• 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.
theprestige said:
The worst part is, he's not even appealing to experts. He says he is, but either they're not experts, or their positions don't support his claims, or they're already known to be wrong about the question.
Click to expand...

A good example of this was when I pointed out that Zucker opposed the inclusion of gender identity in the Canadian ban on conversion therapy, pointing out the erroneous conflation of gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as the fact that the briefing prepared for politicians contained no science on gender dysphoria (using the typical ploy, it just took data on conversion therapy for sexual orientation and acted as though it translates to conversion therapy for gender identity).

LJ apparently believes he knows better than Zucker on this issue. And when I pointed it out, failed to address it and just made the usual dismissive remarks about policy capture. So apparently LJ also knows more than Zucker about policy capture.

Zucker's statement is at about 12.37 on this recording.
 
I mean, how are people not seeing this?

[imgw=500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fn3idrzWAAAtNDA?format=jpg&name=medium[/imgw]
 
I recall "ripx4nutmeg" is the devious transphobic twitterer who maliciously concocted a false story a few years back to make a trans person's distress about bathroom use look like it was predatory behaviour. It fooled a few members in this thread but not everyone. And some members who were duped (who are still active) were unable to admit that they'd been played.

So regardless of the merits of the quoted tweet, the source is not to be taken very credibly.
 
Last edited:
Do you TRAs have nothing left but ad hominem? (And spurious appeals to authority, of course.)
 
p0lka said:
Did you see what you just posted? You are doing what you are accusing other people of, also what is a TRA?
Click to expand...


Ahh, you see: this is one of the common traits of evangelical bigotry


And "TRA" stands for "trans rights activist". You'll see other acronyms from bigoted anti-transgender-identity actors, for example "TIM" which stands for "trans-identifying male". See, the bigots who deny the very existence and validity of transgender people have decided that, in keeping with their bigotry, they will not use the terms "transman" or "transwoman". Instead, they use their own faintly-Orwellian terminology of "trans-identifying male" (or "trans-identifying female" - though you see this less frequently, because their disgust and denialism is hugely skewed towards transwomen...)
 
Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 77,659 signatures, so 153 new signatures today. It appears to be dying on its arse at the moment, so hopefully those in charge have some plans to revive it again.

The new magic number is 286.4.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ahh, you see: this is one of the common traits of evangelical bigotry


And "TRA" stands for "trans rights activist". You'll see other acronyms from bigoted anti-transgender-identity actors, for example "TIM" which stands for "trans-identifying male". See, the bigots who deny the very existence and validity of transgender people have decided that, in keeping with their bigotry, they will not use the terms "transman" or "transwoman". Instead, they use their own faintly-Orwellian terminology of "trans-identifying male" (or "trans-identifying female" - though you see this less frequently, because their disgust and denialism is hugely skewed towards transwomen...)
Click to expand...

First off, no one here has ever denied the existence of transgender people. Claiming we do isn’t merely a lie, it’s a stupid lie. And “validity” is just bull **** that you made up. As for Orwellian, you seem confused as to what that means. “Trans identifying male” isn’t the least bit Orwellian. You might not like the term, you may think it’s offensive, but it’s quite clear what it means, and it’s meaning is exactly what one would logically expect from its linguistic construction. That’s pretty much the exact opposite of Orwellian.
 
Rolfe said:
Do you TRAs have nothing left but ad hominem?
Click to expand...
Was that to me? If it was you seem to have lost all memory of my posts in this thread which to back to at least 2018. Or is it that everyone who doesn't toe your line on everything becomes one of the enemy? (Rather like . . . what is the modus operandum of many trans rights activists)

Anyway, no matter, the purpose of my post was to make clear that the twitter user you highlighted, and I think you brought them to the thread on the previous occasion, is an example of a cis woman oppressing a trans woman, exactly what TRAs claim (falsely IMO) is the universal experience, and therefore just about the worst possible "ally" or source that you could have picked. Are you blind to this? Wake up.
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, no one here has ever denied the existence of transgender people. Claiming we do isn’t merely a lie, it’s a stupid lie. And “validity” is just bull **** that you made up.
Click to expand...


Ahhh, I see you're blind - whether through ignorance or deliberate misdirection - to the views of the (plenty of) extremist bigots in this thread who refer to transwomen (always transwomen, rather than transmen...) as "men LARPing" or "men cosplaying" (and plenty of variants thereof, many of which clearly imply that transgender identity is a mental illness).

Because, you see, that is a fundamental denial of the validity of transgender identity. And once again, for the slow/denialist children at the back, "valid" in this context means that transgender identity is not now considered by mainstream medicine to be a mental health disorder. I've already pointed this out several times, so I'm surprised you haven't yet caught on*.



As for Orwellian, you seem confused as to what that means. “Trans identifying male” isn’t the least bit Orwellian. You might not like the term, you may think it’s offensive, but it’s quite clear what it means, and it’s meaning is exactly what one would logically expect from its linguistic construction. That’s pretty much the exact opposite of Orwellian.
Click to expand...


Erm, it appears to be you who's confused about the meaning of the term "Orwellian". You seem to be labouring under the misconception that it means "opaque and illogical".

This thread truly is the (toxic) gift that keeps on giving!



* Maybe if you take homosexuality as a comparator, it might aid your understanding of what "valid" means. Prior to 1973, mainstream medicine considered homosexuality to be a mental health disorder. Then, in 1973, mainstream medicine updated its position, no longer classifying homosexuality as a mental health disorder, but instead concluding that it is a valid lived condition. Transgender identity has gone through the exact same process in the expert medical community - from having been considered a mental health disorder, to (present-day) no longer being considered a mental health disorder (by the actual experts) - in other words, it's now considered a valid condition, just as homosexuality is now considered a valid condition.

So, in 2023, people who still insist that transgender identity is a mental health disorder, or that transwomen are "LARPing men" and so on, is in the same invidious position as someone in 1975 who continued to insist that homosexuality was a sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder. Hope that helps (I mean, I know it won't help, on account of your zealous and intransigent views on this topic, but perhaps that gives you a little more context as to the toxic nature of your position).
 
LondonJohn said:
* Maybe if you take homosexuality as a comparator, it might aid your understanding of what "valid" means. Prior to 1973, mainstream medicine considered homosexuality to be a mental health disorder. Then, in 1973, mainstream medicine updated its position, no longer classifying homosexuality as a mental health disorder, but instead concluding that it is a valid lived condition. Transgender identity has gone through the exact same process in the expert medical community - from having been considered a mental health disorder, to (present-day) no longer being considered a mental health disorder (by the actual experts) - in other words, it's now considered a valid condition, just as homosexuality is now considered a valid condition.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the fact that, as has been pointed out repeatedly, gender dysphoria is still considered a disorder - and that a diagnosis of dysphoria is generally required to access hormones and surgery - what does it mean for transgenderism to no longer be considered a mental health condition?

I'd argue it means that transgenderism is entirely within the boundaries of normal, healthy human behaviour: that it's perfectly normal and natural for a section of the population to identify more with the opposite sex (or at least with the expectations and stereotypes associated with that sex) than they do with their own sex. Similarly - and here the analogy with homosexuality does work - it's entirely normal and healthy for a section of the population to be attracted more to their own sex than to the opposite sex.

But - and it's here that I think you're jumping to conclusions - it means no *more* than that. It doesn't imply that transwomen should be treated as if they were women in all, or indeed any, circumstances. It certainly doesn't mean that they are in fact women, or that they have gendered souls trapped in the wrong body.

Although it's a bit hard to judge because you haven't defined "valid condition" in any positive way (merely to say what it isn't) I think there's a gap in your logic between "not a mental health condition" on the one hand and "transwomen are women" on the other. You need to show your workings, as one doesn't necessarily imply the other.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Was that to me? If it was you seem to have lost all memory of my posts in this thread which to back to at least 2018. Or is it that everyone who doesn't toe your line on everything becomes one of the enemy? (Rather like . . . what is the modus operandum of many trans rights activists)

Anyway, no matter, the purpose of my post was to make clear that the twitter user you highlighted, and I think you brought them to the thread on the previous occasion, is an example of a cis woman oppressing a trans woman, exactly what TRAs claim (falsely IMO) is the universal experience, and therefore just about the worst possible "ally" or source that you could have picked. Are you blind to this? Wake up.
Click to expand...


I have no knowledge of any particular unreliability of that account, or memory of such being demonstrated previously. Maybe if you have evidence of that, you can post it.

Danielle Muscato is a scumbag. I find the information in that tweet plausible. You're free to disagree, or even better, to post evidence that it is fabricated.

And the term "cis" is grossly offensive, it would be better to avoid using it.
 
This is an excellent article. I find it encouraging that more and more journalists and commentators are challenging the trans agenda - or perhaps it's that they're being allowed to say what wasn't permitted in the past. (That's a general comment, not referencing this article in particular.)

Beware the ewes in wolves' clothing

Only a very silly person indeed believes that transwomen are only ever shrinking violets who just want to press wild flowers and urinate sitting down. Many of them are dirty great bruisers who could easily work as bouncers if the bottom fell out of the sissy-porn market. Make no mistake, trans ‘rights’ is the first ‘liberation’ movement both inspired and fuelled by pornography. Various ages and trials of a woman’s life can be sexualised, from the trans predilection for dressing up as little girls to the ghastly fake babies (don’t ask), which allow men to ape gestation and childbirth. Lesbians, of course, are the most loved and hated targets of these autogynephiles, which is thoroughly in line with porn-scored desires.
Click to expand...
 
'Truth' is not subjective

Once upon a time, a fox with a large bushy tail and a disingenuous smile changed his name from Reynard to ‘Chicken Little’ and applied for a post in a local hen coop. During the interview for the position, which was conducted by members of the Scottish National party, he wore red plastic wattles, which he had won in a Christmas cracker, sellotaped to his chin – although he needn’t have done so. Simply to identify as a chicken was more than enough for the thick-as-mince panel members.

However, it was pointed out that Reynard – to mis-species him for a moment – had used this ruse before and eaten almost an entire coop of chickens and given the rest as presents to close relatives. The chickens now awaiting the arrival of Reynard, and their fox-exclusionary supporters in the media, pointed this out with some alarm and the panel was forced to reconsider its decision. While Chicken Little was undoubtedly a chicken and definitely not a fox, he would not be allowed to take up new employment in a hen coop on account of his past record with regard to chickens.

It then became clear that several other foxes, all inexpertly disguised as chickens, were applying for the same position. As the furore grew, the thick-as-mince panel decided that they too would be excluded from the shortlist. But they still insisted these creatures were chickens. ‘If they are no different to chickens, why have they been excluded? Have any chickens who have been nasty to other chickens been excluded?’ a sharpish interviewer enquired. But even from the most senior of the thick-as-mince panellists, there was no coherent response.

Meanwhile everybody else in the country looked at this debacle and thought to themselves: ‘Nobody really believes Reynard is actually a chicken. Not Reynard, or his stupid supporters, or the panellists. They know very well that he is a fox. And that all foxes who have glued feathers to themselves and pretend to enjoy nibbling grain are also foxes and not chickens. But they can’t say so because that would destroy their ideology, an ideology which is of course insane.’
Click to expand...
 
katy_did said:
Leaving aside the fact that, as has been pointed out repeatedly, gender dysphoria is still considered a disorder - and that a diagnosis of dysphoria is generally required to access hormones and surgery - what does it mean for transgenderism to no longer be considered a mental health condition?

I'd argue it means that transgenderism is entirely within the boundaries of normal, healthy human behaviour: that it's perfectly normal and natural for a section of the population to identify more with the opposite sex (or at least with the expectations and stereotypes associated with that sex) than they do with their own sex. Similarly - and here the analogy with homosexuality does work - it's entirely normal and healthy for a section of the population to be attracted more to their own sex than to the opposite sex.

But - and it's here that I think you're jumping to conclusions - it means no *more* than that. It doesn't imply that transwomen should be treated as if they were women in all, or indeed any, circumstances. It certainly doesn't mean that they are in fact women, or that they have gendered souls trapped in the wrong body.

Although it's a bit hard to judge because you haven't defined "valid condition" in any positive way (merely to say what it isn't) I think there's a gap in your logic between "not a mental health condition" on the one hand and "transwomen are women" on the other. You need to show your workings, as one doesn't necessarily imply the other.
Click to expand...


That's a very good way of putting it. As I've said before, ad nauseam, nobody on the gender-critical side wants to police how anyone dresses or gets made up, or what drugs they take or what surgeries they have, within the law and medical ethics. It's all fine.

It's the constant, aggressive demands from the male ones to be given legal right of entry into women's single-sex spaces and categories that we're opposing. We don't want male people there irrespective of how they "present", quite frankly, and the demands that they should be given that right without any requirement to alter anything about their stereotypically male appearance or presentation is just taking the piss, quite frankly. Literally. I mean, honestly, it's gone from "this person looks much more like a woman than a man, so much so that surely you don't mind him in your toilets" through "these people will be viciously attacked by men for their nonconforming appearance if they go into the men's, so you have to put up with them" (this is not actually true except on very rare occasions) to "this man looks, acts and sounds exactly like a man but he just said the magic words so he's entitled to get his cock out and pee in the ladies' with the door open." And undress bollock naked in front of you when you're trying to put your own bathing costume on.

Stay out of female single-sex spaces and stay very far away from children, particularly confused and vulnerable children, until they're old enough to figure out for themselves who they are and what they want to do about that, and there really isn't much of a conflict.
 
Rolfe said:
I have no knowledge of any particular unreliability of that account, or memory of such being demonstrated previously. Maybe if you have evidence of that, you can post it.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it was you who posted it before, and were one of those who could not be raised when it was shown to be a manipulative user. I may track it down from a computer I am travelling now and cannot.

And the term "cis" is grossly offensive, it would be better to avoid using it.
Click to expand...
Unless you have anything new to bring to the table here, this has been done to death before. No offence is intended.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom