Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
Yes of course if a genuine woman becomes man.
There is the case of Silverstein in Canada, where it seems obvious he was using the theater of trans inclusion to make a point in power lifting.
Click to expand...

There is no situation in which it is appropriate for a staff member at a pharmacy to ask a customer if they think they're going to go to heaven. Whether that particular customer is transgender, muslim, or a full-fledged satanist is irrelevant - it's an inappropriate question in ALL circumstances.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There is no situation in which it is appropriate for a staff member at a pharmacy to ask a customer if they think they're going to go to heaven. Whether that particular customer is transgender, muslim, or a full-fledged satanist is irrelevant - it's an inappropriate question in ALL circumstances.
Click to expand...
The intended discussion is sex self ID which is full on from June 16 here, not what some religious nutcase said to a stranger.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, our West County Sidewalk Pharmacists are really quite accommodating...
 
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male would be barred from competing on girls or women’s sports teams at federally supported schools and colleges under legislation pushed through Thursday by House Republicans checking off another high-profile item on their social agenda.

"The bill approved by a 219-203 party-line vote is unlikely to advance further because the Democratic-led Senate will not support it and the White House said President Joe Biden would veto it."

https://apnews.com/article/1c58c20cac2b191e323e4376d7949a2d
 
angrysoba said:
4. Imagine what they want to do with our children? Would you want them being a teacher in your child's school?
Click to expand...

Ah, that takes me all the way back to the mid-1970s when my arch-Conservative Catholic brother told me he would remove his kids from school if he found out one of the teachers was gay or lesbian.

Thankfully, he's dead now.

TheGoldcountry said:
It appears logically clear to me that you can't ignore sexual crimes by saying that "they weren't a real transgender" and then go on to champion self-ID, yet the cognitive dissonance is repeated over and over.

To me, it seems obvious that you would want the bad actors weeded out, because they are doing a disservice to the cause of transgenders.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point!

To me, it seems very obvious that a small group of people has hijacked the trans position and it's certainly doing a severe disservice to overall trans women's rights.

I pointed out much earlier in the threads on several occasions that women have nothing to fear from genuine trans women, but since we're not allowed to know who is genuine and who's a pervert, we're stuck on the same carousel we have been for about three years.
 
d4m10n said:
In her defense, some of them are mostly just for fun, and some others deviate significantly from woke critical social justice orthodoxy.

Her video on cancellation is certainly worth watching:


As to the video about Roper's podcast, she makes some good points. Certainly Roper is framing the entire arc of the show to suggest JKR has been done dirty; I don't think that's particularly controversial. That said, I've got some nits to pick with her substantive criticisms of Rowling.

Consider the following screencap:

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230421/b94fe04ac57de0942119b60de3594df3.jpg[/qimg]

If JKR is actually making this specific motte-and-bailey argument, one should be able to show that she made the claims from the lower left corner (or their substantive equivalent) and then retreated to the claim in the upper right when challenged on them. Can anyone do this? So far as I can tell, Contrapoints does not do so. Instead, she extrapolated from JKR's claim that it is acceptable (or perhaps preferable) to refer to people who menstruate as "women" because they are both adult and female. Was that comment substantively equivalent to "trans men are women," though? Not if you take "women" as a social role rather than a word denoting nothing but age and sex. And therein lies the conceptual problem here: The word "women" means something different in the sentence "trans men are women" than it does in the sentence "trans women are men." This problem could have easily been avoided by using JKR's actual words rather than a pair of gender critical slogans pulled from somewhere else in the world wide memeplex.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
A bailey in a motte-and-bailey argument is supposed to be a position which isn't really defensible. But "trans men are women" and "trans women are men" are both pretty defensible positions, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


She does say the equivalent of that in the two thumbnails below, and Zig agrees with it. It is JKR who tries to walk it back.

The difference is that Zig is probably quite happy to be considered transphobic and JKR is all, like... "wuh? Me? where have I ever said...?"

It is not that hard to find...


https://youtu.be/EmT0i0xG6zg?t=2224

Contrapoints then asserts that the terms trans and cis specifically distinguish between sexes.
 

Attachments

  • JKR trans women are men 1.jpg
    JKR trans women are men 1.jpg
    47.2 KB · Views: 6
  • JKR trans women are men 2.jpg
    JKR trans women are men 2.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 5
Elaedith said:
I'm guessing ContraPoints repeated the nonsense about 'transgender identity' being declassified as a disorder in DSM5. Can anyone confirm this, or do I need to watch this video?
Click to expand...

Don't think she talks about that.

The comparisons she makes are with the anti-gay campaigner Anita Bryant whose arguments were "it's unnatural", "They should stay in the closet", "keep it away from our children", "don't let them be teachers or public figures", "I'm just saying my feelings", "this will destroy society" etc...
 
So... Contrapoints asks...

If someone denies they are transphobic, do they actually believe transphobia is a thing?

IF NO....
For some, they might happily deny it is a real thing. I am sure some people in this thread will happily do so. They will almost certainly also either a) deny that transgender people actually exist OR b) deny they are worthy of any moral considerations whatsoever. I think they will be less likely to assert b out loud, but we can probably guess what they think from the way in which they are extremely derisive of them or even have violent fantasies about how they would like to treat them.​

If YES,
what would transphobic statements actually look like? You would surely have to know an example to know that you hadn't uttered one. This is pretty basic otherwise there is no way of falsifying claims.​

For me, I think there are transphobic statements, and I would also accept that I am, to some extent transphobic. It's not that I want to be, but as I said before, I don't think there is a fair way of allowing transwomen to compete with women in most sports (certainly not strength sports, although frankly many of them are so riddled with PED abuse that it might be worth them sorting that out. Similarly, I can't take seriously people who claim to care about female boxers who would happily watch sixty year old men prodded into the ring to fight younger boxers. If this is you, and you have stood ringside and cheered on someone being beaten to a pulp, then you are a hypocrite, and don't tell me "Well they chose to get in the...." because the same thing goes for women fighting transwomen etc...).
 
Strong binary, like I said.

ETA: Is Contrapoints really taking JKR to task here for not adopting the preferred nomenclature? For saying "identifies as a woman" when she ought to have said "trans woman" and "is a woman" when she means "cis woman," or is there something more than pedantry going on here?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
More nitpicking on the Contrapoints video

First, some background.

Rowling encourages us to be skeptical of the gender-related claims of males who wield their penis as a weapon to sexually assault females, as Bryson did:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1639276123627323392

Rowling also encourages us to be skeptical of males who "would dress in women’s clothes to get access to vulnerable women and girls," as Dolatowski did.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1618978743174987776

Now, it seems fair to me to suggest that sexually violent males need not be accorded the same deference we'd show someone who has not demonstrated disregard for the sexual autonomy and privacy of women and girls.

Contrapoints, though, seems not to see the distinction at 44:20

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20230421/81dfd974bafa8982e1f72e2ad87f0973.jpg[/qimg]

Natalie characterizes these tweets as a transphobic attack on trans women rather than an attempt to show how men can abuse self-i.d.
Click to expand...

There seems to be an underlying view that by not respecting the claimed gender identity of prisoners/criminals will cause the public to not respect the identity of good law-abiding people. You saw similar responses to the Nashville shooter and also Chris-chan's arrest where it seemed like people viewed the misgendering of people to be a worse crime than the actual crimes committed (or allegedly in the latter case).
 
d4m10n said:
Strong binary, like I said.

ETA: Is Contrapoints really taking JKR to task here for not adopting the preferred nomenclature? For saying "identifies as a woman" when she ought to have said "trans woman" and "is a woman" when she means "cis woman," or is there something more than pedantry going on here?
Click to expand...

JKR was complaining about an AP style guide switching from the use of "identifies as a woman" to "is a woman". In other words the complaint was not about sex organs, but about identification. AP were going by gender, and presumably JKR disapproved of this. It is literally a minute or less from the point in which you said that Contrapoints was mischaracterizing JKR. Why not go back and listen. The thumbnails I provided helpfully included the times for that very reason.
 
Okay, so this is all just pedantry over a style guide. Why should we care? Should someone be condemned for thinking "is a woman" says something about sex rather than gender? I mean, most dictionaries haven't even caught up yet.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
For me, I think there are transphobic statements, and I would also accept that I am, to some extent transphobic. It's not that I want to be, but as I said before, I don't think there is a fair way of allowing transwomen to compete with women in most sports....
Click to expand...

You're buying into the framing that not allowing transwomen in women's sports is transphobia, rather than just recognition of an unfair situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom