• 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.
Samson said:
Not sure what this ad for people who menstruate is really for.
I am perplexed

https://fightlikehell.nz/?utm_source=nzherald&utm_medium=sponsored-link&utm_campaign=endoxhell
Are some/all/none of these biological men?
Click to expand...

Well if they are transwomen they are fundraising for endometriosis, something they will never experience. So it’s a good thing, correct? I don’t see any transwomen on that website claiming they have the condition and seeking treatment. If they were, that would be an issue, but otherwise good on them.
 
mumblethrax said:
To the extent that they express gender, and most people have a gender identity that matches their sex, they're a relatively reliable indicator of sex.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming that gender identity is binary? How do you deal with those whose gender identity if non-binary, or fluid or asexual?
 
Darat said:
Seems very clear to me, it's to promote knowledge about endometriosis, and to raise money to be able to continue to promote knowledge about endometriosis. What part is confusing for you?
Click to expand...
Women say their language has been stolen from them, and this production is egregious.

Kiwis who menstruate.
Women.

Two expressive ways to get to to the target patients.
In this case it appears two trans men comprise 33% of the actors.
This is not representative, so encouraging medically hazardous hormone use?

I dunno, maybe it is brave and helpful in finding a pathway for sufferers, I would be interested in a female perspective.
 
Samson said:
Women say their language has been stolen from them, and this production is egregious.

Kiwis who menstruate.
Women.

Two expressive ways to get to to the target patients.
In this case it appears two trans men comprise 33% of the actors.
This is not representative, so encouraging medically hazardous hormone use?

I dunno, maybe it is brave and helpful in finding a pathway for sufferers, I would be interested in a female perspective.
Click to expand...

So you don't give a damn about what they are campaigning about as long as you can use it to bash "them". At least I know now.
 
Darat said:
So you don't give a damn about what they are campaigning about as long as you can use it to bash "them". At least I know now.
Click to expand...
It is dishonest to run a campaign that covertly encourages transitioning in New Zealand.
There is the highest rate in the world of prescribing transitioning drugs.
Bashing "them" is a different idea that is what you have cleverly discovered.
If shock visuals get to their target it appears to be the right result for the wrong reason. I know plenty about the condition from close friends, my interest is more in the culture of gender ideology.
 
Samson said:
If shock visuals get to their target it appears to be the right result for the wrong reason.
Click to expand...

Bollocks - there is no "wrong reason". It's a good cause and the charity is obviously comfortable with trans being in the ad, what on earth is your problem?
 
The Atheist said:
Bollocks - there is no "wrong reason". It's a good cause and the charity is obviously comfortable with trans being in the ad, what on earth is your problem?
Click to expand...
I explained.
33% trans is a ridiculous exaggeration.
As a lone researcher I have concluded that medication is harmful, and this ad normalizes and thus exaggerates and encourages acceptance of testosterone consumption by New Zealand women.
 
mumblethrax said:
Which is why I also listed face and body type.
Click to expand...
Some of these things are not like the others, though, and it is worth making the distinction. Clothing, hairstyle, & makeup fall into the category of gender expression or conformity to a gendered social role. The aforementioned lesbians "have a gender identity that matches their sex" but they do not dress and groom themselves in a feminine way, which is to say that they aren't performing gender expression in an effort to reliably indicate sex.

When we come across females who do not conform to the onerous demands of femininity, should we make any inferences about their gender identity? I'd say probably not, at least not if we're talking about Boomers & Gen X folk. Possibly the youths are much less willing to rebel against gendered roles without the cover of gender identity.
 
Samson said:
It is dishonest to run a campaign that covertly encourages transitioning in New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Personal opinion and I don't see that in the example you linked to.

Samson said:
There is the highest rate in the world of prescribing transitioning drugs.
Click to expand...

??

Samson said:
Bashing "them" is a different idea that is what you have cleverly discovered.
If shock visuals get to their target it appears to be the right result for the wrong reason. I know plenty about the condition from close friends, my interest is more in the culture of gender ideology.
Click to expand...

I have no way to understand this.
 
Darat said:
Personal opinion and I don't see that in the example you linked to.



??



I have no way to understand this.
Click to expand...
The whole presentation was obviously designed by a clever dick agency.
I found it repellant and accidentally promoting testosterone for women.
My brother died at 53 while gorging on estrogen admittedly with a terrible comorbidity.
I am essentially anti elective medication.
Probably a thread somewhere.

I almost deleted the post but then it got replied to so looked more carefully, so I am on a rear guard action.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
The whole presentation was obviously designed by a clever dick agency.
Click to expand...
Charities and so on shouldn't use marketing agencies?


Samson said:
I found it repellent and accidentally promoting testosterone for women.
Click to expand...

You will be able to point out where it does this promoting?


Samson said:
My brother died at 53 while gorging on estrogen admittedly with a terrible comorbidity.
Click to expand...

That is very sad and I hope you know you have my sincere condolences for what will have been a traumatic time for yourself, family and friends, and that you grieve to this day. But it doesn't seem to be linked to this informational campaign


Samson said:
I am essentially anti elective medication. ...snip...
Click to expand...
I think it is sad that your experience has led you to believe it would be wrong for women to seek treatment for their endometriosis. It's not a stance I can agree with.
 
Darat said:
Personal opinion and I don't see that in the example you linked to.



??



I have no way to understand this.
Click to expand...

Darat said:
Charities and so on shouldn't use marketing agencies?




You will be able to point out where it does this promoting?




That is very sad and I hope you know you have my sincere condolences for what will have been a traumatic time for yourself, family and friends, and that you grieve to this day. But it doesn't seem to be linked to this informational campaign



I think it is sad that your experience has led you to believe it would be wrong for women to seek treatment for their endometriosis. It's not a stance I can agree with.
Click to expand...
No, my meaning of elective.
Hormones
Puberty blockers
Anti depressants
Ritalin
Sleeping pills.
Pain killers.

Not

Medications that technology has enabled to save lives.
Sine qua nons.
 
Last edited:
mumblethrax said:
Sex is a matter biological. Gender is all of the social, cultural, psychological attachments to sex.

Which side of that razor do you think "the law" falls on?
Click to expand...

Traditionally it's fallen on the side of sex.

But let's suppose we take your definition of gender as controlling, and that the law should dictate that we operate by gender and not sex. Here's the thing: that wouldn't produce what the trans activists want. It wouldn't permit self ID. Because those social aspects cannot actually be self declared. You cannot dictate to other people how they perceive you. That's just a fantasy, a delusion.

And I've asked this before but never gotten an answer: what possible justification is there for segregating by gender and not by sex? What possible state interest is served by segregating people on the basis of whether they like to wear dresses or pants, or wear their hair long or short, or put on lipstick or not?
 
Okay let's look at our two biggies, bathrooms and sports.

Are we really going to pretend, even going by the vague and constantly shifting definition of what the distinction between sex and gender is supposed to be, that it's not super obvious that the distinction was always along biological sex lines?

I mean the fact that one bathroom has urinals in it probably tips our hand a little bit that it was always about separating the penises from the vaginas and nothing else.
 
Ziggurat said:
Traditionally it's fallen on the side of sex.
Click to expand...
The. Law. Itself.

But let's suppose we take your definition of gender as controlling, and that the law should dictate that we operate by gender and not sex.
Click to expand...
That is not the argument I'm making.

And I've asked this before but never gotten an answer: what possible justification is there for segregating by gender and not by sex?
Click to expand...
One obvious answer--it's a hell of a lot easier.
 
Came across this story once again in my podcast feed during my morning constitutional. Searched up the website of the business in question, and they still claim to be providing an "all female environment" to their patrons:
Olympus Spa said:
It is the spa of choice in the greater Seattle area where women can relax in this all female environment and enjoy exceptional facilities, superior services and products that enhance women's health.
Click to expand...
I find it curious that businesses are not legally permitted to provide single-sex accomodations on the west coast of the continental United States, even when there is a clear demand for such services and when that demand is being met by immigrant women of color, a group generally thought deserving of extra consideration by the sorts of progressives who tend to win elections in that part of the country.

What is the best justification for denying female humans the right to have (nude) spaces to themselves? I assume there must be a fairly strong argument here, something better than the usual facile comparison to racial segregation (which we've heard here time and again) because we're talking about disrupting services by and for the sex which has faced the most discrimination.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Came across this story once again in my podcast feed during my morning constitutional. Searched up the website of the business in question, and they still claim to be providing an "all female environment" to their patrons:
I find it curious that businesses are not legally permitted to provide single-sex accomodations on the west coast of the continental United States, even when there is a clear demand for such services and when that demand is being met by immigrant women of color, a group generally thought deserving of extra consideration by the sorts of progressives who tend to win elections in that part of the country.

What is the best justification for denying female humans the right to have (nude) spaces to themselves? I assume there must be a fairly strong argument here, something better than the usual facile comparison to racial segregation (which we've heard here time and again) because we're talking about disrupting services by and for the sex which has faced the most discrimination.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Driven?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom