• 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 13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Best said:
Americans know all about that! Republicans and Republicans-Lite is the only choice they have.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The choice between a center right party and a pack of braying fascists is nothing to celebrate.

The UK seems to be on a path to emulate the US, but only poorer and nastier because they are neither the managers of the global reserve currency nor beneficiaries of the world's largest military. Bad times ahead for the brits. All the austerity and brutishness of the American system without any of the perks of being the homeland of the global empire.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Stonewall
Mermaids
WPATH
TGEU
National Center for Transgender Equality
... and many more!

Pedophiles are just "people who exist". NAMBLA is an organization founded to further the interests of pedophiles. And I would argue that societies that oppose the interests of pedophiles routinely turn out to be not awful.


It's almost like... somehow... there's a problem with violence from males of the human species.

If transgender identified males are at risk of violence from males, how is this the fault of females? And how does the eradication of female sex-based rights fix that?
Click to expand...

"Violence from males of the human species"? Was there some confusion about whether we might be talking about raccoons? :P

Because, again, my take is that "Eradication of female sex-based rights" is like "its really about state's rights" or "its really about ethical gaming journalism". Trans people and those who support trans rights are not looking to "eradicate female sex-based rights". Nor are the anti-trans politicians looking to protect women. Here in the US most of the anti-trans politicians are very much against protecting women. "Hey, those evil trans are out to get you, so elect the guy who thinks rape isn't really a crime!"

Meanwhile, the policies they support seem very much designed to hurt trans people on a variety of levels, but don't appear to have any correlation with actually making women safer, and in fact a lot seem likely to do the opposite. (There are very strong correlations between countries that are the friendliest to trans people and countries that are safest for women, and vice versa).

And that makes it very hard to have a conversation about this. Are there complicated questions about some aspects of transgender people in society (prison for example)? Sure. But having the "we need to exterminate trans people" in the discussion doesn't help get to real solutions. And sadly a subset of those problems tends to be just illuminating that there's an aspect of society that's really awful and poorly handled.

As for your point above, I really don't know if you're trying to say:
A) Transgender people are committing a crime just by existing, so its OK to punish them.

B) If its OK to jail murderers for murdering, its OK to jail transgenders for transgendering or Jews for Jewing.

If its A, what crime exactly are they committing?
If its B, what exactly is your rationale behind thinking there's any obligation to NOT "eradicate female rights"? If its OK to punish trans people for transing, its OK to punish females for femaling, right? Personally I think all those things sound awful, but...this seems to be your logic about it...
 
Cat Not Included said:
Trans people and those who support trans rights are not looking to "eradicate female sex-based rights".
Click to expand...
I think we need to unpack what sort of rights we're talking about here.

Here are a few examples:
  1. Single sex accommodations (e.g. locker rooms, restrooms)
  2. Single sex services (e.g. Brazilian waxes for females)
  3. Single sex spaces (e.g. Michfest, Korean spas, shelters, prisons)
  4. Single sex leagues (e.g. WNBA, World Rugby)
Are you saying that such services and spaces ought to be allowed to exist in a society which supports trans rights?

If not, then you are hoping to "eradicate female sex-based rights" in the sense under discussion here.
 
Last edited:
Cat Not Included said:
Because, again, my take is that "Eradication of female sex-based rights" is like "its really about state's rights" or "its really about ethical gaming journalism".
Click to expand...

It's really not.

Trans people and those who support trans rights are not looking to "eradicate female sex-based rights".
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if that's what they're looking for. That's what their preferred policies will produce, intended or not. The argument for why that's the case has been presented ad nauseum. What hasn't been presented is any way to maintain female sex-based rights while permitting self ID. These are incompatible goals. You can't have them both. When you institute self ID, you sacrifice female sex-based rights. Whether you intended to or not makes no difference.

Nor are the anti-trans politicians looking to protect women.
Click to expand...

There's a bit of a double standard here where you only accept the benign motivations for your side and only the malevolent motivations for your opponents. I really don't much care about the motives of politicians. First and foremost, those motives tend to be simply getting re-elected. What matters to me are their actual outcomes. And if they protect women, then why would I care if that's not their motive? Just like I don't care if your motive isn't to remove sex-based protections.

Here in the US most of the anti-trans politicians are very much against protecting women. "Hey, those evil trans are out to get you, so elect the guy who thinks rape isn't really a crime!"
Click to expand...

Ridiculous hyperbole is ridiculous.

Meanwhile, the policies they support seem very much designed to hurt trans people on a variety of levels, but don't appear to have any correlation with actually making women safer, and in fact a lot seem likely to do the opposite.
Click to expand...

You'll have to be a lot more specific for me to care.

(There are very strong correlations between countries that are the friendliest to trans people and countries that are safest for women, and vice versa).
Click to expand...

Not always. Iran is actually very trans-friendly.

And that makes it very hard to have a conversation about this. Are there complicated questions about some aspects of transgender people in society (prison for example)? Sure. But having the "we need to exterminate trans people" in the discussion doesn't help get to real solutions.
Click to expand...

You know what also doesn't help get to real solutions? Straw men.

Nobody here thinks anyone should be exterminated.

As for your point above, I really don't know if you're trying to say:
A) Transgender people are committing a crime just by existing, so its OK to punish them.

B) If its OK to jail murderers for murdering, its OK to jail transgenders for transgendering or Jews for Jewing.
Click to expand...

Neither of these things is an even remotely reasonable reading of anything Emily's Cat has said. So much so that I can't even figure out how you came up with them.
 
Cat Not Included said:
Because, again, my take is that "Eradication of female sex-based rights" is like "its really about state's rights" or "its really about ethical gaming journalism". Trans people and those who support trans rights are not looking to "eradicate female sex-based rights". Nor are the anti-trans politicians looking to protect women. Here in the US most of the anti-trans politicians are very much against protecting women. "Hey, those evil trans are out to get you, so elect the guy who thinks rape isn't really a crime!"
Click to expand...
Sure, sure, because if anyone has a disagreement with anything the current crop of progressive democrats is pushing, that means they love every single thing the republicans are pushing! Totally makes perfect sense.

Cat Not Included said:
Meanwhile, the policies they support seem very much designed to hurt trans people on a variety of levels, but don't appear to have any correlation with actually making women safer, and in fact a lot seem likely to do the opposite. (There are very strong correlations between countries that are the friendliest to trans people and countries that are safest for women, and vice versa).
Click to expand...
Hurt as in...
Not let males with male physical advantages compete against females in female sports?
Not let males with male genitals walk around the female section of the nude spa or the showers with their penis and tesitcals out?
Not let males with fully functional male anatomies be housed with female prisoners at the request of the males and over the objection of the females?
Not let overzealous doctors sterilize and mutilate children, but require that they wait until those kids are legal adults first?

Is that the kind of thing you're talking about as "designed to hurt trans people"? Or are you imagining something completely different that has somehow bypassed this entire discussion?

Cat Not Included said:
And that makes it very hard to have a conversation about this. Are there complicated questions about some aspects of transgender people in society (prison for example)? Sure. But having the "we need to exterminate trans people" in the discussion doesn't help get to real solutions.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess it's a good thing that not a single person in this thread has that view then. Although it does raise quite the question about why you're erecting this 500 foot tall strawman in here in the first place.

Cat Not Included said:
And sadly a subset of those problems tends to be just illuminating that there's an aspect of society that's really awful and poorly handled.

As for your point above, I really don't know if you're trying to say:
A) Transgender people are committing a crime just by existing, so its OK to punish them.

B) If its OK to jail murderers for murdering, its OK to jail transgenders for transgendering or Jews for Jewing.

If its A, what crime exactly are they committing?
If its B, what exactly is your rationale behind thinking there's any obligation to NOT "eradicate female rights"? If its OK to punish trans people for transing, its OK to punish females for femaling, right? Personally I think all those things sound awful, but...this seems to be your logic about it...
Click to expand...
I haven't said either of those things, nor anything remotely close to them. Kindly recallibrate your reading comprehension and try it again.
 
Cat Not Included said:
Nor are the anti-trans politicians looking to protect women.
Click to expand...
Leave the politicians aside for a moment. Are *you* looking to protect women? How you answer that will inform your choice of politicians and policies to support. Or it should inform your choices, anyway.

And it should inform the positions you take in the discussion in this thread. You can talk about which specific trans rights policies you support, and why. You can talk about what protections for women you would like to see, and why.
 
I ran across a tweet that I think is very relevant here. It reframes the heart of the discussion we've had here. Instead of ceding the linguistic premise of the discussion and approach it as "tra sn rights", it asks a very straightforward question: What rights do transwomen lose if we enforce the rules listed here?

F7_XXdzWoAAjxUU
 
d4m10n said:
When it comes to the policy issues discussed in this thread, there are fairly obvious differences between the two major parties in the U.S.

https://thehill.com/homenews/406162...o-ban-discrimination-against-lgbtq-americans/
Click to expand...

Yes, it's interesting that the American Democratic party is significantly to the left of the UK labour party on the issue of trans rights. The "TERF Island" hypothesis explains this. Liberal transphobia is not nearly as relevant in the American political context as it is in the UK.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Yes, it's interesting that the American Democratic party is significantly to the left of the UK labour party on the issue of trans rights. The "TERF Island" hypothesis explains this. Liberal transphobia is not nearly as relevant in the American political context as it is in the UK.
Click to expand...

Demanding evidence before allowing dangerous medical procedures on minors is now considered "transphobia".
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Yes, it's interesting that the American Democratic party is significantly to the left of the UK labour party on the issue of trans rights. The "TERF Island" hypothesis explains this.
Click to expand...
That's not an explanation, that's sarcastic shorthand describing the same phenomenon.

Why does the UK have a lot more feminists who lean gender critical rather than intersectional?

Because TERF island. :p
 
Matthew Best said:
When did women's rights stop being something the left believes in?
Click to expand...

They still believe in it. Now they just believe, even more, in men's rights to enjoy women's rights at the expense of women.

One unexpected side effect of the trans rights debate is me realizing the Patriarchy is real, and much more pervasive and pernicious than I had imagined.

You've heard the phrase, "act with the confidence of a mediocre white man"? The reality is, "act with the confidence of a mediocre white man with a sexual harassment fetish in a women's locker room."
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The correct terminology for that chart is the progressive stack.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the progressive stack leaves class at the bottom (race, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, ability and finally class), where the old school leftists used to chant "No war but the class war!" May have something to do with the abandonment of the Democrats by blue-collar whites.
 
Has anyone asked a bunch of liberals/progressives whether they actually go by this? I see a lot people telling me what someone else thinks. Telling me what I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom