Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Myriad]

It's been explained multiple times by people with bigoted views about transgender identity.

The sure sign you're on the right side of history is when you're refusing to address arguments because they come from people you judge unqualified to have arguments.

"It seems strange, that so many people testify that these accused witches are actually innocent."
"That just shows the hold the devil has over their souls. Burn them all."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
"Self-evident to a rabble of ignorant yokel colonial farmers, sure! Send the army."

"Some women are telling us why they think they should be able to vote."
"Such thoughts are caused by errant impulses from a dislodged uterus, a condition known to us knowledgeable medical professionals as hysteria."

"Here are some ways this mid 20th century communist government could be improved..."
"Criticizing the regime's wise enlightened leadership is symptom of disordered thinking corrupted by bourgeois ideas. A few decades of re-education camp will cure you."

"It seems strange, that there's no physical evidence of all the zoo animals and underground secret rooms and altars to satan in these day care centers that the recovered-memory children told us about."
"That just shows the hold the devil has over their souls. Burn them all."

Join the parade. There's no stopping the march of progress!

 

[Elaedith]

The sure sign you're on the right side of history is when you're refusing to address arguments because they come from people you judge unqualified to have arguments.

"It seems strange, that so many people testify that these accused witches are actually innocent."
"That just shows the hold the devil has over their souls. Burn them all."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
"Self-evident to a rabble of ignorant yokel colonial farmers, sure! Send the army."

"Some women are telling us why they think they should be able to vote."
"Such thoughts are caused by errant impulses from a dislodged uterus, a condition known to us knowledgeable medical professionals as hysteria."

"Here are some ways this mid 20th century communist government could be improved..."
"Criticizing the regime's wise enlightened leadership is symptom of disordered thinking corrupted by bourgeois ideas. A few decades of re-education camp will cure you."

"It seems strange, that there's no physical evidence of all the zoo animals and underground secret rooms and altars to satan in these day care centers that the recovered-memory children told us about."
"That just shows the hold the devil has over their souls. Burn them all."

Join the parade. There's no stopping the march of progress!

It's actually a fascinating example of a perfectly circular argument used to protect a closed, fundamentalist belief system.

'People who don't agree that 'man' and 'woman' should be redefined as 'identification with a gender role or stereotype' are bigots, because they are just like people who thought gay people were mentally ill!

'No, that analogy has been debunked, and you have never refuted the arguments.'

'It's been debunked by bigots, so I don't need to refute it!'

'Why are they bigots'?

'Because they don't agree that 'man' and 'woman' should be redefined as 'identification with a gender role or stereotype' which makes them bigots, just like people who thought gay people were mentally ill!

You see exactly the same across this whole area. For example, people like Jesse Singal who debunk a lot of the rubbish research on youth gender medicine are smeared as bigots, transphobes, right-wing (even though he is on the left) and so on, just because he debunks bad science, and the smears are then just to reject his debunking. There is no way around it - all criticisms of the research can automatically be rejected, because the fact that somebody is criticising the research means they must be a reactionary bigot, so we can reject their criticism because they are a bigot and therefore their criticism are invalid, and we know they are a bigot because they are criticising the research....etc.

(That's all quite aside from the point that even if somebody was a bigot, it doesn't affect the validity of their argument.)

 

[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 just finished. She does a much better job of comparing the gay panic from decades ago with the trans panic of today than I ever have in these threads.

 

[Paul2]

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.)

There's nothing contradictory or problematic by (1) defining a woman as an adult human female and (2) acknowledging the valid lived experience of a trans woman who feels like, identifies as, and lives AS IF they were an adult human female. Not a single denial of any human or civil right necessarily flows from that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should stop looking to "the right wing" to see whether or not something causes offense.

Left-leaning feminists have been angry about Mulvaney for the entire 365 days of their reprehensible "365 days of girlhood" minstrel show.

The "right wing" has only cottoned on now, and only because of beer bottles. None of them had a problem when Biden interviewed Mulvaney and congratulated Mulvaney on how brave they were to "be a girl". None of them had a problem when TAMPAX decided that a great spokesperson for their tampons would be... a "girl" who doesn't have a uterus and has exactly zero need to ever be in possession of a tampon in the first place. None of them had a problem when Nike decided that this male-shaped male person with no breasts would make an excellent choice to represent their female workout clothing line.

So let's go ahead and rephrase this situation: MALES didn't have a problem with Mulvaney until their minstrel-like face showed up on a beer can. Many FEMALES have had a problem with Mulvaney since they first decided to "be a girl" by skipping through a yard with a witless and artificial grin on their masculine face while acting like a teenage male's fantasy of a bouncy and brainless anime babe.

 

[The Atheist]

What if the transwoman used puberty blockers and hormone therapy as a teen, and did not develop the skeletal structure and muscle mass of a male?

That's a very good point that nobody else has addressed yet, but I will.

I'd want to see the science behind it and whether they still have an advantage over women. If not, then I'd be all for it.

Speaking from personal experience, thanks to my daughter, who is close to three trans women, all of whom went through very early hormone treatment, they appear a lot more feminine in form than later-transitioning women, so there might be something in it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Good observation. There are any number of transgender or transsexual males that they could have put on their beer, and there'd be very little outcry. Certainly the actual religious transphobic people would still bellyache about it... but the response would have been massively less if they had featured Caitlyn Jenner, or Blair White, or Laverne Cox.

I'm supplying some links to Mulvaney's TikTok. Bear in mind that throughout the entire 365 of this act, Mulvaney has not taken any testosterone suppressants, nor any estrogen, nor have they had any surgical alterations to their genitals - nor do they intend to do so.

This is day 1. Give some thought to the blantantly sexist stereotype Mulvaney starts out with.
https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/video/7074309597984623918?lang=en
Transcript: Day one of being a girl and I have already cried three times, I wrote a scathing email that I did not send, I ordered dresses online that I couldn't afford, and then, um, when someone asked me how I was I said "I'm fine" when I wasn't fine. So. How'd I do ladies? Good? Girl Power!

Compilation of the first 15 days of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8dDRItdjIY

If you can stomach more than that, you can do your own digging.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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

My statements deny that a person having an identity that is transgender actually makes them the opposite sex in any rational or meaningful sense.

Your pro-trans-identity is tantamount to handing over control of the armed forces to anyone who says they identify as Napoleon, because their identity cannot be denied.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

True to form, you're far more sarcastic than me, but also directly to the point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Mainstream Medicine at one time used heroin as a cure for coughing, cocaine for toothache, and lobotomised people to treat them for mental illness. The long term deleterious effects of these treatments should not need explaining to anyone over 10th grade.

Off topic but interesting: Surgeons still use cocaine topically as an anesthetic, because it is also a vasoconstrictor. So for some types of surgeries, it's the preferred approach. They used cocaine as a topical anesthetic when the doctors did surgery on my father's sinuses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good thing natal females aren't cleaning up with this same schtick on, say, TikTok & YouTube. Ever been to AzzyLand?

I can be opposed to females performing sexist stereotypes of females... but at least they ARE female. Mulvaney is not.

Your comment here is akin to arguing that because some black people behave the same way that is depicted by negative stereotypes of black people... then it's perfectly fine for a white person to don blackface and perform a negative stereotype of black people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What if the transwoman used puberty blockers and hormone therapy as a teen, and did not develop the skeletal structure and muscle mass of a male?

This isn't really the way it works. Puberty blockers used during the normal pubertal window will prevent the male from developing adult male genitals. It may prevent enlargement of the adam's apple and the lowering of the voice.

But height is controlled by the adrenal gland, which is not affected by puberty blockers. A male will still reach male-average height if they take puberty blockers. Any short stature they may end up with will entirely be a result of low bone density and the medical risks associated with that.

Puberty blockers also do nothing at all about the placement and shape of a male pelvis, nor the differences in muscular and tendon attachment points.

Use of puberty blockers, followed by persistent use of testosterone suppressants, will result in lower muscle mass than the male would otherwise have developed - but it does NOT result in female-typical musculature or distribution.

Seriously people (not you specifically). Females are not just smaller lesser males. We have significant differences throughout our entire bodies. Beyond the obvious differences in our reproductive systems, our entire somatic system is sexually dimorphic. Our muscle fibers have evolved to be different, our tendons are different. Every organ of our bodies has evolved in ways that accommodate gestation of a fetus and delivery of an infant. Our internal organs are more loosely attached so that they can move within our abdomen while we're pregnant. Our lungs and hearts are smaller so that they don't take up as much room when we're full of a baby.

Females are not just small weak males. We're materially different from males.

 

[Agatha]

Will you all please make a greater effort to be civil with one another. Calling other members bigots - even when couched in sophistry - is not civil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Ziggurat]

The "right wing" has only cottoned on now, and only because of beer bottles. None of them had a problem when Biden interviewed Mulvaney and congratulated Mulvaney on how brave they were to "be a girl". None of them had a problem when TAMPAX decided that a great spokesperson for their tampons would be... a "girl" who doesn't have a uterus and has exactly zero need to ever be in possession of a tampon in the first place. None of them had a problem when Nike decided that this male-shaped male person with no breasts would make an excellent choice to represent their female workout clothing line.

Yeah, I've got to disagree on this point. There was plenty of criticism of Dylan from conservatives before Bud Light. For example:
Are We Being Pranked? Biden-Backed Man-Playing-Girl Is Basically A Gross Caricature Of Women
Matt Walsh: What is a woman, Dylan Mulvaney and the American gender-critical movement

It's not fair to tar conservatives because you didn't see what they were saying. It's true that he's getting a lot more blowback after this Bud ad than after the Tampax thing, but honestly, that's likely just a matter of visibility. For example, men don't pay attention to menstrual products (and that's ok, isn't it?), so for the most part, why would that have even made them aware of Dylan's existence?

 

[smartcooky]

Off topic but interesting: Surgeons still use cocaine topically as an anesthetic, because it is also a vasoconstrictor. So for some types of surgeries, it's the preferred approach. They used cocaine as a topical anesthetic when the doctors did surgery on my father's sinuses.

Yeah, but you can't walk into your local chemist and buy cocaine or heroin pills for your coughing or toothache - at one time, you used to be able to do that.

Cocaine
You didn’t need a doctor’s prescription to purchase it. Some states sold cocaine at bars, and it was, famously, one of the key ingredients in the soon-to-be ubiquitous Coca-Cola soft drink. By 1902, there were an estimated 200,000 cocaine addicts in the U.S. alone.
https://www.history.com/news/7-of-the-most-outrageous-medical-treatments-in-history

Heroin
Nuff said!

 

[d4m10n]

Schools and youth transition

Not sure if this is on topic here or in the moderated thread or in the locked thread, but I’ve been meaning to ask you folks about three related court cases.

Foote v. Ludlow School Committee
Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School
Regino v. CUSD

What they all have in common are school districts which sought to facilitate the social transition of young students without informing parents of the child’s intent to transition. I expect that all three cases will ultimately be dismissed or settled, basically for the reasons given here towards the top of page 17.

Legal complexities and jurisdictional differences aside, all three cases raise the question of how far a school should go in helping a minor child to transition when the parents or legal guardians have not yet been informed and—quite probably—medical specialists have not had the opportunity to assess the child for dysphoria. We probably already agree that the school should not be providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or gender affirming surgeries, but there is plenty of room for argument and shades of gray as to the process of social transition (e.g. pronouns, teams, locker rooms, etc.) and non-medical interventions such as binding and tucking.

Okay then, what say you all? How far should schools go?

 

[d4m10n]

Your comment here is akin to arguing that because some black people behave the same way that is depicted by negative stereotypes of black people... then it's perfectly fine for a white person to don blackface and perform a negative stereotype of black people.

My argument is somewhat more like saying that it's not moral for anyone to knowingly propagate negative stereotypes, regardless of their personal identity characteristics, because the consequences are basically the same. IIRC, I pointed this out in the digital blackface thread just a few weeks back.

 

[Samson]

Not sure if this is on topic here or in the moderated thread or in the locked thread, but I’ve been meaning to ask you folks about three related court cases.

Foote v. Ludlow School Committee
Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School
Regino v. CUSD

What they all have in common are school districts which sought to facilitate the social transition of young students without informing parents of the child’s intent to transition. I expect that all three cases will ultimately be dismissed or settled, basically for the reasons given here towards the top of page 17.

Legal complexities and jurisdictional differences aside, all three cases raise the question of how far a school should go in helping a minor child to transition when the parents or legal guardians have not yet been informed and—quite probably—medical specialists have not had the opportunity to assess the child for dysphoria. We probably already agree that the school should not be providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or gender affirming surgeries, but there is plenty of room for argument and shades of gray as to the process of social transition (e.g. pronouns, teams, locker rooms, etc.) and non-medical interventions such as binding and tucking.

Okay then, what say you all? How far should schools go?

There seem to be parents in New York affirming transition, which suggests they are well capable of making their own mistakes without schools compounding the tragedy.

 

[d4m10n]

There seem to be parents in New York affirming transition, which suggests they are well capable of making their own mistakes without schools compounding the tragedy.

No doubt there are parents who would be quite supportive in every state, and others who would be much less so. Out of curiosity, though, why refer to youth transition as a tragedy?

 

[TomB]

The "right wing" has only cottoned on now, and only because of beer bottles. None of them had a problem when Biden interviewed Mulvaney and congratulated Mulvaney on how brave they were to "be a girl". None of them had a problem when TAMPAX decided that a great spokesperson for their tampons would be... a "girl" who doesn't have a uterus and has exactly zero need to ever be in possession of a tampon in the first place. None of them had a problem when Nike decided that this male-shaped male person with no breasts would make an excellent choice to represent their female workout clothing line.

Just a slight correction here.

My understanding is the Tampax never selected Mulvaney as a spokesperson and there has never been any kind of sponsorship relationship.

Tampax apparently did send Mulvaney a box of tampons "to give to women in need," however. I'm not sure what lead to that, but it's hardly a sponsorship or a spokesperson position.

So let's go ahead and rephrase this situation: MALES didn't have a problem with Mulvaney until their minstrel-like face showed up on a beer can. Many FEMALES have had a problem with Mulvaney since they first decided to "be a girl" by skipping through a yard with a witless and artificial grin on their masculine face while acting like a teenage male's fantasy of a bouncy and brainless anime babe.

Also, to say that males had no problem with Mulvaney is...inaccurate. But I guess you know what men think....

...and teenage males.