, she has a higher duty of care to have an awareness and insight of the ethics of anything she puts out for publication.

If you take a controversial stance on any sensitive issue, people will answer back. Sadly, there are illiterate trolls who can only churn out gibberish. Just block them, reportt them to the police and get twitter to act.

I'm confused. Is Rowling supposed to keep her opinions to herself, out of her duty of care to not inflame the trolls?

Or is she supposed to speak her mind freely, like every other human exercising their rights, and just ignore the inevitable trolls?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, no. Nobody has made "scientific assessments of the validity of transgender identity". Nobody can even define transgender identity is an objective way. As of now, it's an intrinsically unscientific concept. There are no objective tests or measurements of it. And that is by design.

"And that is by design"???

On what basis, therefore, do you challenge the view of the APA (and its affiliated psychiatric associations throughout the world) when it assesses that

1) A natal female who sincerely identifies as Queen Nefertiti has a psychiatric disorder;

while

2) A natal female who sincerely identifies as the gender "man" does not have a psychiatric disorder?


I mean, I'm guessing you'd at least agree that the world's most expert psychiatrists must have arrived at this assessment by way of some form of collective expertise and experience, right? I'm guessing that you don't believe they just dreamt this up out of thin air, right?

And if that's the case, then have you asked yourself a) on what basis these global experts in the relevant fields arrived at this assessment, b) why your own assessment differs from theirs, and c) who - out of the world's collected experts, or a small number of non-experts on an internet forum - is more likely to have the firepower/expertise/experience/understanding to arrive at a reasonable position?

(And yes, sometimes appeals to authority make perfect logical sense. Just as I would only want a qualified and experienced orthopaedic surgeon to advise me on, and operate on, my knee; and I would not want you to advise me on, or operate on, my knee....)

 

[d4m10n]

The hate speech comes when it is enshrined in law that a belief in 'biological sex' is now a protected characteristic, as a result of Forstater's case precedent.

Do you think people should be sacked for openly espousing that biological sex is real and immutable?

Do you now understand?

No, because you've yet to provide any examples of alleged hate speech somehow related to Forstater's case.

I would add the caveat, that as a well-known author beloved by millions of children worldwide, she has a higher duty of care to have an awareness and insight of the ethics of anything she puts out for publication.

Agreed, with great influence comes great responsibility.

That said, where exactly did JKR fail at ethics?

 

[Vixen]

I've listed specific examples of effectively misogynistic outcomes from pro-trans policies. These policy proposals and their necessary outcomes, with concrete examples, have been discussed at length in this thread.

Misogyny is an emotion. It is a 'hatred of women'. How can a policy be 'misogynist'?