• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
lobosrul5 said:
It does in a manner of speaking. It means that it no longer requires a cisman and a ciswoman to conceive a child. Certainly has relevance to a lot MORE than just trans debates though.
Click to expand...

:confused: Ability to conceive a child is irrelevant to the trans debate.

Besides, we've already seen cases where a transwoman and a transman get together and make a baby. Gender identity is pretty much irrelevant to how procreation works... and coming up with a way to grow Huxley-esque vat babies without gametes doesn't make gender identity either more or less relevant.
 
Ziggurat said:
It might if that were ever turned into a practical method for reproduction. But that's unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever. They can't do it with animals, and there are ethical prohibitions against even trying it on humans.

And what's the point anyways? You still couldn't do it without a ciswoman, because you still need a womb to gestate the fetus. And why bother doing it without a cis man? Sperm isn't hard to come by (no pun intended). These researchers aren't pursuing this as a method of artificial human fertility. It's a waste if that's the goal.
Click to expand...

Gender identity is irrelevant. You need a human female. They can feel however the hell they want inside the privacy of their mind-brain-gendery-soul. They can identify as a stapler for all the relevance that has.
 
Listen we're about a decade out from "genetic soup of multiple people, maybe even totally synthetic chromosomes where they don't come from a person at all" making a baby being as common as fertility treatment now.
 
JoeMorgue said:
To use the most common real world current talking point, drag.

Drag is dressing in the other sexes clothing.
Click to expand...
Drag is hyperfeminine. Most women dress nothing like that.

If I don't think either sex "owns" a specific style of clothing, how does the concept even supposed to work for me?
Click to expand...
The problem isn't associating a particular style of dress with one gender or the other. It's demanding that that's the only way they can dress.

Women have been wearing pants for quite some time now. One day we'll maybe get around to updating those bathroom signs.

To me it's like going up to me a telling me you "identify" as a specific blood type.
Click to expand...
Probably happens a lot in east Asia. We don't have any real cultural attachments to blood type, so it's a poor analogy here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If I don't think men and women HAVE non-biological differences, what am I even supposed to do with "I identity as this or that" as a piece of information. I've begged, literally begged somehow, anyone ot tell me what I'm supposed to actually, functionally DO with that piece of information.
Click to expand...

You've been given answers, at least from one side of this discussion. From my perspective, you do nothing at all because it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any non-biological differences, so in any situation where biology is not directly relevant, you treat all people the same. :thumbsup:

I will however, note that you've never been given a response from the side of this debate that thinks gender identity is of vital importance and must be accepted and affirmed by everyone everywhere everytime. Perhaps be more specific about who you're directing your question to?
 
Emily's Cat said:
You've been given answers, at least from one side of this discussion. From my perspective, you do nothing at all because it doesn't matter. You don't believe there are any non-biological differences, so in any situation where biology is not directly relevant, you treat all people the same. :thumbsup:

I will however, note that you've never been given a response from the side of this debate that thinks gender identity is of vital importance and must be accepted and affirmed by everyone everywhere everytime. Perhaps be more specific about who you're directing your question to?
Click to expand...

Sorry I assumed the "from the trans side" was safely assumed and didn't clarify.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I suppose I would fall into the second camp of that statement, "those with basic empathy".
Click to expand...

I'm actually genuinely curious what you believe constitutes "basic empathy". I don't believe I've ever seen you express a sentiment that I would interpret as empathy.

ETA: This really truly is curiosity. I really want to know what you think basic empathy is, how it's expressed, how it's conveyed, etc.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I, for one, encourage the anti-trans activists to focus on how nature never makes a mistake and doctors should deny patients the care they desire based on their own assessment on the value of fertility or whatever. A winning message sure to convince the masses.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making the mistake that anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be an "anti-trans activist".

- Allowing transwomen to invade female safe spaces has a direct impact on the rights of those females to not have humans with penises invading their privacy.

- Allowing transwomen to play against females in female sports competitions has a direct, adverse impact on those females. They would be required to compete against biological males who have had all the physiological advantages of growing up male. That is grossly unfair to those females.

The fact that people here object to transwomen being allowed entry into female bathrooms by right, and object to transwomen participating in female sports does not make them anti trans activists!!! It makes them advocates for the protection of women's rights.

To scratch the surface more, the able bodied are not permitted to compete in para-sports, not permitted to use disabled parking spaces, or wheelchair toilets. Supporting this idea does not make you an "anti-able bodied" activist, it makes you an advocate for the disabled. And before some smart-arse asks if I am comparing females with the disabled... well, yes I am, in a limited fashion. From an athleticism perspective, females have had the disadvantage of never having been through male puberty, so they have less muscle mass, smaller lung capacity, less fast-twitch muscle fibres and many other physical deficiencies that make them unable to compete with males.

As an in-your-face example, there are 17 high school boys 16 years or under who have broken the 4-minute mile mark - the fastest of them is Cameron Myers - 3 min 55.44 sec. The women's world record is 17 seconds slower - 4 min12.33 sec (Sifan Hassan). That is more than the length of the front straight!!! Drop Sifan Hassan into the World Junior Athletics Championships, and she would not qualify for any finals. Drop the top half dozen under 17 boys into the women's events at the World Athletics Championships, and they would sweep the field in every event.

Rights are not absolute! They must be tempered with considerations of firstly, what is good or bad for society as a whole, and secondly what the negative impact is on the majority.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I'm actually genuinely curious what you believe constitutes "basic empathy". I don't believe I've ever seen you express a sentiment that I would interpret as empathy.

ETA: This really truly is curiosity. I really want to know what you think basic empathy is, how it's expressed, how it's conveyed, etc.
Click to expand...

He clearly has no empathy for actual women, that's for sure!
 
JoeMorgue said:
It is until someone can explain to me in clear English what it is that

A) stays consistent for more than 4 seconds.
Click to expand...
Why does it need to stay consistent? Culture evolves. Americans today aren't much like we were in the 1920s, but we're still Americans.

B) Is functionally different from "My sex has a soul" or a horoscope.
Click to expand...
If you're talking about gender identity, there's evidence that people who don't know they are male nevertheless (correctly) understand themselves as male.

That's the difference.

Where's the 3rd Variable and what is it?
Click to expand...
Neuroanatomical differences that aren't well understood yet and that you definitely can argue for or against.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
:eye-poppi

Are you ******* with me? I'm serious - are you just in here having a laugh?
Click to expand...
No, I'm pointing out that nothing in the common law definition says sex is immutable.

Which is presumably why legal sex is mutable.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You seem to be making the mistake that anyone who doesn't agree with you must automatically be an "anti-trans activist".

- Allowing transwomen to invade female safe spaces has a direct impact on the rights of those females to not have humans with penises invading their privacy.

- Allowing transwomen to play against females in female sports competitions has a direct, adverse impact on those females. They would be required to compete against biological males who have had all the physiological advantages of growing up male. That is grossly unfair to those females.

The fact that people here object to transwomen being allowed entry into female bathrooms by right, and object to transwomen participating in female sports does not make them anti trans activists!!! It makes them advocates for the protection of women's rights.

To scratch the surface more, the able bodied are not permitted to compete in para-sports, not permitted to use disabled parking spaces, or wheelchair toilets. Supporting this idea does not make you an "anti-able bodied" activist, it makes you an advocate for the disabled. And before some smart-arse asks if I am comparing females with the disabled... well, yes I am, in a limited fashion. From an athleticism perspective, females have had the disadvantage of never having been through male puberty, so they have less muscle mass, smaller lung capacity, less fast-twitch muscle fibres and many other physical deficiencies that make them unable to compete with males.
As an in-your-face example, there are 17 high school boys 16 years or under who have broken the 4-minute mile mark - the fastest of them is Cameron Myers - 3 min 55.44 sec. The women's world record is 17 seconds slower - 4 min12.33 sec (Sifan Hassan). That is more than the length of the front straight!!!

Rights are not absolute! They must be tempered with considerations of firstly, what is good or bad for society as a whole, and secondly what the negative impact is on the majority.
Click to expand...

Within the context of this discussion, you're spot on. When we're talking about the comparison of physical capability as well as vulnerability to abuse and predation, females ARE disabled in comparison to males. It might seem like a distasteful comparison to some... but it's certainly not wrong.

Females are smaller, weaker, and more vulnerable than males. That's a generalization, but it's a generalization that holds for about 98% of all females and 98% of all males.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And this would be a good thing? Something everyone in the society would be expected to play along with?
Click to expand...
I don't know east Asian culture well enough to comment on that. From my point of view, it's just their version of astrology.
 
mumblethrax said:
Why does it need to stay consistent? Culture evolves. Americans today aren't much like we were in the 1920s, but we're still Americans.
Click to expand...

That's the 2nd variable. I asked about the 3rd.

Again. Things that are biological or things which are socially mandated. One you can't change, a trans-man still isn't getting testicular cancer if he identifies until his nose bleeds, and one I don't accept as valid, things we tell people "you have to dress, act, etc this way or that way because you have a penis or vagina."

Where's the 3rd variable?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom