Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

ahhell said:
See, there's the thing, folks on both sides of this issue make it hard to be on there side.
Side 1. You must accept that transwomen are women.
Side 2. You can't even say they are transwomen.
Click to expand...
This exactly.

The allowed positions are apparently either:
"Trans women are not (and should not be treated as) women in any context."
or
"Trans women are (and should be treated as) women in every context."

Expressing a position such as:
"Trans women should be treated as women in some contexts, but not others."
Tends to attract attacks from both sides.
 
ahhell said:
See, there's the thing, folks on both sides of this issue make it hard to be on there side.
Side 1. You must accept that transwomen are women.
Side 2. You can't even say they are transwomen.
Click to expand...
Side 1 would agree with Side 2 here; as we have been informed a few times the proper term is trans women.
 
Oh, I'm not especially hopeful that we'll be able to stop men using any form of the word "woman" in the short term at least, but one can dream.
 
TomB said:
This exactly.

The allowed positions are apparently either:
"Trans women are not (and should not be treated as) women in any context."
or
"Trans women are (and should be treated as) women in every context."

Expressing a position such as:
"Trans women should be treated as women in some contexts, but not others."
Tends to attract attacks from both sides.
Click to expand...
I was a fan of the middle view, when we started up this debate. I've come to reject it over time, as I realized that "some contexts" was just the TRA's proverbial inch that becomes a mile.

We had "some contexts" as a social norm. Then the autogynaephiliacs, sex pests, and malignant dysphorics ruined it for everyone. And the TRAs opted for biological postmodernism as their north star.

So now my position is that until the biological postmodernism nonsense is decisively rejected, we need to hold the line at "transwomen are not women in any context ever."

If I'm feeling moderate, I might go so far as to add, ".... but dudes in dresses are welcome anywhere dudes are welcome."
 
I just saw this Twitter post that seems to cover the point quite well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856362216934781183

Let’s talk about trans rabbits. Imagine someone decided to change the language and instead of using the word “tiger” you were told to call that same animal a “trans rabbit”. Let me show you what happens when you mess with language. How much slower would you react to if we used the words trans rabbit rather tiger? Would it dull your movement? Now it might be a very nice trans rabbit. It might be fed. It’s possible it is tired. You might have nothing to fear. If a trans rabbit came into a village what would you think of it? If the trans rabbit was playing in the field behind children what image does it put in your head? Are you thinking of a big cat with stripes or have you already forgotten just a smidge what we said a trans rabbit is? Now imagine you have to fight with the people who support trans rabbit rights. They talk all day long about trans rabbits. And that’s the only language they use. This is dementing. It dements people. It stops you from visualizing what we are speaking about. We need language. There are no trans rabbits. They are not a separate species. We cannot speak of trans animals. There are rabbits and tigers.
It is exhausting all day long to be asked “why are you afraid of a trans rabbit? Just because one trans rabbit acted poorly doesn’t mean all other trans rabbits are bad.” We speak of our safety and are told it is absurd to fear a trans rabbit. Again. Do you even remember which animal we are talking about? How tired are you of flipping the word in your head? Do you think of a trans rabbit as a nicer, sweeter, more fluffy tiger? Is it the same thing? Have you tamed it just a bit in your head? Have you decided it is not a rabbit but not exactly a tiger either? If so, you have been tricked. Do you see how easy it is? In just a few paragraphs, you have created a new species. Have just a bit of your defenses been dulled? I’ve only written a short essay here. For a few minutes you’ve thought about trans rabbits. Now try it for years. It messes with your brain. If newspapers spoke of rabbits and kept using rabbit references then how would you know what they were talking about if they said four rabbits were spotted in your village? Should you watch your vegetable garden or get a shotgun? Language matters. Do not dement yourself. There is no such thing as a trans rabbit. If even for one second you thought of a trans rabbit as a separate species, you’ve seen how fast your brain gets tricked.
Click to expand...

ETA: Also on Twitter, this afternoon, just a screenshot.

1731434264771.png
 
Last edited:
A woman is walking in the woods alone. Suddenly she hears a noise. A man steps onto the path in front of her. "Dang," says the woman. "I was hoping you were a bear. I guess I better run."

"It's okay," says the man. "I'm a woman. Totally safe." Relieved, the woman relaxes. The man rapes her. Somewhere else in the woods a bear, oblivious to these shenanigans, is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.
 

Attachments

  • Wolf.jpg
    Wolf.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 4
Hercules56 said:
Transwomen are transwomen. They should only ever be known as transwomen.

Calling them "women" is dishonest. And inaccurate.

And no, men cannot become pregnant.
Click to expand...
Just like calling gay men men is inaccurate. Biologically men have sex with women. They spit in the face of basic biology and need to be specifically and universally called on it. Calling a gay man a man is just wrong, period.
 
Brainster said:
Side 1 would agree with Side 2 here; as we have been informed a few times the proper term is trans women.
Click to expand...
I considered mentioning that but I can never remember which is the correct spacing for which side and why.
 
theprestige said:
I was a fan of the middle view, when we started up this debate. I've come to reject it over time, as I realized that "some contexts" was just the TRA's proverbial inch that becomes a mile.

We had "some contexts" as a social norm. Then the autogynaephiliacs, sex pests, and malignant dysphorics ruined it for everyone. And the TRAs opted for biological postmodernism as their north star.

So now my position is that until the biological postmodernism nonsense is decisively rejected, we need to hold the line at "transwomen are not women in any context ever."

If I'm feeling moderate, I might go so far as to add, ".... but dudes in dresses are welcome anywhere dudes are welcome."
Click to expand...
Disguise is lethal in nature, I have come to the view the greatest good for the greatest number is to discourage the use of disguise by a physically stronger member of the community.
This would not use the law, but societal disapproval.
I suspect this is the position of the NZ women's rights party.
My mood would retrospectively extend to my late autogynephile brother I think.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
I considered mentioning that but I can never remember which is the correct spacing for which side and why.
Click to expand...
The politically correct woke usage these days is to keep the space in, supposedly because it makes "trans" into an adjective which modifies "woman" or "man" instead of creating a new noun which might lead to a new mental category.
 
ahhell said:
I considered mentioning that but I can never remember which is the correct spacing for which side and why.
Click to expand...
The activists want to insist that "trans" is an adjective, and thus should be separated by a space. Their reasoning is that transgender identified males are totally the same as any other woman, and that the adjective "trans" merely adds additional descriptors to their fundamental nature.

But they're wrong, and "trans" is a prefix. Furthermore, they're not the same as any other woman, as they lack every single functional element of the female sex, as well as all of the societal exposure that females face.
 
d4m10n said:
The politically correct woke usage these days is to keep the space in, supposedly because it makes "trans" into an adjective which modifies "woman" or "man" instead of creating a new noun which might lead to a new mental category.
Click to expand...
So trans rabbits then... to avoid us having a new mental category of tigers-that-envision-themselves-as-rabbits-but-actually-aren't-rabbits-at-all
 
ponderingturtle said:
Just like calling gay men men is inaccurate. Biologically men have sex with women. They spit in the face of basic biology and need to be specifically and universally called on it. Calling a gay man a man is just wrong, period.
Click to expand...
Huh???

No. A gay man is a man. He will always be a man. But he's also gay. He's a man. He is gay. He is a gay man.

Not the same as transmen who dress/act like men but are biologically women.

Now, should they be TREATED as women if they identify as women but are biologically men? That's a whole different question.
 
Last edited:
Just seen on Twitter, not linking to it because of autocensor issues.

I'm totally over this whole "trans people" :rule10. Saying there are "trans people" is like saying there are people with misaligned chakras or people who've been abducted by aliens. They only "exist" in the way that other imaginary states exist.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
The activists want to insist that "trans" is an adjective, and thus should be separated by a space. Their reasoning is that transgender identified males are totally the same as any other woman, and that the adjective "trans" merely adds additional descriptors to their fundamental nature.

But they're wrong, and "trans" is a prefix. Furthermore, they're not the same as any other woman, as they lack every single functional element of the female sex, as well as all of the societal exposure that females face.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I still won't remember.
 
Simplest way to remember is to just do a global replace of "trans*" with "I wish I were a". Or, more cynically, "Please treat me as if I were a".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom