Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nick Terry said:
Conversely, "trans women are women" is immediately refuted by the statement 'only women can menstruate', since trans women are by definition biological men, who cannot menstruate.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the salient point here.

It's really not a denial of the statement "trans women are women" if one makes the claim "only women can menstruate". Because the claim doesn't say or imply that all women can menstruate. Everybody knows that obviously not all cis women can menstruate (eg most women post-menopause, pre-pubescent girls, some women who have a medical inability to menstruate). So whether or not one considers trans women to be women, it has no effect whatsoever on the implication of the statement "only women can menstruate": for example, if one believes "trans women are men", this has no effect at all on the statement "only women can menstruate".

Much more relevantly however, that same statement - "only women can menstruate" - refutes the concept that trans men are men. And that's because an acceptance that trans men are men then automatically means that some men - specifically some trans men - can menstruate (and therefore the statement "only women can menstruate" is actually unequivocal denialism towards trans men).

See: nobody who's wanting to be fair and inclusive, and who recognises the validity of transgender identity, would ever say "only women can menstruate". The appropriate language would be along the lines of "people who menstruate", with (if it at least partly sated the righteous fury of anti-transgender activists) the addendum "...most of whom are women, but a relatively small proportion of whom are men".

And it was precisely this form of inclusive language - "people who menstruate" - which mounted Rowling onto her crusading horse of bigotry in the first place.



True, a minority of trans women have deeply involved fantasies about tampons, periods and menstruation. Such fantasists very much want to be women, believe they are women, so it's a mystery why 'only women can menstruate' should be ruled a denial of transgender identity, when Dylan Mulvaney gets tampon sponsorship deals.
Click to expand...


1) Can Mulvaney actually menstruate? Answer: no.

2) But to reiterate, you're missing the main point here, which is to do with whether or not one considers trans men to be men. Because, as I say, if one agrees with that position, it means that some men - specifically some trans men - can menstruate. And therefore (again, as I've already pointed out), an insistence that only women can menstruate serves as an automatic denial of transgender identity, since it automatically signals a belief that trans men are women.
 
Aber said:
https://twitter.com/l1ber_te/status/1639917380569821185

There are later photographs of her black eye.
Click to expand...


I wonder if any of the neo-Nazi men - who were provably present at the rally, and who were provably supporting & aligning with Keen-Minshull - punched or kicked anyone in the general melee?

One thing that's definitely factually true is that several of Keen-Minshull's security brigade committed acts of physical assault on counter-protesters, once they'd totally lost control of the situation.

And of course it's also definitely factually true that a member of Keen-Minshull's security team at the Canberra rally played a major role in the physical assault on a female Aboriginal national Senator.

Something about sauce, geese and ganders comes to mind for some reason....
 
And just for the record, I'll reiterate my hope that the person who poured tomato soup over Keen-Minshull will be arrested, charged and convicted (probably on a minor assault-related charge).

Plus of course anyone who committed acts of physical violence against others - including the person who punched the elderly woman - should also be brought to justice.
 
LondonJohn said:
Much more relevantly however, that same statement - "only women can menstruate" - refutes the concept that trans men are men. And that's because an acceptance that trans men are men then automatically means that some men - specifically some trans men - can menstruate (and therefore the statement "only women can menstruate" is actually unequivocal denialism towards trans men).
Click to expand...

This is silly. Think about this whole chest-feeding nonsense; some trans men apparently don't want to admit that they have breasts. So why do they want to say they menstruate? Say instead that they have crotch-bleeding.
 
Aber said:
No

It signals a belief that sex is a material reality, and more important than a self-described identity.
Click to expand...
As I said, no-one is denying.chromosomal sex or the fact that some people are born with penises and some with vahinas. No-one is denying that

But you need to acknowledge that the concept of sex, as it has been used for centuries, refers to more than that.

It also refers to a presumed obligation to dress and act in a particular way
 
Aber said:
No

It signals a belief that sex is a material reality, and more important than a self-described identity.
Click to expand...


So you and I are in full agreement then: the statement "only women can menstruate" signals a fundamental denial of transgender identity.


Remember: this was originally all about whether or not JK Rowling had actually exhibited anti-transgender-identity sentiment in any of her public statements. Turns out that her very first prominent public statement on this issue - the tweet in which she directs mocking outrage towards a public health message referring to "people who menstruate", followed by her effectively positing that "only women can menstruate" - was precisely and categorically a denial of transgender identity (as we can both agree, wrt our previous few posts in this thread). And Rowling has made many more anti-transgender-identity pronouncements since then.
 
Robin said:
As I said, no-one is denying.chromosomal sex or the fact that some people are born with penises and some with vahinas. No-one is denying that

But you need to acknowledge that the concept of sex, as it has been used for centuries, refers to more than that.

It also refers to a presumed obligation to dress and act in a particular way
Click to expand...


Some people are instinctively reactionary and self-referencing: they cannot truly conceive of the fact that another person might have a genuine, deep-rooted sense of identity with which they themselves cannot personally identify (leading in turn to a rejection of the entire concept); and they are either ignorant or in denial of the fact that the knowledge base & experience base of mainstream medical science, psychology and psychiatry has evolved substantially over the past few decades: that's precisely how & why all of mainstream medicine now considers homosexuality to be a valid human condition (as opposed to being considered a mental disorder).... and it's also precisely how & why all of mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid human condition (as opposed to being considered a mental disorder).
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Some people are instinctively reactionary and self-referencing: they cannot truly conceive of the fact that another person might have a genuine, deep-rooted sense of identity with which they themselves cannot personally identify (leading in turn to a rejection of the entire concept); and they are either ignorant or in denial of the fact that the knowledge base & experience base of mainstream medical science, psychology and psychiatry has evolved substantially over the past few decades: that's precisely how & why all of mainstream medicine now considers homosexuality to be a valid human condition (as opposed to being considered a mental disorder).... and it's also precisely how & why all of mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid human condition (as opposed to being considered a mental disorder).
Click to expand...

On what basis do you consider mental disorders to be invalid? Could you be more insulting to the people who suffer from them?
 
Robin said:
As I said, no-one is denying.chromosomal sex or the fact that some people are born with penises and some with vahinas. No-one is denying that

But you need to acknowledge that the concept of sex, as it has been used for centuries, refers to more than that.

It also refers to a presumed obligation to dress and act in a particular way
Click to expand...

And that's what needs to change, IMO. People should be free to dress and act in whatever way they prefer without feeling the need to identify as anything.
 
Robin said:
As I said, no-one is denying.chromosomal sex or the fact that some people are born with penises and some with vahinas. No-one is denying that
Click to expand...

They are denying that sex is important, and that everything should be seen through the lens of self-defined identity. This has the effect of re-inforcing sex stereotypes.
 
Aber said:
They are denying that sex is important, and that everything should be seen through the lens of self-defined identity. This has the effect of re-inforcing sex stereotypes.
Click to expand...

Here’s something from a doctor and trustee for Mermaids.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cept-says-trustee-trans-charity-Mermaids.html

An NHS paediatrician and trustee of trans children's charity Mermaids has said biological sex is a 'concept' and 'not as simple as it's made out to be'.
Click to expand...

Mermaids has had the ear of the NHS and the UK government for quite some time. Yet Rowling has been accused of talking bollocks…..
 
Last edited:
By the way, Mermaids and Tavistock have been hand in hand throughout the latter’s disgraceful treatment of people who trusted them. Asserting that puberty blockers did no harm and were completely reversible are lies both have been widely disseminating.
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
They are denying that sex is important, and that everything should be seen through the lens of self-defined identity.
Click to expand...
They don't get to say what is and what isn't important, nor does JKR. Different things are important to different people. Me, I don't think that biological sex or gender are particularly important

I don't know what gender is and biological sex is just something that happens to be the case about my body.

I don't place any importance on being a man, in whatever sense it is meant. Now should I start finding it important because JKR tells me so? I couldn't find it important if I tried.

This has the effect of re-inforcing sex stereotypes.
Click to expand...
I remember making a similar argument to trans women back in the early eighties. We actually thought we were bringing down gender stereotypes in the 70s and 80s. But here we are in the third decade of the 21st century and they are all back in place. So I don't think they are going to go away any time soon.

Society treats gender non-comformity as a problem that needs to be treated. But gender non-comformity is just being rational.

Gender conformity - that is the problem.
 
LondonJohn said:
So you and I are in full agreement then: the statement "only women can menstruate" signals a fundamental denial of transgender identity.
Click to expand...

No, it signals disagreement with the ideological position that 'woman' should be redefined as identification with a gender stereotype.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom