Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
No.
I say let women decide.
They are screwed in Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places. Let's not screw them in the west.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that trans women are existential threat to cis women's rights? Are you at all aware of what is happening in the US?
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
No.
I say let women decide.They are screwed in Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places. Let's not screw them in the west.
Click to expand...

Samson said:
Except they are not women. Women want their language back remember, that is one of their demands which I support 100%.
Click to expand...

Is Buck Angel a woman or not? It seems you have already made some declarations about what should and should not be done. Now you are, passing the... *ahem* Buck.
 
Upchurch said:
Are you under the impression that trans women are existential threat to cis women's rights? Are you at all aware of what is happening in the US?
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by “existential”, but women’s rights are being threatened and even extinguished in the US. The right to compete with, take shelter against male violence and serve prison time with people of their same sex are certainly threatened. You can’t seriously deny this.
 
lionking said:
It depends what you mean by “existential”, but women’s rights are being threatened and even extinguished in the US. The right to compete with, take shelter against male violence and serve prison time with people of their same sex are certainly threatened. You can’t seriously deny this.
Click to expand...

Basic ***** healthcare. Bodily autonomy. Forced birth. Unprocessed rape kits. Sex trafficking..Are you even kidding me right now?
 
Upchurch said:
Basic ***** healthcare. Bodily autonomy. Forced birth. Unprocessed rape kits. Sex trafficking..Are you even kidding me right now?
Click to expand...

Yes, women’s rights are threatened from many directions. Including governments and authorities caving in to trans rights demands.
 
From RationalWiki:
The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation, asserts that:

1. If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
2. The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
3. In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.
Click to expand...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as
 
Upchurch said:
There are real threats to women in the US. This right-wing moral panic isn’t one of them.
Click to expand...
No doubt the women who lose athletic awards and scholarships to male-bodied competitors will take some comfort from this mansplanation.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
No doubt the women who lose athletic awards and scholarships to male-bodied competitors will take some comfort from this mansplanation.
Click to expand...

Okay, allow me to rephrase: Are you under the impression that women losing athletic awards and scholarships to trans women competitors are a slippery slope for the west to slide into authoritarian regimes like in "Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places"?
 
Upchurch said:
Okay, allow me to rephrase: Are you under the impression that women losing athletic awards and scholarships to trans women competitors are a slippery slope for the west to slide into authoritarian regimes like in "Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places"?
Click to expand...

Do you think it would be fair for women to lose scholarships and medals to better performing trans women?
 
Upchurch said:
Okay, allow me to rephrase: Are you under the impression that women losing athletic awards and scholarships to trans women competitors are a slippery slope for the west to slide into authoritarian regimes like in "Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places"?
Click to expand...
No, that's silly.

I am under the impression that American women are faced with having to choose between one political party which hopes to do away with female-only spaces and leagues and another political party which hopes to do away with reproductive health services for females in at least half of the states.

It would be nice if at least one party committed to allowing women to make their own choices about their bodies and their spaces, but it appears that isn't on the table.
 
Last edited:
Honestly all I care about is the question of whether transwomen should have an entitlement in public policy to transcend sex segregation.

In that context, Upchurch's line of inquiry seems to answer that question thusly: "yes, because whatever harm to women arises from that policy, it is relatively unimportant to me and should be similarly unimportant to women."

Which is not only objectively pro-misogyny (from Orwell), but also just a piss-poor justification for public policy in general.
 
Upchurch said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You should consider reading the actual lines rather than between the lines.

Samson said:
They are screwed in Afghanistan, Iran and any number of other places. Let's not screw them in the west.
Click to expand...
Notice the lack of any slippery inclines here? Samson is not saying that taking away women's spaces and leagues will somehow lead to a regressive theocracy. They are saying that it would be nice to "let women decide" their own policies for their own spaces and leagues. At most, the comparison to Afghanistan and Iran is a metaphorical comparison, another place where righteous men deny women their own choices because of ideology.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
In that context, Upchurch's line of inquiry seems to answer that question thusly: "yes, because whatever harm to women arises from that policy, it is relatively unimportant to me and should be similarly unimportant to women."
Click to expand...
That isn't even close to any position I hold.
 
Hercules56 said:
Eddie Lizard is a poor example as he has clearly stated he sometimes want to be known as a he and other times as a she.

I am talking about fully transitioned trans women who 24 hours a day live their life as a woman.

I don't think it would be very polite to loudly and persistently refer to such a person as "sir". I would understand if some would consider such repeated behavior to be symptomatic of bigotry.

Personally I think if a transgender woman has long hair wear dresses wears makeup has a high-pitched voice really has worked very hard to act and be seen as a woman the polite thing to do is refer to them as a woman. Or at the very least simply refer to them by their chosen female name.

Is refusing to do such an example of bigotry? Possibly yes. Or at the very least you're an *******.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it depends entirely on the situation, the individual, and the context. In most cases, I would be polite.

But I will not be bullied into compelled speech. I think it's rude to insist that anyone MUST use a person's bespoke pronouns in opposition to the commonly understood sex-based implication of those words.

Consider Alex Drummond. They "live as a woman" full time, meaning that they wear female-typical clothing, makeup, jewelry, etc. But they also take no hormones at all (and have no intention of doing so) and have a full beard.

Do you think I should be REQUIRED to refer to Drummond as "she" solely because they wear a dress?

And what about the opposite situation? What about a female who wears trousers and sneakers and no make-up and has short hair? Should I be REQUIRED to refer to them as "he"? What if they don't have a subjective internal gender identity of "man", and just a female who gives no ***** about fashion?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Like I said, it depends entirely on the situation, the individual, and the context. In most cases, I would be polite.

But I will not be bullied into compelled speech. I think it's rude to insist that anyone MUST use a person's bespoke pronouns in opposition to the commonly understood sex-based implication of those words.

Consider Alex Drummond. They "live as a woman" full time, meaning that they wear female-typical clothing, makeup, jewelry, etc. But they also take no hormones at all (and have no intention of doing so) and have a full beard.

Do you think I should be REQUIRED to refer to Drummond as "she" solely because they wear a dress?

And what about the opposite situation? What about a female who wears trousers and sneakers and no make-up and has short hair? Should I be REQUIRED to refer to them as "he"? What if they don't have a subjective internal gender identity of "man", and just a female who gives no ***** about fashion?
Click to expand...

Bearded man who wears a dress? I don't know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom