Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
It's because I don't want to be a jerk to people (unintentionally). I want people to feel included and welcome and free to live their lives. Part of that is to *not* tell them they are not what they think they are daily.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between reminding that for no reason at all, and acknowledging that some activity puts other people in danger or offers an unfair advantage in sports.

As an example, I don't go around picking on people who don't have a driver's license. Even if they were to go around in a NASCAR outfit, no problem. But if they actually want to drive, it's a whole other deal. It's not some bigotry against people without a license, it's not for the sake of being a jerk, it's just acknowledging that them doing a certain thing is a danger to others.
 
Last edited:
It would be nice if "not being a jerk" to women was higher on a lot of people's agendas. Slippery slopes are slippery. If you refer to someone as "she" and "her" it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why "she" should not be allowed in female single-sex spaces. Then you end up here.

nypost.com

Hulking trans child molester repeatedly sexually assaulted female cellmate after being transferred to women’s prison: suit

A former female inmate is suing the state of Washington after allegedly enduring sexual assaults at the hands of a biologically male cellmate who claimed to identify as a woman.
nypost.com nypost.com
 
Slippery slopes are a fallacy, so please don't use that in an argument. Here it's not a case of slippery slope, as in, it must lead to something else in the future, but a present correlation, and a strong one at that. It's like in my unlicensed drivers example, it's not a slippery slope argument that they'll cause accidents, it's actually an existing fact that they cause a disproportionate amount of accidents (given their percentage of cars on the road) if they drive.

A slippery slope is more like "if you disallow trans in women's bathrooms today, you'll then want to arrest them." Like another esteemed forum member was doing earlier in the thread. Discussing things that have already happened is not a slippery slope.

As for Thermal's argument -- and to be clear, it's just about the argument, not the person -- you don't need that. What he's trying to do is the usual "if you don't let men into women's spaces, you're a transphobe" canard. Although admittedly, he's doing it more eloquently and subtly than the usual crop of "progressives", so kudos for that. But that's all that that blurring the lines is arguing about: trying to force framing it as somehow caring about your or your family's safety is being unreasonably against the trans, or at least a jerk to them. That's all.

But yes, we're back to the usual rolling back all arguments presented before, and you being a transphobic jerk if you disagree.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
What he's trying to do is the usual "if you don't let men into women's spaces, you're a transphobe" canard.
Click to expand...
Whoa whoa whoa: no, man. I'm saying that argument is nonsensical and circular and impossible, but its where things get stuck. It all rests on gender being some amorphous concept, so stop it cold at the definitional stage. If trans activists want social and legal changes made for them, they absolutely, non-negotiably cannot rely on "well I'm not quite sure what I mean but I'm sure everyone needs to bow to it. That's some bull ◊◊◊◊, right there.

I don't want to be a dick to anybody (unintentionally or undeservedly). But that doesn't mean I'm going to have Alice in Wonderland arguments where the primary terms and premises are undefined, but will have tangible and consequential results. They need to define it, then stop changing the definition back and forth when their own established parameters aren't getting them their desired results.
 
All this prison ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ seems to me to be down to the culture's broader tendencies of wanting prison to be disrespectful and awful to as many prisoners as possible on purpose. You cannot convince me that the people who make prison rules actually make these choices based on respect for some muscular violent offender's self ID.

I have yet to see ANYONE argue that they are genuinely in favor of hulk type convicted violent rapists being put in prison next to women who stole cars or forged checks.

There's obviously better options than 'put everyone in gen pop.' Maybe ask Thai prisons how they deal with it.
 
Rolfe said:
OK, if you like. This one uses the term "gateway drug".
Click to expand...

That's a different thing than the slippery slope fallacy, if you actually have data showing a correlation that people who take drug X then take drug Y. As in, not extrapolating ex rectum about the future, but actually happening in the past or present. The former is a fallacy, the latter is a valid statistical argument.

Look, all I'm saying is: you already have a pretty damned good case. Don't shoot it down yourself by invoking a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
All this prison ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ seems to me to be down to the culture's broader tendencies of wanting prison to be disrespectful and awful to as many prisoners as possible on purpose. You cannot convince me that the people who make prison rules actually make these choices based on respect for some muscular violent offender's self ID.
Click to expand...

I'm not him, but I don't think that they do. There are other people who hate women, and use that argument, but I don't think the lawmakers and such are among those. Like most of the "progressive" or "woke" gang, they're just trying to virtue-signal. It's essentially the "how do you do, fellow kids?" meme IRL.
 
Paul2 said:
Allow me to illustrate a faint echo of (2). I once decided to try adopting one of my ex-wife's identifiable stances: standing, feet under the shoulders but one foot angled out with the knee of that leg bent, weight on the other leg with that hip pushed out, and hands on hips. You've seen lots of females take that stance, and few males; it's a stereotype. When I did that, I had the strangest feeling come over me, like something was just wrong. It was a unique experience.
Click to expand...

Just to support that, I did that and it felt natural. Admittedly, I did have a back injury, and I was basically using those hands on those hips to support my spine. But just to show, it's not gender related, a biological male can do it naturally too. Makes me feel even less convinced that there is any particular thing that makes a case that a man is somehow living as a woman, or vice-versa.

(And for that matter makes me more convinced that body language theory holds more water than phrenology or graphology. Hands on hips meaning "I stand my ground" or such? Bleep off, I used it myself for a whole other reason. Lack of eye contact meaning dishonesty? Yeah, well, as a diagnosed autistic, I can tell you it can mean autism instead. Sweating meaning you hide something? Yeah, not always, based on your thyroid and usual environment, your body temperature can be different enough. My thyroid is broken in the opposite direction, but yea, it influences your preferred temperature and stuff. Etc.)

Edit: just to further that point, minus the hands on hips, it's actually the "at ease" position for the Russian army, and at least was for most of the Warsaw pact armies. Literally it was: looking straight ahead, stand straight, heels together, shoulders back, arms straight down the sides touching the trousers, fingers curled to a loose fist, chin up, right leg straight, left leg slightly bent and relaxed. (Might have been hands behind back for some of the Warsaw pact countries. Other than the USSR, of course.) So yeah, one of the two major blocs in the cold war didn't think it was girly or anything :p
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
There's a difference between reminding that for no reason at all, and acknowledging that some activity puts other people in danger or offers an unfair advantage in sports.
Click to expand...
Right, and I'm in total agreement on that point. Males can't compete in female competitions, or be cell mates with female prisoners, or be swinging pipe in the women's locker room. I'm resolved on all that. I was wondering if the wider discussion had reached any concensus.
 
Well, then you're not in opposition to the point I or the prestige were making. I mean, I for one am absolutely for anyone wearing a skirt and false breasts if they want to. I know I did. Just stay out of women's sports, prisons, toilets and other safe spaces. Otherwise, suit yourself. Call yourself a woman, or a cat, or an attack helicopter. Wear a skirt. Put on makeup. Twist your ankles on high heeled shoes. (Trust me, I have first hand compassion for women on that one.) Wax your legs. (Ditto.) Hell, I'm not even opposed to "if the role play is what they're all excited about", I'm all about RP. Pretend you're Super-Girl or Black Widow, or one of the many MANY Japanese manga or anime femboys.

Hell, pretend you're both a femboy and a cat, at that. Like, Felix from Re:Zero. Go for it, really. Wear a dress AND a cat ears headband. Seriously. Go for it.

The only part I object to is your idea, and that's a direct copy and paste, that:

Thermal said:
It's because I don't want to be a jerk to people (unintentionally). I want people to feel included and welcome and free to live their lives. Part of that is to *not* tell them they are not what they think they are daily.

The shortest, most fair way to get there, as I see it, is to force clarity on the gender thing. That ends all debate, although not in the way gender cheerleaders will like. If it doesn't mean sex, then discussions about using the opposite sex's bathrooms etc are over and we go about our merry way.
Click to expand...

IF they are trying to get into the women's sports, prisons, or safe places, then yes, we should remind them that they are not qualifying. Otherwise, go right ahead and RP whatever you wish. I might even give you two thumbs up.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
This is a typical misogynist ill informed view. The real issue isn't about boys, but about girls. The number of boys wanting to transition hasn't really changed (it may be more overt). The big and concerning shift is the number of girls being tracked into transitioning. Puberty is difficult for girls, sexuality is confusing, girls that could grow up to be unhappy lesbians are being directed into being miserable trans men*. BUT the rhetoric is all about the much smaller number of boys.
Click to expand...
Good points, but I'll point out that it's not all so one-sided. It varies by topic.

For example, when the topic is focused around medical interventions on minors, it's almost entirely focused on females. It's not young and teen males who are undergoing surgeries - it's young and teen females who are having double mastectomies. Similarly, when we're talking about detransitioners, it often ends up being heavily focused on females who are detransitioning, because that's who the majority of detransitioners are - females. It's incredibly common for those young females to have pre-existing sexual trauma and they end up using "trans" as a coping mechanism, a way to flee from their sexed body, since that body is the root of the trauma they've endured.

On the other hand, when we're talking about "rights" and access to spaces, it ends up being almost entirely focused on transgender identifying males for the simple reason that they're the ones who are most vocal about it, and they're the ones who are violating female boundaries in order to affirm their subjective feelings, and tromping all over the rights and dignity of females while screaming loudly that we need to "be nice".
 
Planigale said:
This is a typical misogynist ill informed view. The real issue isn't about boys, but about girls. The number of boys wanting to transition hasn't really changed (it may be more overt). The big and concerning shift is the number of girls being tracked into transitioning. Puberty is difficult for girls, sexuality is confusing, girls that could grow up to be unhappy lesbians are being directed into being miserable trans men*. BUT the rhetoric is all about the much smaller number of boys.
Click to expand...
As someone who got transed by grandma, I can tell you it can be just as confusing. Well, I'm guessing. Never actually was a girl :p
 
Thermal said:
But if I looked down and saw boobs and an innie rather than an outlie, I'd feel powerfully disoriented, like something was wrong. I assume that's what a trans person would experience, so hell ya, I'd work with them on whatever they wanted to be called/treated as.
Click to expand...
For consideration... there is a fairly large contingent of males who consider themselves transgender who do NOT feel "powerfully disjointed". They actually are aroused by imaging themselves having breasts and vulva, and many of them get significant titillation from having other people refer to them using female pronouns, they get off on entering female-only spaces, and they are aroused by having people "treat them like" females. The screwy part is that "treat them like females" almost always ends up being a combination of degradation and objectification.

Just go read some of the ◊◊◊◊ by Andrea Long Chu or Julia Serrano or Grace Lavery about what they think being female is all about.
 
Thermal said:
Framing behavior as "aping a stereotype" is the problem.
Click to expand...
This is actually at the entire crux of this discussion, and has been since about halfway through the first edition of it.

What do you think it means for a male to "live as a female"? What does that look like to you? Can you describe it?

Or perhaps you could take it from a different direction: How do you tell the difference between a) a genuinely trans person, b) a transvestite, and c) someone exploiting a loophole for personal or predatory gain?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Good points, but I'll point out that it's not all so one-sided. It varies by topic.

For example, when the topic is focused around medical interventions on minors, it's almost entirely focused on females. It's not young and teen males who are undergoing surgeries - it's young and teen females who are having double mastectomies. Similarly, when we're talking about detransitioners, it often ends up being heavily focused on females who are detransitioning, because that's who the majority of detransitioners are - females. It's incredibly common for those young females to have pre-existing sexual trauma and they end up using "trans" as a coping mechanism, a way to flee from their sexed body, since that body is the root of the trauma they've endured.

On the other hand, when we're talking about "rights" and access to spaces, it ends up being almost entirely focused on transgender identifying males for the simple reason that they're the ones who are most vocal about it, and they're the ones who are violating female boundaries in order to affirm their subjective feelings, and tromping all over the rights and dignity of females while screaming loudly that we need to "be nice".
Click to expand...
Boys are given puberty blockers which will even prevent them from having "proper" vaginoplasty if they want to go that way. I mean, we even had the discussion several pages ago about getting a piece of colon as a "vagina", because there's not enough penis to invert. I mean, it may not be physically cutting off breasts, but we're talking about chemical castration, followed by a literal castration later, and not even really passing for a woman for anyone who *ahem* ever tries to go down, and not being able to achieve an orgasm ever after, as well as other life-long recurring pain and other problems. I mean, girls like Chloe Cole may be permanently disfigured, but can still achieve an orgasm, but boys don't even get the latter.

I get that you're more on the side of the disadvantaged females, and it's understandable. But the ones pushing that gender-affirming therapy hurt boys just as much.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
This is actually at the entire crux of this discussion, and has been since about halfway through the first edition of it.

What do you think it means for a male to "live as a female"? What does that look like to you? Can you describe it?

Or perhaps you could take it from a different direction: How do you tell the difference between a) a genuinely trans person, b) a transvestite, and c) someone exploiting a loophole for personal or predatory gain?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I dunno. There's a whole spectrum of how to live. I don't have a set role they'd have to adhere to. It's all going on between their ears, not mine. If you'll excuse the cross thread reference, I don't really empathize. I'm sympathetic to them.
 
Thermal said:
Honestly, I dunno. There's a whole spectrum of how to live. I don't have a set role they'd have to adhere to. It's all going on between their ears, not mine. If you'll excuse the cross thread reference, I don't really empathize. I'm sympathetic to them.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for anyone, but far as I can tell, the question is not really about empathy. The question was about a cold, logical way you'd determine if someone has actually lived as a woman or not. You introduced that distinction, so it seems fair to ask how you'd recognize that. I mean, I'm all open for an enlightening answer to that. I might even change my way I look at it, if you tell me how to tell who's been living as a man or as a woman. (As opposed to, say, some perv just saying so to get into the women's prison.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom