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

[LondonJohn]

As long as there's a general consensus that it's ridiculous to insist on using "cis" to differentiate from "trans", I guess I don't have a problem with it. But, having come to the conclusion that preferred pronouns are the thin end of an orwellian language-wedge, I have a hard time seeing "cis" in a charitable light.

It's not even a question of "insistence".

It's a matter of making a useful way of differentiating in a trans universe, strictly within the context of a discourse related to transgender identity.

I mean, it's patently clear why anti-trans people (including all those who pretend they aren't anti-trans....) hate the term "cis" so much: it's because it implies the corollary - the "trans". And since such people insist that there's no such thing as transgender identity, there's no such thing as "trans man" (and vice versa), and therefore it's insulting (to them) for anyone else to wear - even if only strictly in the context of transgender-related discourse - the mantle "cis".


I thought the earlier analogy about "atheist" was very a propos. I too am an atheist, in the context of a discussion about what religious beliefs people might or might not hold. Now, I could get all angry and self-righteous and point out that it's insulting to give me the label "atheist" because that virtually implies the existence of the corollary - "theists".... and that since I don't believe in the concept of a deity (and consequently I believe theists are misguided and wrong) I refuse to be labelled by any reference whatsoever to theism.

But..... I don't. Because I'm not built that way.

 

[Lithrael]

Insist as in, it's the term I prefer to use and I'd like to keep using it, or insist as in, everyone else has to use it? Cause I've never asked anyone to use it. But boy howdy have I seen people who act angry about other people using it.

As far as the Story So Far script there, it's missing the part where a woman who has been paying attention the whole time speaks up in support of this or that bit of trans issues, and Fem goes "Oh, so your opinion invalidates that of every other woman who doesn't feel the way you do about it?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

If somehow, someway we get to transracialism being a thing... which I doubt, then saying I'm cis-white will be a thing to say in short: I'm white, I've always been white, I'm not trans-white.

And really they are not the same thing. Our society does very little in the way of segregation on race, as we do by sex (or gender when/where gender is a synonym for sex).

You've swapped the emphasis. Let's be more explicit.

Do you think that it would be ridiculous for black people to object to being redefined as cisblack people?

Do you think it would be ridiculous if black people objected to transracial becoming a thing that society celebrates and showcases?

Do you think that black people who object to having multiple transblack people held up as role models exemplifying the experience of black people, during black history month... could reasonably be called bigots?

Or do you think you could maybe see why they would object?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I mean, it's patently clear why anti-trans people (including all those who pretend they aren't anti-trans....) hate the term "cis" so much: it's because it implies the corollary - the "trans". And since such people insist that there's no such thing as transgender identity, there's no such thing as "trans man" (and vice versa), and therefore it's insulting (to them) for anyone else to wear - even if only strictly in the context of transgender-related discourse - the mantle "cis".

This is absurd, as well as insulting. It's completely disingenuous. It in no way reflects the views of anyone in this thread. It is a completely made up and invented narrative that allows you to insinuate invective and malice toward people who disagree with your beliefs.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's only slightly exaggerated. That's about a decade's worth of discussion boiled down to a notebook page.

But realistically, it's not far off. We started out supportive, we started out accommodating. But when females started saying "no, your transgender identity doesn't override our sex" we were met with a lot of vitriol, a lot of threats, a lot of demands.

Honestly, how do you think we ended up here? Just 20 years ago, this was not a problem. There were some few transwomen out there, and yes - sometimes they used our restrooms. But they were respectful and they were considerate, and we pretended that we didn't know they were male. That was the unspoken agreement - respect us and we will support the fiction.

Now however, we've got adult males walking around showers in front of teenage females... and when the females complain that their entire swim team is uncomfortable and intimidated by this, the young females are chastised as being in the wrong, and told that they can find somewhere other than the female showers to change and bathe.

We've got adult males going to Korean spas and using the female side of the spa complete with their balls and dick on display - and when the females complain that they're not okay with this, they're told that they're in the wrong, and that males have every right to be there whether the females like it or not.

We've got adult males "discovering" their "true selves" while in prison, right when laws are passed that allow prisoners to be housed according to their professed gender identity - with no need for any verification of any sort and no need for any transition at all. And we have a waiting list of males who now have the *right* to share cells with female inmates as long as they say they identify as a "woman".

We've got female athletes losing spots on teams, losing spots in play-offs, to male-bodied people with completely intact male bodies, and those females are told that they're the bad guys if they complain. They're threatened with suspension from the female swim team if they complain about the male teammate that walks around nude in the shower rooms with their genitals on full display.

In this thread, over several years, the reasonable request of females to have access to male-free spaces has resulted in us being called names, being maligned and insulted, being denigrated.

It's really not that much of an exaggeration.

Who's "we", here?


(You do know, don't you, that "we" actually comprises only a minuscule number of angry people who amplify each other's anger in online echo chambers? That most women - including most feminists - have no animus against transgender identity and transgender people as your "we" does? That the medical, scientific, legislative and judicial bodies all over the industrialised world who've endorsed transgender identity and its consequent rights/protections contain literally tens of thousands of cis women, virtually all of whom are entirely supportive of the validity of trans identity and the need to protect trans people, and only a tiny proportion of whom are "we"? Doesn't that seem....... interesting to you?)

 

[LondonJohn]

This is absurd, as well as insulting. It's completely disingenuous. It in no way reflects the views of anyone in this thread. It is a completely made up and invented narrative that allows you to insinuate invective and malice toward people who disagree with your beliefs.

If you say so. Righto.

 

[theprestige]

Insist as in, it's the term I prefer to use and I'd like to keep using it, or insist as in, everyone else has to use it? Cause I've never asked anyone to use it. But boy howdy have I seen people who act angry about other people using it.

As far as the Story So Far script there, it's missing the part where a woman who has been paying attention the whole time speaks up in support of this or that bit of trans issues, and Fem goes "Oh, so your opinion invalidates that of every other woman who doesn't feel the way you do about it?"

Insist as in, take offense and resort to hate speech if I don't bother to use "cis".

It work it's already being gently hinted that not displaying preferred pronouns in your corporate profile is kind of rude and possibly transphobic. So I figure that's the path both those things are on. As long as I'm wrong about this, fine. But I bet I won't be wrong much longer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Insist as in, it's the term I prefer to use and I'd like to keep using it, or insist as in, everyone else has to use it? Cause I've never asked anyone to use it. But boy howdy have I seen people who act angry about other people using it.

Insists that everyone else has to use it.

As far as the Story So Far script there, it's missing the part where a woman who has been paying attention the whole time speaks up in support of this or that bit of trans issues, and Fem goes "Oh, so your opinion invalidates that of every other woman who doesn't feel the way you do about it?"

That's not a very accurate rendition.

Every now and then you pop in to say "hey, not all women are anti-trans" and you don't bother to stick around to actually discuss whether anyone is reasonable "anti-trans" or not.

Your opinion is your opinion. You can have whatever opinion you want - but so can other females. And there are a lot of females that are not as sanguine about having penises in their single-sex spaces as you seem to be. And in that case, while you can have any opinion you want - your opinion should not be held as sufficient to guide policy that affects all other females.

The fact that you're just fine with strange males ogling you when you're naked does not imply that all females ought to be fine with it.

And that's the sense that you bring to this discussion when you wander in twice a year to drop your "I don't see what the fuss is, it's no big deal" takes. You end up implying that because YOU think it's great for male-bodied male prisoners to share cells with females against the consent of the females, that EVERYBODY should be okay with it, and that the people who oppose it are simply wrong and not worth consideration.

 

[LondonJohn]

You've swapped the emphasis. Let's be more explicit.

Do you think that it would be ridiculous for black people to object to being redefined as cisblack people?

Do you think it would be ridiculous if black people objected to transracial becoming a thing that society celebrates and showcases?

Do you think that black people who object to having multiple transblack people held up as role models exemplifying the experience of black people, during black history month... could reasonably be called bigots?

Or do you think you could maybe see why they would object?

Come back to this discussion if and when mainstream medicine decides that a person identifying as a race/ethnicity different from their birth race/ethnicity has a valid lived condition, rather than (as is the case currently) considering it to be a mental health disorder. Until and unless that happens (and I'll wager that it'll probably never happen in the next 100 years or more), this is a stupid a conversation as wondering whether we should respect and affirm someone who identifies as an attack helicopter.

 

[lobosrul5]

Insists that everyone else has to use it.

I'm unaware of anyone saying that. And if that was the discussion between JKR and Elon on Twitter than I'd have a very different view.

JKR: These trans people keep calling me a TERF/Nazi because I don't say "cis".
Elon: Twitter be free, free, FREEEE. Call them whatever the **** you want.

ETA: btw between our discussion on race and "cis", the hypocrisy should be clear. "Cis" can be a slur that gets you kicked off Twitter. A 6 letter word that starts with "n" is apparently free speech.

 

[lobosrul5]

Come back to this discussion if and when mainstream medicine decides that a person identifying as a race/ethnicity different from their birth race/ethnicity has a valid lived condition, rather than (as is the case currently) considering it to be a mental health disorder. Until and unless that happens (and I'll wager that it'll probably never happen in the next 100 years or more), this is a stupid a conversation as wondering whether we should respect and affirm someone who identifies as an attack helicopter.

And even then a latin prefix to denote that you aren't transrace should be fine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Who's "we", here?


(You do know, don't you, that "we" actually comprises only a minuscule number of angry people who amplify each other's anger in online echo chambers? That most women - including most feminists - have no animus against transgender identity and transgender people as your "we" does? That the medical, scientific, legislative and judicial bodies all over the industrialised world who've endorsed transgender identity and its consequent rights/protections contain literally tens of thousands of cis women, virtually all of whom are entirely supportive of the validity of trans identity and the need to protect trans people, and only a tiny proportion of whom are "we"? Doesn't that seem....... interesting to you?)

Honestly, why don't you just type out your questions and your comments like a normal person? Why the constant use of parentheticals? It comes across as snide and condescending.

Most females have no animus against transgender people. Most gender critical feminists have no animus against transgender people. I have no animus, nor do any of the other females who have posted in this thread in opposition to the male colonization of female spaces. theprestige has no animus toward transgender people.

However, according to multiple polls, most people of BOTH sexes, and a majority of females do NOT want people with penises in the female showers or locker rooms. MOST females don't even want people with penises in the female bathroom.

And that's the thing that you keep glossing over and pretending doesn't exist.

It's not about how a person identifies. It's about the sex that they objectively are.

 

[d4m10n]

Come back to this discussion if and when mainstream medicine decides that a person identifying as a race/ethnicity different from their birth race/ethnicity has a valid lived condition, rather than (as is the case currently) considering it to be a mental health disorder.

Just dropping in to once again point out that most Google hits on "valid lived condition" lead back to this thread.

https://www.google.com/search?q="valid+lived+condition"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Come back to this discussion if and when mainstream medicine decides that a person identifying as a race/ethnicity different from their birth race/ethnicity has a valid lived condition, rather than (as is the case currently) considering it to be a mental health disorder. Until and unless that happens (and I'll wager that it'll probably never happen in the next 100 years or more), this is a stupid a conversation as wondering whether we should respect and affirm someone who identifies as an attack helicopter.

It is NOT currently considered a mental health disorder. Mainstream medicine has NEVER considered it a mental health disorder. Using your own logic, it is ALREADY considered a valid lived condition.

So how about you actually answer the questions instead of deflecting?

 

[LondonJohn]

Just dropping in to once again point out that most Google hits on "valid lived condition" lead back to this thread.

https://www.google.com/search?q="valid+lived+condition"

I've already had to add in an asterisked footnote to address this situation. Thanks for your observation though. C'est la vie.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm unaware of anyone saying that. And if that was the discussion between JKR and Elon on Twitter than I'd have a very different view.

JKR: These trans people keep calling me a TERF/Nazi because I don't say "cis".
Elon: Twitter be free, free, FREEEE. Call them whatever the **** you want.

ETA: btw between our discussion on race and "cis", the hypocrisy should be clear. "Cis" can be a slur that gets you kicked off Twitter. A 6 letter word that starts with "n" is apparently free speech.

Here's the thing about Musk. I'll be surprised if anyone gets suspended or banned from twitter for using the term "cis" in a non-harassing and non-insulting way.

That said... I note that you didn't actually provide any responses to the questions I asked about race. Why is that?

 

[LondonJohn]

PS: instead of that (deliberately?) precise word string, maybe try googling

"valid condition" "transgender"

You might be surprised......

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've already had to add in an asterisked footnote to address this situation. Thanks for your observation though. C'est la vie.

You can asterisk all you want - it remains a concept invented by you, that you've foisted onto a collection of unnamed and unreferenced "world's leading experts" and "every developed country" over and over again.

You've basically invented your bespoke version of the wizard of oz... and even though there isn't even a curtain at all, you just keep insisting that we can't see that short dude pulling the levers.

Why on earth do you think that all of us are complete ninnies and idiots?

 

[Emily's Cat]

PS: instead of that (deliberately?) precise word string,

Lol, it's YOUR deliberate wording, that you REPEATELY use and that you CONTINUE to assert that all the "experts" agree with you!

maybe try googling

"valid condition" "transgender"

You might be surprised......

So might you. It brings up a bunch of stuff about gender dysphoria as a mental health condition that affects many transgender people.

Reminder: Gender dysphoria remains a mental health condition in DSM-5.

 

[Samson]

Thats strawman of the year material... I'm actually genuinely impressed

Here is a civilized demand to not go to some sort of ghetto

https://youtu.be/um1RMBNcDoA

See what they are doing? Admittedly near entry level in ECs narrative.