Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[LondonJohn]

This is your brain on Transphobia...

Link

Haha. Well of course this is just one extreme nutter. But it's also a handy metaphor for most of the confected outrage directed at Anheuser-Busch over this campaign.

 

[TomB]

Haha. Well of course this is just one extreme nutter. But it's also a handy metaphor for most of the confected outrage directed at Anheuser-Busch over this campaign.

The rage is ridiculous.

But I understand why people might be offended by Dylan Mulvaney in particular. One can find Mulvaney objectionable, not because she is trans, but because her brand is built on what many see as misogyny. Many, including at least some in the trans community, see her "Days as a Girl" series as emphasizing insulting stereotypes of women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm sure they're not, as with any professional group.

Aside from the fact that a lot of the attendees were clients, at least one of the senior accountants had been a rep rugby player. Not all accountants are 98-lb weaklings.

My comment wasn't based on the physical aspects of males, but on the general demeanor of males who choose accounting as a career. It's a stereotype, for sure... but one doesn't generally think "accountant" and assume "super aggressive toxic masculinity prone to outbursts of violence".

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a common argument when it comes to intimate spaces, that it's "unsafe" for transgender identified males to use male spaces, because of fear that those males will physically assault them.

I concede that it's certainty possible... but I have skepticism about how widespread and likely the phenomenon is. From my discussions with old-school transsexuals as well as some new-school transgender people, I'm under the impression that the majority of "bathroom beatings" are highly correlated with sexual activity - with solicitations for sex from one party or the other, as well as "traps" where one of the males is initially unaware that the other party in their liaison has a penis. That's all admittedly anecdotal, of course. But it does lead me to question how much actual danger there is for an average transgender identified male who is NOT engaged in borderline illicit sexual activity.

Certainly, all of the males I've spoken too or polled pretty much agree that if a transgender identified male came into their male intimate space, they might be surprised, might look twice, might even chuckle if they passed very poorly... but none of them would be uncomfortable or even bothered by it. It's just another male in a male space, albeit with a bit more embellishment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. I can only imagine how desperately hard it must have been for those women not to be able to hear, in person, Keen-Minshull shouting "Women don't have penises! No man has a vagina! There's no such thing as non-binary!", together with her deeply ironic "I! NEVER! LOSE!". And sundry other anti-transgender-identity statements.

"Woman" is an adult human female. Human females do not have penises.
"Man" is an adult human male. Human males do not have vaginas.
There are only two sexes in the human animal; there are only two sexes in ALL mammals, and in ALL birds, and in the overwhelming majority of vertebrates.

There is nothing "anti transgender identity" about those factual statements.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The rage is ridiculous.

But I understand why people might be offended by Dylan Mulvaney in particular. One can find Mulvaney objectionable, not because she is trans, but because her brand is built on what many see as misogyny. Many, including at least some in the trans community, see her "Days as a Girl" series as emphasizing insulting stereotypes of women.

Mulvaney's entire schtick is a crass infantilization of females into insulting caricatures as dumb, witless, childish, people-pleasing ditzes. It's absolutely a minstrel show.

Also, I don't buy it. I don't believe Mulvaney is actual transgender in any rational meaning of the word. They're pulling a stunt for the $$$ and they're winning big. Because apparently "female" is a costume... and lots and lots of companies, as well as the ******* president of the ******* US, think that this charlatan's womanface is better at being a female than any actual female.

It's so deeply insulting I barely know where to begin.

 

[angrysoba]

The rage is ridiculous.

But I understand why people might be offended by Dylan Mulvaney in particular. One can find Mulvaney objectionable, not because she is trans, but because her brand is built on what many see as misogyny. Many, including at least some in the trans community, see her "Days as a Girl" series as emphasizing insulting stereotypes of women.

Mulvaney's entire schtick is a crass infantilization of females into insulting caricatures as dumb, witless, childish, people-pleasing ditzes. It's absolutely a minstrel show.

Also, I don't buy it. I don't believe Mulvaney is actual transgender in any rational meaning of the word. They're pulling a stunt for the $$$ and they're winning big. Because apparently "female" is a costume... and lots and lots of companies, as well as the ******* president of the ******* US, think that this charlatan's womanface is better at being a female than any actual female.

It's so deeply insulting I barely know where to begin.

Pretty sure that the guy in the supermarket raging at the beer bottles and cans is not upset with misogyny. This guy is virtue signaling like Kid Rock. It looks very silly.

I know literally nothing about Dylan Mulvaney other than the fact Mulvaney seems to trigger a lot of people on the right because of a beer can in a Tik Tok video.

This is a perfect example of “are we the snowflakes?” where younger entertainers upset the older generations.

 

[Upchurch]

Been watching Contrapoints's response to Witch Trials of JK Rowling.

Not watched that much yet, but Contrapoints parallels JKR with Anita Bryant, who was a campaigner against gay rights...

I'm about half way through. Her surface critique of the first six episodes of the podcast could have been lifted straight from mine earlier in this thread. She, of course, delves way more than I did.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know literally nothing about Dylan Mulvaney other than the fact Mulvaney seems to trigger a lot of people on the right because of a beer can in a Tik Tok video.

Forget the beer. Look up some of Dylan's "girlhood" videos. They're ******* nuts. They look like what someone would do if their aim was to parody women in the most offensive ways they could.

This is a perfect example of “are we the snowflakes?” where younger entertainers upset the older generations.

If you don't know anything about Dylan, and you admit you don't, then you're really in no position to judge whether the offense he's causing is justified or not. If they were using Caitlyn Jenner instead of Dylan, there would undoubtedly be a few transphobes getting upset over it, but the scale of the backlash wouldn't be even close to what they're getting with Dylan.

 

[angrysoba]

Forget the beer. Look up some of Dylan's "girlhood" videos. They're ******* nuts. They look like what someone would do if their aim was to parody women in the most offensive ways they could.



If you don't know anything about Dylan, and you admit you don't, then you're really in no position to judge whether the offense he's causing is justified or not. If they were using Caitlyn Jenner instead of Dylan, there would undoubtedly be a few transphobes getting upset over it, but the scale of the backlash wouldn't be even close to what they're getting with Dylan.

My question is whether Kid Rock or the Walmart freak-out guy are motivated by the idea that Mulvaney is a misogynist. I’m going to say no. I also saw people in my Facebook feee freaking out about Bud Light and my experience of them is that the word “misogyny” is pretty much at all times hyperbolic woke nonsense. One of them was incensed that this “disgusting ◊◊◊◊” is corrupting our children (ummm…. this is a beer commercial, no?).

Surprisingly many of the people complaining about this are men in their 50s who are either single, divorced (from their bitch wives), or childless. No problem with being single, divorced or childless but it undermines their claims to being bastions on traditional families (which they bizarrely claim to be). I really find it hard to believe this is an exercise in individual free thought and much more the result in what they claim trans identities are, namely social contagion through massive propaganda and social media reinforcement. Probably ten or twenty years ago, few would care about this. The reason they care is because their favourite influencers have told them to care and they follow on obediently like the free-thinking libertarians they claim to be but are anything but.

 

[TomB]

My question is whether Kid Rock or the Walmart freak-out guy are motivated by the idea that Mulvaney is a misogynist. I’m going to say no. I also saw people in my Facebook feee freaking out about Bud Light and my experience of them is that the word “misogyny” is pretty much at all times hyperbolic woke nonsense. One of them was incensed that this “disgusting ◊◊◊◊” is corrupting our children (ummm…. this is a beer commercial, no?).

Surprisingly many of the people complaining about this are men in their 50s who are either single, divorced (from their bitch wives), or childless. No problem with being single, divorced or childless but it undermines their claims to being bastions on traditional families (which they bizarrely claim to be). I really find it hard to believe this is an exercise in individual free thought and much more the result in what they claim trans identities are, namely social contagion through massive propaganda and social media reinforcement. Probably ten or twenty years ago, few would care about this. The reason they care is because their favourite influencers have told them to care and they follow on obediently like the free-thinking libertarians they claim to be but are anything but.

I don't think Kid Rock and the guy in the video are reacting to misogyny. And I don't support them.

I would, however, support criticism of Budweiser for hiring Mulvaney in particular as a spokesperson. If they hired Caitlyn Jenner, Blair White, Kat Blaque, Contrapoints or many other trans "influencers" it wouldn't bother me at all regardless of political stances.

For me, it's that particular individual regardless of how they identify.

But I still wouldn't like the gun thing or other implications of violence.

 

[Samson]

I can only imagine the pain and suffering they must be experiencing. Do you know if there is a charity set up to aid these poor women? I'd really like to get involved. Really make a difference.

All they did to you was give birth, Father.

 

[d4m10n]

My question is whether Kid Rock or the Walmart freak-out guy are motivated by the idea that Mulvaney is a misogynist. I’m going to say no. I also saw people in my Facebook feee freaking out about Bud Light and my experience of them is that the word “misogyny” is pretty much at all times hyperbolic woke nonsense. One of them was incensed that this “disgusting ◊◊◊◊” is corrupting our children (ummm…. this is a beer commercial, no?).

Honestly I cannot understand why Mulvaney is the subject of so much negative and positive attention. She is a bit silly but not exactly controversial, so far as I can tell.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't think Kid Rock and the guy in the video are reacting to misogyny. And I don't support them.

I would, however, support criticism of Budweiser for hiring Mulvaney in particular as a spokesperson. If they hired Caitlyn Jenner, Blair White, Kat Blaque, Contrapoints or many other trans "influencers" it wouldn't bother me at all regardless of political stances.

For me, it's that particular individual regardless of how they identify.

But I still wouldn't like the gun thing or other implications of violence.

That's fine, I suppose, but is there any particular reason why this particular individual is someone you object to representing Budweiser?

I am trying to think of an occasion when I had heard that Company X had employed Spokesperson Y and my reaction was "This is an outrage/bad thing!" etc...

Maybe I have done it before. But really, I cannot think of a company I am that attached to where it would bother me who they appointed.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Woman" is an adult human female. Human females do not have penises.
"Man" is an adult human male. Human males do not have vaginas.
There are only two sexes in the human animal; there are only two sexes in ALL mammals, and in ALL birds, and in the overwhelming majority of vertebrates.

There is nothing "anti transgender identity" about those factual statements.

Those statements are literally an explicit, blanket denial of the validity of transgender identity.

Which makes them........drum roll........anti-transgender-identity.


PS: your (mis)use of the word "factual" a) flatly contradicts what is now known and understood by mainstream medicine (and it's interesting that you think you know better than the experts in this respect....), and b) says an awful lot more about your own beliefs than it says about the subject at hand.

 

[smartcooky]

Those statements are literally an explicit, blanket denial of the validity of transgender identity.

Which makes them........drum roll........anti-transgender-identity.


PS: your (mis)use of the word "factual" a) flatly contradicts what is now known and understood by mainstream medicine (and it's interesting that you think you know better than the experts in this respect....), and b) says an awful lot more about your own beliefs than it says about the subject at hand.

Bzzzt: Wrong!

Those definitions allow anyone to identify as what they like... I can identify as "Big Red Bus" or "Attack Helicopter" or "Purring Kitten" and those self IDs are every bit as valid as a male of the species identifying as "woman".

However, I cannot ever BE a "Big Red Bus" or an "Attack Helicopter" or a "Purring Kitten" because I lack the necessary physical attributes or the ability to all the things they do.

Exactly the same reasoning holds for males.. they can never BE women because they do not have the necessary physical attributes... women have reproductive organs, trans-women do not; women can become pregnant and bear children - trans women cannot.

The idea that men can be women simply wish-casting with no basis in reality.
.
.

Oh, and when are you going to answer the question I asked you in this post...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14047490&postcount=1743

 

[lionking]

Bzzzt: Wrong!

Those definitions allow anyone to identify as what they like... I can identify as "Big Red Bus" or "Attack Helicopter" or "Purring Kitten" and those self IDs are every bit as valid as a male of the species identifying as "woman".

However, I cannot ever BE a "Big Red Bus" or an "Attack Helicopter" or a "Purring Kitten" because I lack the necessary physical attributes or the ability to all the things they do.

Exactly the same reasoning holds for males.. they can never BE women because they do not have the necessary physical attributes... women have reproductive organs, trans-women do not; women can become pregnant and bear children - trans women cannot.

The idea that men can be women simply wish-casting with no basis in reality.
.
.

Oh, and when are you going to answer the question I asked you in this post...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14047490&postcount=1743

Absolutely correct.

What LondonJohn tries to (unsuccessfully) convey is stating these facts means you are a transphobe/bigot. Nobody participating in this thread has stated or even implied that people do not have the right to identify as whatever gender they wish.

The irony, of course, is that LJs opposition to transwomen participating in women’s sports would see him labelled as transphobic by a large number of trans rights activists.

 

[theprestige]

That's fine, I suppose, but is there any particular reason why this particular individual is someone you object to representing Budweiser?

I am trying to think of an occasion when I had heard that Company X had employed Spokesperson Y and my reaction was "This is an outrage/bad thing!" etc...

Maybe I have done it before. But really, I cannot think of a company I am that attached to where it would bother me who they appointed.

Subway - Jared Fogle

Nike - Kyrie Irving

Jell-O - Bill Cosby

Hertz - OJ Simpson

Livestrong - Lance Armstrong

You probably don't care much about any of those companies, but I bet you formed some negative opinions of them and their choice of spokesperson. With two exceptions - if the company promptly severed ties with the offensive spokesperson; or if you don't think the spokesperson did anything offensive.

I think the distinguishing factor here is probably not that you don't care about Anheuser-Busch. It's probably that you don't think Dylan Mulvaney performing womanface is actually offensive.

And really, that's the topic of this thread. Nobody here cares what you think about a beer company. You focusing on that is just you deflecting attention away from relevant questions of this thread. Questions like, to what extent are transwomen women, and to what extent are they men performing womanface? And is womanface even a problem to you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Bzzzt: Wrong!

Those definitions allow anyone to identify as what they like... I can identify as "Big Red Bus" or "Attack Helicopter" or "Purring Kitten" and those self IDs are every bit as valid as a male of the species identifying as "woman".

However, I cannot ever BE a "Big Red Bus" or an "Attack Helicopter" or a "Purring Kitten" because I lack the necessary physical attributes or the ability to all the things they do.

Exactly the same reasoning holds for males.. they can never BE women because they do not have the necessary physical attributes... women have reproductive organs, trans-women do not; women can become pregnant and bear children - trans women cannot.

The idea that men can be women simply wish-casting with no basis in reality.
.
.

Oh, and when are you going to answer the question I asked you in this post...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14047490&postcount=1743

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove rule 12 breach

Mainstream medicine now recognises transgender identity as a valid lived identity (that is to say, mainstream medicine does not consider transgender identity to be a mental health disorder). That determination has been reached with reference to evidence & analysis, combined with the vast collective experience, skillset, knowledge and education of all those clinicians who specialise in this area.

By contrast, mainstream medicine does not recognise identifying as (e.g.) an attack helicopter, a big red bus, or a purring kitten, as a valid lived identity (that is to say, mainstream medicine considers those sorts of identities to be mental health disorders). That determination has been reached with reference to evidence & analysis, combined with the vast collective experience, skillset, knowledge and education of all those clinicians who specialise in this area.

And.....that is why your statement

Those definitions allow anyone to identify as what they like... I can identify as "Big Red Bus" or "Attack Helicopter" or "Purring Kitten" and those self IDs are every bit as valid as a male of the species identifying as "woman".

is fundamentally and categorically incorrect. And ignorant.


(But I keep forgetting of course: someone with virtually no education in this subject, and zero professional experience in this field, obviously
has the credentials and intellectual firepower to gainsay and contradict the tens of thousands of actual experts. Silly me.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Subway - Jared Fogle

Nike - Kyrie Irving

Jell-O - Bill Cosby

Hertz - OJ Simpson

Livestrong - Lance Armstrong

You probably don't care much about any of those companies, but I bet you formed some negative opinions of them and their choice of spokesperson. With two exceptions - if the company promptly severed ties with the offensive spokesperson; or if you don't think the spokesperson did anything offensive.

I think the distinguishing factor here is probably not that you don't care about Anheuser-Busch. It's probably that you don't think Dylan Mulvaney performing womanface is actually offensive.

And really, that's the topic of this thread. Nobody here cares what you think about a beer company. You focusing on that is just you deflecting attention away from relevant questions of this thread. Questions like, to what extent are transwomen women, and to what extent are they men performing womanface? And is womanface even a problem to you?

Your logic here is very poor, I'm afraid.

For all those analogous* (in your head) companies you listed, their advertising/marketing associations with the people you listed all of course occurred well before those people became infamous and/or discredited.

To take one of your examples: during the period when Hertz hired OJ Simpson to promote & endorse its brand, it was doing so based on its assessment of Simpson's profile and reputation at that time. And Simpson was, at that time, a national icon - not only as an outstanding football player but also as one of the earliest examples of a black person whom most white (and hispanic) people truly admired.

Of course Hertz's famous association with Simpson is now viewed as a huge liability for the brand, but that is the absolute opposite of the case when Hertz had an active relationship with Simpson.


So to carry that through to the example of Dylan Mulvaney and Anheuser-Busch.... the brewery giant hired Mulvaney entirely on the basis of her current profile and reputation, and on what A-B's research would have told it about Mulvaney's reach & admiration among certain market demographics. A-B clearly determined that using Mulvaney (and Mulvaney's current profile & reputation) to promote one of its brands would be a significant net-positive for that brand (and for A-B in general). It was not wrong in that respect.


* Anyhow, I thought you strongly eschewed the use of analogies, since (in your esteemed view) they can never be truly effective......

 

[LondonJohn]

Absolutely correct.

What LondonJohn tries to (unsuccessfully) convey is stating these facts means you are a transphobe/bigot. Nobody participating in this thread has stated or even implied that people do not have the right to identify as whatever gender they wish.

The irony, of course, is that LJs opposition to transwomen participating in women’s sports would see him labelled as transphobic by a large number of trans rights activists.

I'm far from certain that you understand what you're talking about. Perhaps a (careful) read-through of my response to smartcooky on this matter would aid your understanding.