• 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.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Right now, today? Sure. But I have no idea what the right answer would have been in the late 1970s, when I was second grade. "Boys have penises and girls don't" was almost certainly not it, though.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure I'd noticed that specific difference by then (also the 70s) but then my parents were hippies.

Sent from my Cromulentator 2600 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Not liking girlie things doesn't make you a boy. Tomboys are still girls.

“I’d do anything to be a boy,” he says. .... "But it’s a feeling you feel deep down, that this is what I am. It is not a choice.”​

This is sad for multiple reasons. First off, this person will never actually be a boy. ....
Click to expand...
More than just "sad" - a crime of the century, a "medical scandal happening in plain sight" on par with Mengele wrapped up with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a Satanic Panic in spades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic

But "never actually be a boy" is part and parcel of the whole problem as a large percentage of the hoi polloi seem to "think" that changing one's genitalia is, ipso facto, changing one's sex. Lots of blame for that sad state of affairs to go around, but those peddling "sex is a spectrum" or even those peddling the "past-present-future functionality" schlock are in line for a substantial portion of it.
 
Matthew Best said:
Judge to consider trans charity’s appeal to strip LGB Alliance of legal status [Guardian]

A judge will consider an appeal by the trans rights charity Mermaids on Friday against the Charity Commission’s decision to award charitable status to the new gay rights organisation LGB Alliance. It is understood to be the first time one charity has attempted to strip legal status from another.

...

Mermaids, which supports transgender, nonbinary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to the LGB Alliance. It argued that the group was set up primarily to lobby the government to restrict the legal rights afforded to transgender people.
Click to expand...

I must say this hearing has been great entertainment so far.
 
d4m10n said:
Have you been hearing the hearing? I'd like to listen in as well.
Click to expand...

No, I've actually just been following it on Tribunal Tweets. I did think of listening in but things are getting busy at work and I don't want to distract myself too much. You can apply to the court for permission to listen in on Zoom.

I found today's expert witness who only barely skimmed the Cass Report and isn't actually an expert on anything except 'lived reality' entertaining.

Or would be if we weren't talking about sterilizing children.
 
theprestige said:
Wait, did you just (Steers)mansplain "satanic panic" to us?
Click to expand...
Just thought it might have been an analogy that you'd have ready comprehension of ... ;)

Analogy (from Greek analogia, "proportion", from ana- "upon, according to" [also "against", "anew"] + logos "ratio" [also "word, speech, reckoning"][1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

But - speaking of analogies, and to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone - you might have some interest in an Atlantic article on BDD from some 20 years ago:

A New Way to Be Mad
The phenomenon is not as rare as one might think: healthy people deliberately setting out to rid themselves of one or more of their limbs, with or without a surgeon's help. Why do pathologies sometimes arise as if from nowhere? Can the mere description of a condition make it contagious?

By Carl Elliott
Click to expand...


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
 
Steersman said:
Just thought it might have been an analogy that you'd have ready comprehension of ... ; )
Click to expand...
I understood the analogy. Didn't need it, but did understand it. Was just amused at the idea that this audience would need to be told what the satanic panic was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Click to expand...
And now I'm amused at the idea that this audience would need to be told what an analogy is.

I promise I've given analogies, their nature and application, far more thought than you have. To the point where I'm pretty sure everyone else here is already sick of my rants on the subject.

But - speaking of analogies, and to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone - you might have some interest in an Atlantic article on BDD from some 20 years ago:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
Click to expand...
Not really, but speaking of analogies, my view is we are usually much better off discussing the thing itself in its own terms.
 
Steersman said:
Correction: turning them into sexless eunuchs.
Click to expand...


Your "correction" is an oxymoron. Eunuchs by definition are men. Historically, many of them (depending on the anatomical details of how they became eunuchs) were fully capable of performing the traditionally and conformationally male role in penetrative sexual intercourse.
 
Myriad said:
Historically, many of them (depending on the anatomical details of how they became eunuchs) were fully capable of performing the traditionally and conformationally male role in penetrative sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...
...but at least the sultan didn't have to wonder if the harem's offspring were fathered by their guards.
 
On a related point, I sometimes see people assuming that the 18th century opreatic castrati sang female roles; that they were the equivalent of getting boys to act female characters on the Elizabethan stage because women weren't allowed to appear on stage.

Not so. There were plenty women singers on stage in these operas, singing the female parts. The castrati were men and took male parts, generally the ultra-heroic male parts. The somewhat superhuman voice was seen as an advantage for this. Lots of love duets written for soprano and castrato.

Since castration of boys to become singers was banned, at first women took the parts, and although some were and are extremely good (Frederika von Stade, Kate Lindsay and the like) there tends to be a bit of a disconnect there. I find Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck) particularly difficult because regardless of how well the mezzo looks and acts you're still conscious that this is a woman mourning the love of "his" life, and doing it as a lesbian relationship doesn't cut it either (usually).

Enter the countertenor, normal men who have cultivated the falsetto range in their voices. The first time I saw Jochen Kowalski as Orfeo it was such a relief, the relationship and the grief made sense, and one could get a flavour of how it was when a castrato took the role.

Because the castrati were men, were percieved as men and were treated as men.
 
Oh God we've contaminated the trans thread again.

May I say that I was also following Tribunal Tweets today and absolutely literally LOLing. The guy was clueless. At one point he conceded that the LGBA may well be acting in complete good faith as far as they themselves believed, but this was a false belief.

No, me neither.
 
Steersman said:
:rolleyes:

Can't very well be a man if "man" means - as it does - "adult human male" and if "male" means - as it does - "produces sperm". Unless you can maybe explain how a "man" with "his" nuts cut off can do so? ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The definition of "eunuch" specifies "man" as a necessary condition. If you don't mean a eunuch then you should use a different word. If you do mean a eunuch, then you necessarily mean a man. Which makes a "sexless eunuch" a sexless man.

You have to start with the primary definitions, the ones at the bottom of the totem pole, not the ones at the top.
Click to expand...


If you use the word "eunuch," I start with the definition of "eunuch," which invariably specifies a man.
 
theprestige said:
"They think one day people can just decide they are this or that. But it’s a feeling you feel deep down, that this is what I am. It is not a choice."

I still think Body Integrity Identity Disorder is the closest and most instructive parallel.
Click to expand...


Fortunately mainstream medicine and most progressive governments know better than you.
 
LondonJohn said:
Fortunately mainstream medicine and most progressive governments know better than you.
Click to expand...

Actually I think mainstream medicine and progressive governments have failed in their ethical duty when it comes to extreme body modification surgery. And to transgender-affirming care.

But please, tell me the medical distinction between believing you have the wrong sex and believing you have the wrong number of legs.
 
theprestige said:
But please, tell me the medical distinction between believing you have the wrong sex and believing you have the wrong number of legs.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's another one I brought up on about page 2 of the very first thread.

There hasn't been an answer to it yet, and I know why. They are exactly the same thing.

"I hate my penis" = "I hate my left leg"
 
Steersman said:
Can't very well be a man if "man" means - as it does - "adult human male" and if "male" means - as it does - "produces sperm". Unless you can maybe explain how a "man" with "his" nuts cut off can do so? ... :rolleyes:

You have to start with the primary definitions, the ones at the bottom of the totem pole, not the ones at the top.
Click to expand...

“Male” does not mean “produces sperm”. That isn’t the traditional definition, and it’s not a technical definition from biology. Male is the sex associated with sperm production, but males are males before they produce sperm, and they are still males even if something interferes with or prevents sperm production. Eunuchs are absolutely male, and your attempt to use a definition that isn’t actually relevant won’t win you the argument.
 
theprestige said:
Actually I think mainstream medicine and progressive governments have failed in their ethical duty when it comes to extreme body modification surgery. And to transgender-affirming care.

But please, tell me the medical distinction between believing you have the wrong sex and believing you have the wrong number of legs.
Click to expand...

Let's give people with Cotard's syndrome death benefit payouts based on affirmation!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom