• 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.

Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Atheist said:
And to appease those horrified by the vile assault on Posie Parker, the perpetrator has been charged with common assault.

Since she's in New York, it may take a while to get to court - I don't think extradition will come into play.
Click to expand...

Yes.
As their lawyer I would argue for diversion. He was semi castrated and heavily medicated at age 8. It is impossible this was informed consent but the mental health issues following may well account for their engaging in common assault.
 
Matthew Best said:
Camberwell woman sets her sights on becoming UK’s first trans-gender MP

https://southwarknews.co.uk/news/po...sights-on-becoming-uks-first-trans-gender-mp/

She seems well-qualified, as you can see from just the first five paragraphs.
Click to expand...

This is apparently the same person who was at one of the trans rights protests in London over the weekend, yelling "fascist" at people through a megaphone. A new group called the Lesbian Project were holding a private meeting in Bloomsbury, and the TRAs held a noisy protest outside.

It was captured on camera by someone who randomly stumbled across the protest - the guy is an "auditor", apparently (people who go around testing the right to film in public spaces) but knew nothing about the trans debate. It starts off slowly, with a few people asking him to stop filming before Baker (the wannabe politician) calls him a fascist pig. Eventually the protesters surround him with signs and try to prevent him walking up and down the street, before one of them knocks his phone out of his hand. The video is 50 minutes long, but both bizarre and compelling.

Especially striking is the moment at the end of the video, after the protesters have moved away, when a group of middle-aged women emerge from the meeting, all politely thanking the police as they leave.

https://youtu.be/qMpy8VDBJXQ
 
Communist Party of Britain view on the Scottish Gender Recognition Bill

https://www.communistparty.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-bill-and-equality-law/

The Communist Party is the only political party with a coherent political analysis of sex and gender. Gender as an ideological construct should not be confused or conflated with the material reality of biological sex. Gender is the vehicle through which misogyny is enacted and normalised. Gender identity ideology is well- suited to the needs of the capitalist class, focusing as it does on individual as opposed to collective rights, enabling and supporting the super-exploitation of women.

For these reasons, the Communist Party rejects gender self-ID as the basis for sex- based entitlements in law to women’s single-sex rights, spaces and facilities. The Party will continue to oppose any proposed legislation – whether at Scottish, Welsh or British level – that seeks to enact such a provision.
Click to expand...
 
The second TRA protest last weekend was at another of the Let Women Speak events at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park. The protesters surround the group and try to prevent them from speaking, while chanting kind things like "The only good Nazi is a dead one / So just go kill yourselves".

A couple of videos from the women attending the event here and here.

There's also another video strikingly similar to the one from Bloomsbury, by a Speakers' Corner long-timer and free speech advocate who goes to tell the protesters they're wrong to prevent the women's group from speaking. It goes every bit as well as you'd imagine.
 
Robin said:
Again you are appealing to the same straw man over and over and over again. No matter how many times I point out that it is a straw man.
Click to expand...

It's not a straw man. It's happened in this thread.

Trans people do not claim that they can alter their genetic make up
Click to expand...

I said nothing about genes. That is YOUR straw man. They don't claim to alter genes, rather they don't think genes are determinative of sex.

Did you read that? Can you stop pretending they do?
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony.

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.
Click to expand...

No. The word "gender" was adopted precisely to make the distinction between biological sex and social expectations. That's the word people use when they want to refer to those social expectations. That fringe isn't using gender. They are quite explicit about this. And note that this isn't trans people in general making that claim, I never said it was.

You really don't understand this debate at all.
 
Robin said:
The linked article supports what I said about transgender people not believing they could change their genetic makeup.
Click to expand...
I don't recall anyone here making any claims to the contrary.

Dismember said:
Katy and India are natal males; both consider themselves to be biologically female now.
Click to expand...
I wonder what they think the term female entails. Presumably some combination of mutable traits such as breasts and blood hormone levels.

The Atheist said:
And to appease those horrified by the vile assault on Posie Parker, the perpetrator has been charged with common assault.
Click to expand...
Do you happen to have a source for this news which you find trustworthy?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I said nothing about genes.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you are being disingenuous. The kinds of differences you are talking about would involve genetic differences, of course they would.

So if trans people were claiming to be able to make that sort of transition then they would be claiming to be able to change their genetic makeup.

Since they aren't claiming to be able to change their genes then obviously that is not the kind of change they are talking about.

You are still in the motte.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Thanks. The linked article supports what I said about transgender people not believing they could change their genetic makeup.
Click to expand...
I've met at least one transwoman who affirms that she doesn't need to change her genetic makeup, because she's already genetically female.

So I think you're making a strawman. The argument is not that transwomen should be able to change their genetic makeup. It's that transwomen should be encouraged to change their physical bodies to match their genetic makeup. It's an argument that begs the question of transgenetics, in order to avoid having to engage in sex denialism to achieve trans policy goals.
 
Robin said:
Oh come on, you are being disingenuous. The kinds of differences you are talking about would involve genetic differences, of course they would.

So if trans people were claiming to be able to make that sort of transition then they would be claiming to be able to change their genetic makeup.

Since they aren't claiming to be able to change their genes then obviously that is not the kind of change they are talking about.

You are still in the motte.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the biological extremist argument for transgenderism isn't an argument for genetic transition, but an argument from transgenetic identity.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't recall anyone here making any claims to the contrary.
Click to expand...
The kinds of differences between sexes being referred to in the "sex is real" quote are genetically encoded, right?

So if you are claiming that trans people believe they can change from male to female in that sense then that would imply that they believe they can change their genetic makeup.

But since trans people don't believe they can change their genetic makeup then obviously they are not claiming to transition from male to female in that sense.
 
theprestige said:
As far as I can tell, the biological extremist argument for transgenderism isn't an argument for genetic transition, but an argument from transgenetic identity.
Click to expand...
Yes. But the "sex is real" quote is referring to differences in sex that are genetically encoded. So it is irrelevant even to the biological extremist argument.
 
Robin said:
The kinds of differences between sexes being referred to in the "sex is real" quote are genetically encoded, right?
Click to expand...
I think the "sex is real" crowd is mostly pointing to phenotypical and behavioral differences. For example, when I say someone is a "lesbian" I'm saying something about their body habitus and also about what they get up to romantically.
 
So we have :

1. Trans gender people do not believe they can change their genetic makeup not even the biological extremists.

2. The "sex is real" quote is referring to differences in sex that are genetically encoded.
 
d4m10n said:
I think the "sex is real" crowd is mostly pointing to phenotypical and behavioral differences. For example, when I say someone is a "lesbian" I'm saying something about their body habitus and also about what they get up to romantically.
Click to expand...
I didn't get that from Rowling's quote at all.
 
Robin said:
Yes. But the "sex is real" quote is referring to differences in sex that are genetically encoded. So it is irrelevant even to the biological extremist argument.
Click to expand...

The transgender biological extremist argument attempts to rebut the "sex is real" argument by affirming that transgenetic sex is real.

You can't tell my transgenetic acquaintance that her "real" biological sex is male, because she claims that her genes are really female genes.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

And?

Yes, we are allowed to be offended and to also offend. These are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we tend to offend in response to taking offense. It's quite ordinary. Permission isn't required.

As a male of the human species, I call that hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

That's nice. The more interesting question is, which way should that hypocrisy resolve? Show body-part-haver nomenclature be considered offensive or not? Where do you stand on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom