• 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.

Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyway, does anyone else find it hilarious GE is trying on a definitional confusion attack, long after the definitional confusion in this thread has been entirely resolved?

There was a time when people here might have been caught flat footed by it. A time before structural definition and adult human female were settled items. A time when it still kind of seemed like the TRA side might have a definition based argument for trans inclusion. But that time is long past.
 
I think it's a form of MRA. Bitter resentment that the half of the human race which had been largely shut out of the important decisions on the running of society should have had the temerity to campaign to be treated as intellectually and socially on a par with men.

This is to be re-defined as "changing the definition of woman" in some way, although at no time did any adult human female who campaigned for the vote, or to be admitted to university, or to be allowed to manage her own money, actually campaign to be defined sexually as anything other than an adult human female. (I don't count women such as Miranda Barry who actually impersonated men in order to be able to follow careers that were closed to women. They weren't trying to change the definition of woman, they were covertly changing sides.)

And the punishment for this is that men should be allowed to actually change that definition and "reach the status of adult human female". I think it's a bait and switch.

I think the general motivation for this sort of MRA presentation is small, inadequate man feeling his small inadequate manhood is threatened by seeing strong, capable women in powerful positions in the public sphere, and thus tries to belittle them in any way possible.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Anyway, does anyone else find it hilarious GE is trying on a definitional confusion attack, long after the definitional confusion in this thread has been entirely resolved?

There was a time when people here might have been caught flat footed by it. A time before structural definition and adult human female were settled items. A time when it still kind of seemed like the TRA side might have a definition based argument for trans inclusion. But that time is long past.
Click to expand...


Maybe on another day I would see the humour, but I am tired today. And just in general, I am very tired of Trans Women Are Women as a slogan. I feel like I have a lot of support to give to people who just want to be themselves without enduring harassment or discrimination. That's, like, my thing. I just have this unsettled bodily reaction when asked to lie for the cause. Ignorance is Strength. Not that I think the Trans lobby is Orwellian in the sense of having anything like absolute state authority. But there is an Orwellian element of using language to obscure the facts, as opposed to presenting the facts and making a good faith argument.

I award myself +2 Victim Pts.
 
It took the USA decades to get used to civil unions and then same-sex marriage. Feels like the issue of transgender equality is being forced upon us in a much more rapid pace. Perhaps too fast.
 
lionking said:
I’m struggling with the motivation for such vitriol then.
Click to expand...
They refer to the first two paragraphs of the Kathleen Stock link, which does ponder why definitions of woman seem to be much more argued over than definitions of man.
It has been aknowledged countless times in this thread that females have a danger aspect to worry about when defining who is a woman and can enter their spaces or not, whereas males are less concerned.

Their position that females are the reason why there's much more arguing about women definitions than men definitions isn't unwarranted, you can see it clearly in this long thread.
 
Hercules56 said:
It took the USA decades to get used to civil unions and then same-sex marriage. Feels like the issue of transgender equality is being forced upon us in a much more rapid pace. Perhaps too fast.
Click to expand...


Transgender equality is fine. Nobody should be discriminated against in employment or housing or civil rights on account of being transgender or transsexual. (While still being required to adhere to the norms of decency expected from everyone in whatever company they may find themselves. That's for the teacher with the enormous pornified fake boobs.)

Giving male people unfettered access to women's single-sex intimate spaces is not "equality". Male people remain male no matter how they present or what medical or surgical treatments they have. Giving them legal right of access to the single-sex spaces and provisions proper to the sex they are not and never can be is not "equality". Even less so is giving any man who wants it such access, irrespective of how he chooses to present. Equality is preventing both sexes from being discriminated against in the intimate spaces that are theirs by virtue of the sex they actually are.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
It took the USA decades to get used to civil unions and then same-sex marriage. Feels like the issue of transgender equality is being forced upon us in a much more rapid pace. Perhaps too fast.
Click to expand...




It's not just the speed, it's the very nature of the "rights."
 
porch said:
It's not just the speed, it's the very nature of the "rights."
Click to expand...


As I said, I have no problem with the speed, or even instantaneous adoption, of legal protections to prevent transgender people from being discriminated against in employment, housing or civil rights. Or indeed of instantaneous protections being introduced to prevent any discrimination against or harrassment of transgender people when they are making use of single-sex provisions proper to the sex they actually are.

That's equality. What these people are demanding and in many cases being given is not equality, it is special privileges not accorded to the rest of the population.
 
Rolfe said:
I think it's a form of MRA. Bitter resentment that the half of the human race which had been largely shut out of the important decisions on the running of society should have had the temerity to campaign to be treated as intellectually and socially on a par with men.

This is to be re-defined as "changing the definition of woman" in some way, although at no time did any adult human female who campaigned for the vote, or to be admitted to university, or to be allowed to manage her own money, actually campaign to be defined sexually as anything other than an adult human female. (I don't count women such as Miranda Barry who actually impersonated men in order to be able to follow careers that were closed to women. They weren't trying to change the definition of woman, they were covertly changing sides.)

And the punishment for this is that men should be allowed to actually change that definition and "reach the status of adult human female". I think it's a bait and switch.

I think the general motivation for this sort of MRA presentation is small, inadequate man feeling his small inadequate manhood is threatened by seeing strong, capable women in powerful positions in the public sphere, and thus tries to belittle them in any way possible.
Click to expand...




Sorry, I don't have a substantive response. Plus one. You put into words what I wish I could.
 
Rolfe said:
As I said, I have no problem with the speed, or even instantaneous adoption, of legal protections to prevent transgender people from being discriminated against in employment, housing or civil rights. Or indeed of instantaneous protections being introduced to prevent any discrimination against or harrassment of transgender people when they are making use of single-sex provisions proper to the sex they actually are.

That's equality. What these people are demanding and in many cases being given is not equality, it is special privileges not accorded to the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

Such as? We are all protected from discrimination in housing, education, employment & public accomodations.
 
Hercules56 said:
Such as? We are all protected from discrimination in housing, education, employment & public accomodations.
Click to expand...


Great. That is indeed the legal situation in Britain, but people keep crying to me that it's not the case in America and you can be sacked or evicted simply for being trans.

Now that isn't as simple as it sounds. In America people can be sacked or evicted for no reason at all. There are some protections in place for some classes of people (such as homosexuals I believe) so that if someone can prove that was the reason for their treatment they have some redress. I think. But whether this is fair, or whether it simply puts employers in the position that they'll sack the heterosexual person rather than the homosexual one I don't know. "Transgender rights" in the USA is often used to cover the extension of this privileged class of people to include trans people. (So presumably the first thing you do if you think you might be sacked is declare that you're trans, then with luck the boss will think you're too much trouble to sack and sack someone else instead.) This is a complex issue I'm not really au fait with.

But if everyone (including trans people) is "protected from discrimination in housing, education, employment & public accomodations" then what is this "equality" you think is being "forced on us" at a perhaps-too-rapid pace? It sounds as if you think equality already exists. You can't have more equality. Once you have equality, you're demanding additional privileges. And in this case I do not think such privileges should ever be granted.
 
Hercules56 said:
Such as? We are all protected from discrimination in housing, education, employment & public accomodations.
Click to expand...

Please re-read this thread.

It’s access to women’s toilets and change room, woman’s sports, women’s jails and refuges, women’s quota appointments. You know, areas where women are adversely effected by self id’d and untransitioned transwomen. Areas where women are denied agency by the likes of Lia Thomas in swimming and a host of born males demanding to be put in women’s jails to rape inmates.

And I will not accept red herrings like “Usain Bolt was too fast so should have been banned”. No male athlete protested Bolt and demanded he be banned. The difference, of course, is unfair advantage. Thomas went through puberty and is therefore stronger and remains stronger than most women swimmers. Only the very elite can beat him, but his presence in women’s events disadvantages women.

The reason I keep coming back to sports is this is how this whole thread started. In a way I would like Thomas to be allowed to compete in the next Olympics (he’s not) just to see the Aussie women swimmers kick his arse.
 
lionking said:
Please re-read this thread.

It’s access to women’s toilets and change room, woman’s sports, women’s jails and refuges, women’s quota appointments. You know, areas where women are adversely effected by self id’d and untransitioned transwomen. Areas where women are denied agency by the likes of Lia Thomas in swimming and a host of born males demanding to be put in women’s jails to rape inmates.
Click to expand...


That is not "equality". That is special privileges that take rights away from a disadvantaged group. I think Hercules needs to figure out the difference.
 
I have not yet watched this, but many of those who have have said they could only do so in short bursts as it's so disturbing. Worth a look I think.

https://odysee.com/@Skirt_Go_Spinny:7/Wrong-Ans-Only-1:b

Some trans-identified men view the state of being a woman through colonizers’ eyes. A hero’s journey is a universally romanticized trope. Men conquered the Earth, explore the universe. Womanhood is the final frontier that men can’t explore firsthand. It frustrates, wounds the pride of many. These trans-identified men are driven to place their flag on womanhood, proving womanhood is wasted on its ‘inferior’ natives. Women aren’t humans, but savage terrain waiting to be navigated, broken in, dominated, explained and thus validated by men, the heroes, the humans of the narrative.
Click to expand...
 
porch said:
Maybe on another day I would see the humour, but I am tired today. And just in general, I am very tired of Trans Women Are Women as a slogan. I feel like I have a lot of support to give to people who just want to be themselves without enduring harassment or discrimination. That's, like, my thing. I just have this unsettled bodily reaction when asked to lie for the cause. Ignorance is Strength. Not that I think the Trans lobby is Orwellian in the sense of having anything like absolute state authority. But there is an Orwellian element of using language to obscure the facts, as opposed to presenting the facts and making a good faith argument.

I award myself +2 Victim Pts.
Click to expand...

That is without question the best post in this thread - and bear in mind, I've read almost every one of them over the half a decade it's been alive.

Utterly nailed.

You should post more.
 
The Atheist said:
That is without question the best post in this thread - and bear in mind, I've read almost every one of them over the half a decade it's been alive.

Utterly nailed.

You should post more.
Click to expand...

I certainly empathize with the fatigue of the same old tactics.

Every response is either 1)you're a bigot for raising concerns, you must hate transgender people, 2)let's argue about definitions for a week, or 3)look! a squirrel! I'm going to switch the argument because I don't like the question you asked!

It's so tiresome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom