• 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.
I only made it a few minutes into the audio clip as well but that was enough time to let me know that I was listening to someone who's very interested in controlling the narrative and using manipulation, someone who doesn't play well wit others. Catch that bit about MLK? I gotta say that after a year of DM living in my house, I'd probably be yelling too.

Then there's the cat thing, and the accusing the brother of corruption. Like, how do you know that payoff went down, Danielle?

In the years I've been joking about the mens room being closed so I just used the ladies has drawn all sorts of reactions from women. From outright disbelief to outright horror and when I state that all it takes is a doctors note and 50 bucks then I'm standing next to you in the ladies room touching up my lipstick that too is met with disbelief. Then I say look up the video Lauren Southern Becomes a Man.

Given that I've heard no trans in the ladies room/ locker room horror stories I working on the assumption that either our local trans pass really really well or are making other arrangements.
 
I didn't get as far as MLK (I find the American accents difficult - or are they Canadian? - sorry). I have hazy memories of something about a cat but not about a brother. I'm not a psychiatrist but there has to be a formal diagnosis waiting to happen to that one.

Add in the whole gamut of AGP behaviour, the determination to transgress women's boundaries and the ludicrous dressing-up, and sorry, we don't want him. He should not be made to be our problem. Not him or any of the rest of the motley crew.
 
Rolfe said:
o that one.

....the whole gamut of AGP behaviour, the determination to transgress women's boundaries and the ludicrous dressing-up
Click to expand...

After the 'queue' was done, my youtube started playing a newly added documentary on Chronicle called "Witch Hunt: The Brutal And Bizarre World Of Jacobean Britain| A Century Of Murder".

Looking at all the unfounded accusations, the severe tilt toward protecting the men (who were actually torturing these women on many accounts) made me think of this thread. But I dare not compare because it really isn't an apples orange thing and difficult to articulate how I see the parallel.
But the British witch fiasco DID start in Scotland! I learned something.
And it is there again now. Today.

https://twitter.com/DownWithTheSNP/status/1621207694454439936

"Witch! Witch!! Witch!!! Wiiiiiiitch!!" says the large angry (trans identifying?) man in a dress as he crosses the divide to get in the face of his female opponent. Boy is he furious!

The woman, at first bewildered by the antic, snaps back "And you are not one of us!".
Good for her. I'd rather be the witch than the delusional accuser any day.
 
Last edited:
There's a reason one of the Scottish feminist groups who are on this one is called the Scottish Witches. I've seen some twitter profiles along the lines of "daughter of the witches you didn't burn" and similar. Also a placard that reads "this witch won't burn". I've seen women dressed as witches at some of the demos, and it's not uncommon for someone to tweet out some actual history, the story of an accused woman and what happened to her, or a book about the subject.

We're very well aware that would have been us 400 years ago.

ETA: I looked at the video and it was taken outside the Scottish parliament. The view of the hills right beside the building is unmistakable. I've been on several of these demos but I don't remember that precise incident.

Another point of information. If you see the word "Carstairs" in this context - it appears in one of the comments - you need to know that the village of Carstairs in Lanarkshire is the location of the state hospital for the criminally insane.
 
Last edited:
Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 77,870 signatures, so 211 new signatures today. A bit better than yesterday bit still not making target.

The new magic number is 287.4.
 
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...er-recognition-law-trans-people-b1057619.html

Yep: 2023 really is going to be a game-changing year for those who deny transgender identity! I can feel the tide turning. Any second now. Coming right up. Literally just around the corner. Just about now.


(And still the breathtaking lack of self-awareness within the anti-transgender-identity community to question why - when mainstream medicine and an ever-increasing number of legislatures throughout the industrialised world think & act so markedly differently about transgender identity - they still cling to the zealous belief that it's they who are right and that it's mainstream medicine and all these legislatures around the world that are wrong.)
 
d4m10n said:
Who here is denying that some males identify as women and some females identify as men?
Click to expand...

Nobody on this forum. But a whole host inside LJ's head is veritably screaming it. And they can only be drowned out by a chorus of "experts" chanting "valid lived identity".
 
LondonJohn said:
I am proud to be a cisman, in the context of a discussion where it's useful to differentiate between cismen and transmen. Outside the context of a discussion where it's useful to make that differentiation, I'm perfectly happy to be called a man.
Click to expand...

There is no such useful contrast. The contrast between cismen and transmen, if is it anything at all, is a contrast between sexes, not within one sex.

Such talk does, however, serve a purpose: like talk of allopathic medicine, it signals the muddle the speaker has got into.
 
Only read today's Wings post if you have a strong stomach. It took me ages to get through it as I kept having to go and do something else to keep me in touch with ordinary life and remember that the cesspit he has opened is a very small part of Scotland.

Unfortunately it is a part that is uncomfortably close to our government and in some respects seems to be calling the shots.

All The Nice Greens Love A Rapist

These deeply unpleasant people identify as "transwomen". They're violent, aggressive misogynists. They are dug in deeply to the organisational structures of our political parties and so close to members of parliament that the suspicion is unavoidable that either these members of parliament are themselves part of this lifestyle group in their spare time, or that these unpleasant people have some sort of a hold over our elected representatives.

They were in the public gallery during the sessions where the bill that would allow any man to become a woman legally for a fiver was passed. They tweeted out about going to the Ladies toilets in the parliament building mob-handed, because they "felt unsafe" in the presence of all these nasty terfs who were also in the public gallery. Of course, what this was actually about was occupying and taking possession of the female facilities to intimidate the actually female people who were there.

When the bill was passed, one member of parliament turned to the public gallery and acknowledged the trans contingent. I don't know if he said "we did this for you, Beth" at that point (I think he said something), but he certainly said it later.

These people are dangerous. Dangerous politically, because they are influencing policy. Dangerous physically because they are violent, not just in their own relationships but potentially to the wider public - they offer violence openly and unashamedly.

THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. It's fight we can't lose, because we can't afford to. For the safety of our children, we have to stop this.
 
LondonJohn said:
I am proud to be a cisman, in the context of a discussion where it's useful to differentiate between cismen and transmen. Outside the context of a discussion where it's useful to make that differentiation, I'm perfectly happy to be called a man.
Click to expand...
I think the preferred usages are "cis man" and "trans man" if you're trying to avoid giving offense. :)

Vox said:
Writers shouldn't use "transman" or "transwoman." The word trans is an adjective that helps describe someone's gender identity, and it should be treated like other adjectives. Merging the adjective and the noun risks suggesting that a trans man or woman is more (or less) than just a man or just a woman, which goes against how many trans people identify themselves.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
When the bill was passed, one member of parliament turned to the public gallery and acknowledged the trans contingent. I don't know if he said "we did this for you, Beth" at that point (I think he said something), but he certainly said it later.
Click to expand...


I came across a couple of tweets highlighting these incidents. It was Christina McKelvie, and SNP member, who gave a standing ovation to Beth and his chums just after they'd voted to give away all women's rights, and Alex Cole-Hamilton, a LibDem member, who said afterwards that they'd done this for Beth.

https://twitter.com/judgejules75/status/1621432106617274368

It's out of order - the first tweet is the video of Cole-Hamilton, then a couple of tweets later is a still photo of McKelvie.

Beth of course is Green Party. The creeps and perverts have infiltrated the lot, with the possible exception of the party that starves children. What a mess.
 
theprestige said:
In what context is it useful to distinguish between the two?
Click to expand...
I know you were asking LJ, but I'll answer because the answer is blatantly obvious.

There are several contexts.
In the context of any scientific study comparing populations of trans-men, trans-women, natal men and natal women. you can use whatever terms you wish to distinguish you want, but a lot of people use cis. But you need language that does not lump trans-men in as either men or women and also does not lump trans-women in as either women or men. You need language for (at least) four different groups.

Another context is discussions like this one. Again, there are four different groups. Trans-men, trans-women, natal men, and natal women. Again, use the terms you want. I'm not sure "natal" is actually a very good term here because I need a term that includes non-trans men but excludes both trans women and trans men. I'm not sure natal really does that.

"Men" does not work for similar reasons, regardless of which side of the politics you are on. both sides want to use the terms "Men" and "Women" as umbrella groups. The difference is which umbrella group they wish to put trans men and trans women into.

Regardless of which perspective you approach it from, it's difficult to have discussions where the same term is used twice: once for a larger population and then also for a sub-population.

Use the terminology you want. The concept beneath the language matters more than the language used to describe it. But you need, really, six terms to truly discuss the concept. Possibly more if you add more variables, such as sexual orientation.

The fight over language is, to some extent a proxy argument. If you can win the language war you can define your way to victory without ever having to really address the concepts that the language is intended to describe.
 
Aber said:
Transwomen should not compete in women's athletics BUT

Lady Haldane's recent judgment that a GRC changes sex for all purposes means that they cannot legally exclude those with a GRC.
Click to expand...


This sounds like a super duper great policy that should last for the ages on the backs of equality and idealism!!! yay!

But I give it ONE year to implode on itself for being totally devoid of reality. :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
UK Athletics states its position

http://www.uka.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UKA-Trans-Position-Statement_FINAL-03.02.23.pdf

Transwomen should not compete in women's athletics BUT

Lady Haldane's recent judgment that a GRC changes sex for all purposes means that they cannot legally exclude those with a GRC.
Click to expand...


Yes but no but.

Statement on UK Athletics' position on trans people’s participation in sport

That's from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Different interpretations coming from all angles. It is surely not tenable to declare that the EA is clear and doesn't need further clarification.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
By insisting on the use of "women" you are essentially insisting that those on the other side cede the argument in order to discuss the issue with you.
Click to expand...
Correct. Such insistence isn't going to achieve anything as a demand, except from one's allies, and it's as pointless as the retort of "transphobe!" whenever someone states that their position is that trans women are biologically male. Of course many TRAs do issue that retort.

("TRA" is not intended to be offensive)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom