Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[TragicMonkey]

Also, regarding "cervix-haver", let me quote you something that gets thrown in the face of trans men and trans women all the time:



Is he right?

No. He's misunderstanding what's being communicated. The person objecting isn't complaining because their feelings are hurt, they're stating "what you are saying is wrong" but not doing so in those specific terms. Perhaps they're trying to be less confrontational. Perhaps they're just bad with words. Perhaps they hope that the other person might have sympathy and be more likely to consider it from their perspective. It doesn't work, of course, it just gives the speaker something else to crow over, "oh, I hurt your feelings, ha ha ha!"

Fry is rich, famous, and successful: he's in a position where he doesn't actually have to care about anybody's feelings, and as such he's free to offend as he likes. Most people don't have that luxury.

eta: I don't think Stephen Fry is a bad person, I think that being successful, intelligent, and eloquent has made him forget that not everybody is any of those things. People express themselves badly, particularly when they actually are upset.

 

[Robin]

No. He's misunderstanding what's being communicated. The person objecting isn't complaining because their feelings are hurt, they're stating "what you are saying is wrong" but not doing so in those specific terms. Perhaps they're trying to be less confrontational. Perhaps they're just bad with words. Perhaps they hope that the other person might have sympathy and be more likely to consider it from their perspective. It doesn't work, of course, it just gives the speaker something else to crow over, "oh, I hurt your feelings, ha ha ha!"

Fry is rich, famous, and successful: he's in a position where he doesn't actually have to care about anybody's feelings, and as such he's free to offend as he likes. Most people don't have that luxury.

I agree . It quite goes against how we normally operate as a society.

 

[Robin]

I've always thought that alone was absolute proof that the people who say bollocks like that are both stupid and hiding their feelings.

What could be more sissy than being the only boy in a room full of scantily-clad, beautiful girls with amazing bodies?

If only I'd stayed the course until puberty.

 

[The Atheist]

Not that you consider me human, apparently, as I am a "penis-haver"...

Just a question, as I haven't been following it all closely for the past few weeks - what is a MtF trans who's had the cut & tuck operation?

Are they "used to be a penis-haver", or do we consider the re-constituted penis as still a penis, so therefore they're still penis-havers?

I think it's important we make these distinctions.

 

[d4m10n]

Therefore trans people are making the claim using the everyday sense of the word the referent of which is a social role built on underlying biological sex.

I am quite skeptical of this. When Boudicca90 talked about being female, she talked about an array of characteristics rather than anything to do with social roles.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[TragicMonkey]

Just a question, as I haven't been following it all closely for the past few weeks - what is a MtF trans who's had the cut & tuck operation?

Are they "used to be a penis-haver", or do we consider the re-constituted penis as still a penis, so therefore they're still penis-havers?

I think it's important we make these distinctions.

Don't ask me, I'm not the one who employs such terms. I'm fine with calling people male, female, or whatever else they prefer, without wondering about their genitals. In fact, I think it's downright weird and creepy to speculate on people's genitals unless you are considering a sexual relationship with them, or have a job involving genitals somehow. A professional piercer would need to know, but presumably they'd also be in a position to find out for themselves in short order anyway when someone asks for a piercing there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are allowed to be "incredibly incensed" by phrasing that "robs you of your core humanity" (quote again below, for reference) but you permit yourself to do the exact same thing to others.



As a male of the human species, I call that hypocrisy. Not that you consider me human, apparently, as I am a "penis-haver" and by your own formula referring to people by their organs "robs them of their core humanity" and "relegates them to nothing more than a set of bodily functions".

Um... you REALLY missed my point with those couple of posts.

Like I said, you think you've got some spectacular win here... but this is chess, not checkers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just a question, as I haven't been following it all closely for the past few weeks - what is a MtF trans who's had the cut & tuck operation?

Are they "used to be a penis-haver", or do we consider the re-constituted penis as still a penis, so therefore they're still penis-havers?

I think it's important we make these distinctions.

"Penisectomers" And females who have had hysterectomies would be "hystericless".

And for Tragic Monkey's sake, let me just go ahead and be really explicit: THIS IS A JOKE IT IS NOT SERIOUS

 

[TragicMonkey]

Um... you REALLY missed my point with those couple of posts.

1. You claimed use of the term "cervix-haver" "robs me of my core humanity, it relegates me to nothing more than a set of bodily functions. It is incredibly offensive." Did you post this? Did you mean it?

2. You have in the past used the term "penis-haver" on at least two occasions to refer to others. Did you post those?

You may imagine that your prior posts "points", whatever they were meant to be, somehow excuse your use of terminology equivalent to what you yourself have claimed is an incredibly offensive slur, but I disagree. I see four possibilities here:

A) You didn't make those posts at all, it was an imposter using your account.
B) You don't consider "penis-haver" offensive while you do consider "cervix-haver" offensive.
C) You do consider "penis-haver" offensive but in those posts you wanted to be offensive.
D) You don't actually feel that strongly about "-haver" terminology but were just being hyperbolic and overly dramatic.

Like I said, you think you've got some spectacular win here... but this is chess, not checkers.

It's neither checkers nor chess, it's a public discussion in which your prior remarks are visible and can be set alongside your more recent remarks and the contrast shown. Whether you wish to discuss that contrast is up to you, but certainly others can draw their own conclusions about the matter.

 

[Elaedith]

1. You claimed use of the term "cervix-haver" "robs me of my core humanity, it relegates me to nothing more than a set of bodily functions. It is incredibly offensive." Did you post this? Did you mean it?

2. You have in the past used the term "penis-haver" on at least two occasions to refer to others. Did you post those?

You may imagine that your prior posts "points", whatever they were meant to be, somehow excuse your use of terminology equivalent to what you yourself have claimed is an incredibly offensive slur, but I disagree. I see four possibilities here:

A) You didn't make those posts at all, it was an imposter using your account.
B) You don't consider "penis-haver" offensive while you do consider "cervix-haver" offensive.
C) You do consider "penis-haver" offensive but in those posts you wanted to be offensive.
D) You don't actually feel that strongly about "-haver" terminology but were just being hyperbolic and overly dramatic.



It's neither checkers nor chess, it's a public discussion in which your prior remarks are visible and can be set alongside your more recent remarks and the contrast shown. Whether you wish to discuss that contrast is up to you, but certainly others can draw their own conclusions about the matter.

E) 'Penis-haver' is being used sardonically to make a point about the increasing use of offensive terms for women but not for men.

 

[LondonJohn]

A few others, like London John, use the terms interchangeably, but they also consistently conflate the literal and the figurative senses... making the entire discussion a bit of bait and switch game.

Examples, please?

(And it's "LondonJohn")

 

[lionking]

E) 'Penis-haver' is being used sardonically to make a point about the increasing use of offensive terms for women but not for men.

Bingo.

 

[Elaedith]

New paper just out reporting on a survey of parents who believe their adolescent children have ROGD.

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases

 

[TragicMonkey]

E) 'Penis-haver' is being used sardonically to make a point about the increasing use of offensive terms for women but not for men.

An interesting theory (I do wish people would have let Emily's Cat come up with it herself) but the posts I quoted were from February 2021, whereas the post complaining about "cervix-haver" is from this month. If that was Emily's Cat's point she waited a very long time for someone else to make it for her.

 

[Robin]

Examples, please?

(And it's "LondonJohn")

As I pointed out earlier, it's a red herring anyway. I haven't used any figurative language about this and I doubt you have either.

 

[LondonJohn]

E) 'Penis-haver' is being used sardonically to make a point about the increasing use of offensive terms for women but not for men.

You're obviously unfamiliar with phrases such as "people with prostates" - which is a term that's used - correctly - when appealing for people to be tested for prostate cancer.

And it's used correctly because there are some people who have prostates who are not men. Those people are trans women and natal males who are non-binary.

For example, Eddie Izzard is a person who needs to be reached by a public health campaign promoting testing for prostate cancer. Izzard has a prostate. Izzard is not a man. If the campaign simply referred to "men", it would be excluding Izzard (and all people like Izzard). So the campaign refers to "people with prostates" - which will cover everyone they need to reach: cis men, trans women, and non-binary natal males.

I have no problem whatsoever been addressed by a public health message as a "person with a prostate", because 1) I understand the issue at hand, 2) I'm compassionate towards trans and non-binary people, and I fully accept/respect their gender identity, and 3) I fully endorse the attempts of the public health message to be inclusive and to address "non-men" with prostates as well as men with prostates.

But I guess if I'd really wanted to be outraged by this sort of thing, and if I could channel my outrage into a screed about my gender being attacked in order to accommodate mentally ill trans people and a general animus about transgender identity.... I could probably do so.

Fortunately though, I'm not that sort of person.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I pointed out earlier, it's a red herring anyway. I haven't used any figurative language about this and I doubt you have either.

I know. I'm just interested in holding this sort of stuff up to the light, since it's symptomatic of the wider malaise within this thread.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're obviously unfamiliar with phrases such as "people with prostates" - which is a term that's used - correctly - when appealing for people to be tested for prostate cancer.

And it's used correctly because there are some people who have prostates who are not men. Those people are trans women and natal males who are non-binary.

They're also trying to exclude men who've had their prostates removed already. Medical measures are about exclusions as much as inclusions. Patients who've had double mastectomies don't need mammograms, patients with two amputated feet don't need diabetic foot exams, and so forth. So if the announcement is worded "people with breasts" or "people with feet" they're probably not being sociopolitical in the first case and crazystupid in the second case, they're just trying to succinctly grab exactly the population set they need and no others.

 

[d4m10n]

...there are some people who have prostates who are not men. Those people are trans women and natal males who are non-binary.

Out of curiosity, are you using a non-circular definition of "men" when you say non-binary males are not men? Are "men" people who fulfill a specific social role? Something else?

Sent from my Declasse Yosemite using Tapatalk

 

[Manger Douse]

Does anyone understand the concept of punching up when it comes to comedy? The cervix havers punching up at the prostate havers?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy