Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry I meant to say righteous violent boot-stomping fantasies. It's fascinating that we've gotten to the point that people consider it *checks notes* "intersectional feminism" for a male activist to deck an old lady who wanted to preserve certain concessions to the female sex.

No kidding. I'm honestly a bit baffled that we've ended up going full circle to where "I don't consent to being viewed by males while I'm naked" is being touted as bigotry of the highest order. The whole world is very weird to me these days.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You do need to take into account posters at a rally aren't going to be extreme, because the people carrying them would get arrested.

What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

 

[d4m10n]

https://twitter.com/i_heart__bikes/status/1655735210187554817

Yesterday Tara (Todd) Seplavy took the win in the women's 3/4/5 at the Emrick Blvd Crit in Pennsylvania.

Sent from my Albany Primo using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

It's an interesting conundrum isn't it. Who hates trans people, so who is it aimed at? Do you think you hate trans people? If you don't then it is not aimed at you.

(If you want my opinion - I would consider that an extreme message and not one that I think helps anyone, it's not as extreme as if they phrased it as "Kill everyone who hates trans folk".)

 

[Darat]

No kidding. I'm honestly a bit baffled that we've ended up going full circle to where "I don't consent to being viewed by males while I'm naked" is being touted as bigotry of the highest order. The whole world is very weird to me these days.

You are still baffled that some people consider trans women not to be men after the years participating in this thread? I really can't get my head around that given how much you've read and posted in this thread.

After all it's the point that's been at the heart of the thread since day one - it's in the vey title of the thread!

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's an interesting conundrum isn't it. Who hates trans people, so who is it aimed at? Do you think you hate trans people? If you don't then it is not aimed at you.

Don't play silly games, Darat. It's aimed at FEMALES who wish to talk about the impact on FEMALE rights.

The overwhelming majority of whom do NOT hate transgender identified people.

It's aimed at any and all females who see that there is a conflict between the rights that trans activists are demanding and the current existing rights of females. Things like single-sex spaces, or the right to have a provider of the same sex administer intimate tests and services. Or the right of female victims of rape or domestic violence to have a shelter available to them that excludes males. Or the right of female athletes to compete against other females.

All of those views are ones that get females labeled as "TERFs"... and then gets us subjected to threats, harassment, intimidation, and physical violence.

So yeah, your sophistry about "it depends on if you hate trans people" is exactly that - sophistry. It allows you to sidestep having to acknowledge that those signs are intended to intimidate and threaten females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are still baffled that some people consider trans women not to be men after the years participating in this thread? I really can't get my head around that given how much you've read and posted in this thread.

After all it's the point that's been at the heart of the thread since day one - it's in the vey title of the thread!

Don't bait and switch. I said MALES. And even for people who genuinely believe that affinity for a set of regressive stereotypes makes a male into a "woman"... they are still male.

 

[Darat]

Don't bait and switch. I said MALES. And even for people who genuinely believe that affinity for a set of regressive stereotypes makes a male into a "woman"... they are still male.

No bait and switch - use whatever labels suit you, my point still remains.

 

[smartcooky]

Don't play silly games, Darat. It's aimed at FEMALES who wish to talk about the impact on FEMALE rights.

The overwhelming majority of whom do NOT hate transgender identified people.

It's aimed at any and all females who see that there is a conflict between the rights that trans activists are demanding and the current existing rights of females. Things like single-sex spaces, or the right to have a provider of the same sex administer intimate tests and services. Or the right of female victims of rape or domestic violence to have a shelter available to them that excludes males. Or the right of female athletes to compete against other females.

All of those views are ones that get females labeled as "TERFs"... and then gets us subjected to threats, harassment, intimidation, and physical violence.

So yeah, your sophistry about "it depends on if you hate trans people" is exactly that - sophistry. It allows you to sidestep having to acknowledge that those signs are intended to intimidate and threaten females.

Yup, and how long will it be before some violent & abusive ex-husband/ex-boyfriend declares himself to be a woman to try to gain access to the women's refuge where his ex is located? In some jurisdictions, simply saying he's a woman would guarantee his legal access.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's an interesting conundrum isn't it. Who hates trans people, so who is it aimed at? Do you think you hate trans people? If you don't then it is not aimed at you.

That's not actually how it works. Messages like that are aimed at the people that the speakers think hate trans people, whether or not those people actually do. And the trans activists think anyone who isn't on board 100% with their agenda hate trans people. So yes, it's very much aimed at Emily's Cat and many others in this thread who don't actually hate trans people but aren't on board with the radical activist agenda. And it is indeed sophistry to pretend otherwise.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No bait and switch - use whatever labels suit you, my point still remains.

No, it really doesn't. In fact, it rather materially changes the meaning of what I wrote.

I said " I'm honestly a bit baffled that we've ended up going full circle to where "I don't consent to being viewed by males while I'm naked""

To which you replied "You are still baffled that some people consider trans women not to be men"

That swap alters the implied meaning of my post. It implies that I'm somehow complaining about how someone views themselves from the inside of their own brain. It further lends a measure of credence to the narrative that places that internal and subjective belief about oneself in a position of primacy over the material reality of sex.

 

[Cain]

According to an article in the latest issue of 'Scientific American', biological sex is not real...


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/

I heard this author on Robert Wright's Non-Zero podcast about a year ago. Fuentes talked a good game when he tried to mire the discussion in abstractions and definitions, authoritatively citing "the literature." He completely beclowned himself when getting into real-world applications. He said WNBA players could go into the NBA. So why don't they? Discrimination? The minimum contract in the NBA is much higher than the maximum contract in the WNBA. Almost everybody would love to see that story. The average man is in the 90th+ percentile of female height. A better example would have been soccer, except 15 year-old boys scrimmage against the national women's soccer team -- and win (which has probably been mentioned in this never-ending thread a Brazilian times).

In tennis, he confidently predicted the Williams sisters could compete against the top 50 men, but Venus and Serena were famously crushed by a 200-ranked player in a friendly match (where he drank beer and smoked cigarettes between sets). If your predictions are wrong, maybe it's time to rethink your assumptions. Unless you're an economist.

 

[The Atheist]

Somehow this doesn't seem to be how it works when the people at the rally are on the trans activist side. Signs of "Punch a Terf" and "Decaptiate TERFs" and similar such sentiments are regularly seen in that group - and are both tolerated and lauded.

I haven't seen that kind of sentiment expressed here on placards. Clearly not ok.

I would really like to understand your rationale here.

On the one hand is a sign questioning whether targeting children - specifically children - with drag culture is actually a good thing, and you view that as "unacceptable and outrageously wrong".

On the other hand is a sign implying direct violence against females... and you seem to think that's not a problem.

What makes one of those beyond the pale and the other nothing more than a laugh to you?

I didn't see a sign implying violence against women. Can you show me where it was?

What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

Clearly extreme and despicable.

What you're doing is reinforcing my long-ago point that the problem is on the fringes. The overwhelming majority of people aren't using violent imagery or statements.

Yup, and how long will it be before some violent & abusive ex-husband/ex-boyfriend declares himself to be a woman to try to gain access to the women's refuge where his ex is located? In some jurisdictions, simply saying he's a woman would guarantee his legal access.

Again, that's something I've said multiple times.

If the onus is on society to treat trans women as women, then the onus is on trans women to create a system where we can be assured those trans women are actually genuine and not some bloke self-identifying as trans for nefarious reasons.

 

[Darat]

No, it really doesn't. In fact, it rather materially changes the meaning of what I wrote.

I said " I'm honestly a bit baffled that we've ended up going full circle to where "I don't consent to being viewed by males while I'm naked""

To which you replied "You are still baffled that some people consider trans women not to be men"

That swap alters the implied meaning of my post. It implies that I'm somehow complaining about how someone views themselves from the inside of their own brain. It further lends a measure of credence to the narrative that places that internal and subjective belief about oneself in a position of primacy over the material reality of sex.

It may do in your world, but not in the real world. This whole thread started by asking the question are trans women women. That it still baffles you that for some people the answer is an unconditional "yes" is to me entirely baffling.

 

[Samson]

It may do in your world, but not in the real world. This whole thread started by asking the question are trans women women. That it still baffles you that for some people the answer is an unconditional "yes" is to me entirely baffling.

The unconditional yes has been bought into by the New Zealand political class, because they were fearful.

Now they will realise they missed a chance to be honest politicians.

That is here, what I see right now.

 

[Lplus]

It may do in your world, but not in the real world. This whole thread started by asking the question are trans women women. That it still baffles you that for some people the answer is an unconditional "yes" is to me entirely baffling.

The baffling thing is how those people have managed to convince themselves that "Woman" is defined entirely without reference to biological sex.

 

[Darat]

The baffling thing is how those people have managed to convince themselves that "Woman" is defined entirely without reference to biological sex.

That's the same thing that still baffles Emily's Cat. As I said to them I'm baffled how that can still baffle someone after discussing that key point for all these years and all these thousands of posts and all the many articles and videos we have read and watched.

Perhaps we are using baffle to mean different things? To me baffle is as its top line definition has it "totally bewilder or perplex". When I don't agree with someone after they've explained their position many, many times does not mean I am baffled as to why they think as they do. I just don't agree with them.

 

[Darat]

Don't play silly games, Darat. It's aimed at FEMALES who wish to talk about the impact on FEMALE rights.

Did you mean to link to a different picture? The one you linked to and the one I commented on only said "Hate Trans People. Kill yourself!"

...snip...
... It allows you to sidestep having to acknowledge that those signs are intended to intimidate and threaten females.

You did not ask about all that - what you asked was "What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?".

And since you seem to have missed a bit of my post - I'll repost it:..I would consider that an extreme message .....

And to help you comprehend it let's make it clear for you:

You asked: What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

I replied: I would consider that an extreme message

Discussions work much better if you read what people actually post and if you ask the question you actually want answered.

 

[Darat]

That's not actually how it works. Messages like that are aimed at the people that the speakers think hate trans people, whether or not those people actually do. And the trans activists think anyone who isn't on board 100% with their agenda hate trans people. So yes, it's very much aimed at Emily's Cat and many others in this thread who don't actually hate trans people but aren't on board with the radical activist agenda. And it is indeed sophistry to pretend otherwise.

Not everyone carries the same baggage around with them - that's why I try to reply to what people actually post rather than a bag full of assumptions about what people "really mean".

The question was: What do you consider "extreme"? Does this count?

The answer was: I would consider that an extreme message

Do you disagree that it was an extreme message?

 

[Darat]

Yup, and how long will it be before some violent & abusive ex-husband/ex-boyfriend declares himself to be a woman to try to gain access to the women's refuge where his ex is located? In some jurisdictions, simply saying he's a woman would guarantee his legal access.

Genuinely wondering - which ones?