Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Long, but it's an interesting deep dive into how we got here.


View attachment 59117
Its is a fascinating read. This is one section that jumped out at me...

....in the context of the national discussion around sex and gender from which the Forstater case arises, a moral binary approach requires, in Sodha’s terminology “goodies and baddies”. The “goodies” are identified as those who align with gender-identity theory, and the “baddies” are those who do not, including those who hold gender critical beliefs. In effect, this means that a person who dissents from – or even questions – the line that (literally, without nuance and for all purposes) “Trans Women Are Women” is morally bad (it was described as “offensive” by CGD’s HR Director in evidence: Glennie judgment paragraph 118). But this is plainly not the case, and the strict acceptance of this slogan is not encouraged by law, science or even logic. It has become the political journalist’s gotcha question of the age, but there is still no gender identity theory compliant answer to the question “what is a woman?”

What this is, is a direct attack on free speech, itself a "morally bad" act
 
Another interesting one, looking at the "transgender death cult" referenced earlier, and what the author perceives as a shift in attitudes towards "preferred pronoun" use by the press.


View attachment 59119
... and this stood out for me...

“I guess the lesson in this case is that when somebody adopts an extreme belief system, it doesn’t take much to motivate them to take extreme actions,” Dr. Grande says. Appearing in a clip on Fox News.com, actor and cult survivor Dar Dixon noted that transgenderism implicates sex and sexuality, one of the key cult control mechanisms along with dietary restriction, sleep deprivation, and policing emotions and thoughts.
LaSota was just one person with a blog. Transgender advocacy has countless online fora where members of the transgender cult at large banish their doubts and deepen their commitment to belief in a gendered being-ness that is somehow separate from their material, biological flesh.
 
Sometimes I think a bit more ridicule, indeed a lot more ridicule, might be no bad thing. If someone chooses to beclown themselves in public by appearing as a bad cariacature of the opposite sex, they have to bear some responsibility for the reaction they provoke, and be prepared to endure that reaction if the bad cariacature presentation means so much to them.
 
Well they are now full-on mainstream progressive left dogma. Most of us don't pay a lot of attention to the tiny corners of radical academia, so that is probably why this, as Rolfe says, appears to have happened all of a sudden.

Thankfully, the tide is turning against the madness. Much as I despise The Fat Orange Turd, the Republicans and everything they stand for, IMO this is the one thing they are on the right side of. Thats the conservative part of my "Liberal-Conservative" world view coming out. If the centre left ever want to get into power again, they had better start distancing themselves from this crap... and soon. The need to start dealing with the radical progressive rabble-rousers in their midst.
I'm not nearly as sanguine; for the moment the Democrats seem to be closing ranks on these issues. Democrat congressman Seth Moulton commented that he didn't want his two daughters to have to compete against men in sports, but when the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act came up, he meekly voted against it. As it was, only two Democrats voted in favor of the bill in the House. So that's 99% of the Democrats on the other side of what should be one of the simpler issues.
 
Best comment I have found so far (from user Dr. Cigol...
When a belief does not align with reality, one requires the belief affirmed and not critiqued to fend off the dissonance that arises when reality reasserts itself again and again.

The chronic dissonance and poor mental health is then blamed not on the belief misaligning, but on reality.

So true!!
 
Long, but it's an interesting deep dive into how we got here.


View attachment 59117
Indeed, followers of ideologies often act like religious fundamentalists. Leftism is choke full of this type or people (we have several examples in this forum). Fundamentalism is problematic because it doesn´t admit any moderation or questioning, it´s a perpetual race towards "purity". It´s always better to be more woke, a more orthodox believer and denouncer of heretics. Doubting is to side with the enemy. It´s such antithetical position to skepticism that it boggles the mind how many of these type of believers populate this forum... Are they going to come to their senses some day? I suppose not. Fundamentalists are probably born that way, only able to understand a very narrow black and white view of the world...
 
Another interesting one, looking at the "transgender death cult" referenced earlier, and what the author perceives as a shift in attitudes towards "preferred pronoun" use by the press.

Grande notes that "cult leader Jack Amadeus ‘Ziz’ LaSota attracted spiritual seekers who already held extreme beliefs such as veganism and transgenderism"

WTF. Grande (and/or the columnist) is unhinged apart and aside from the main topic.
 
Last edited:
That gives you a flavor of where the debate was back then. Largely something that was being debated by feminist scholars and radical leftists.
You're right that the core fundamental disagreement existed back then. We can wrap fancy words around it, but from my perspective, the argument can be summed up with the meme:
Traditionalist: The women do the dishes
Feminist: Anyone can do the dishes.
Transgender: Whoever does the dishes is the woman.


The follow-on effects from that core has changed in the last couple of decades, and especially in the last ten years or so. It's shifted into a pretty rigid policy position that has been framed so that any opposition to treating transgender identified males as if they're completely and utterly indistinguishable from females is labeled as bigotry and hate. And that's edged into all areas of life where we make a sex-based distinction, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

It's how we ended up with physically intact male inmates with a history of sexual violence being given the entitlement to share cells with females based on their claim of gender identity. It's how we ended up with around 1,000 female sports wins and places being taken by completely mediocre males, and with males feeling it's their right to walk around in front of females and children with their penis and balls fully visible, hang out in the showers and witness middle-school females after swim class, etc.
 
Sometimes I think a bit more ridicule, indeed a lot more ridicule, might be no bad thing. If someone chooses to beclown themselves in public by appearing as a bad cariacature of the opposite sex, they have to bear some responsibility for the reaction they provoke, and be prepared to endure that reaction if the bad cariacature presentation means so much to them.
While it can certainly be abused, shaming and mockery do play an important role in societal cohesion. That's one of the main ways that we, as a society or a nation or a community, define the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable behavior and comportment.

Realistically, I think if most transgender identifying males just adopted simple, basic, neutral styles of clothing, they would get almost no pushback at all. Go for trousers, a simple blouse or button-up shirt, and loafers. Keep it simple, target an androgynous look for everyday life, and call it good. Almost nobody is going to make an issue of it, and almost nobody is going to judge - even though they might be left wondering.

This applies outside of trans stuff as well. Because while I support people's right to dress however they please... I also support my right to judge the holy hell out of their lack of fashion sense. Ferinstance... just last week, I silently judged two coworkers of mine. One was a male who was wearing a wrinkly yellow and red t-shirt, extremely baggy bright green sweat pants cinched tight at the ankle, and flip-flops. The other was a female wearing a screaming fuchsia box-shaped sweater with a skirt that barely covered their backside. It doesn't matter that both of them were fit and attractive, the outfits were supremely unprofessional and intentionally attention-seeking. So yeah, I judged.

On the other hand... Congresscritter McBride gets at least a modicum of respect from me. Even though I disagree with them on bathroom use etc., they dress appropriately and tastefully, with professional make-up that doesn't look like a drag queen... and so far they've seemed to be actually doing their job of representing their constituents rather than making it all about them and their gendery soul. At the end of the day, I truly do not care if males prefer to wear dresses or if females prefer to wear trousers. I don't care how they think about themselves - I only object to being forced to play along with it.
 
Grande notes that "cult leader Jack Amadeus ‘Ziz’ LaSota attracted spiritual seekers who already held extreme beliefs such as veganism and transgenderism"

WTF. Grande (and/or the columnist) is unhinged apart and aside from the main topic.
Meh, veganism is a pretty fringy extreme view. That doesn't mean that all vegans are bad or anything. I know a few people who are vegan because of digestive and medical issues, and I know one who just has an absurd level of empathy with animals... but they're not pushy or judgy about it. For them, it's a personal choice but they don't see any need to force it on others. On the other hand, there are also the vegans who are pretty militant about it and spread a really think layer of zealous moralizing on it. These are the kinds of people who put their cats on vegan diets and then are baffled that their obligate carnivore isn't thriving.

We're an omnivorous species, and we evolved to consume meat as part of our diet. Our brains, especially in early childhood, require animal fats and animal proteins to develop appropriately. While it's technically possible to get sufficient fat and protein macronutrients from eating only vegetables... it's incredibly inefficient and it wreaks havoc on the digestive tract.
 
Veganism is actually pretty extreme, if you're a human being rather than a rabbit.
It's surprising how many herbivorous animals will quite happily down some meat when the opportunity presents itself. I've seen a deer eating a mouse, and that was a shocker. And nearly every spring I get the privilege of watching one of the nesting grackle females peck the eyes out of a loudly complaining sparrow and eat their brains. Grackles generally eat seeds and insects, but when they're nesting, that added protein and fat from bird brains is apparently pretty popular. 😲
 
Another interesting one, looking at the "transgender death cult" referenced earlier, and what the author perceives as a shift in attitudes towards "preferred pronoun" use by the press.
I tend to think that we cannot draw any well-grounded conclusions about group X by looking at an exceptional subset of group X. For example, while most interpersonal violence is committed by males, most males do not indulge in what radical feminists misleadingly label "male-pattern" violence. That said, it is fascinating to see mainstream media sources trying so hard to be respectful of the feelings of a group of people who appear to be on something of a collective murder spree.
 
Meh, veganism is a pretty fringy extreme view.
Even if veganism were relatively moderate (as in Jainist subcultures), some Zizians were debating whether meat-eaters ought to be incarcerated or killed, which is a pretty extreme take on the issue.
 
Doubting is to side with the enemy. It´s such antithetical position to skepticism that it boggles the mind how many of these type of believers populate this forum...
One of the strange things about this thread in particular is that people assume I'm siding with TRA positions and supporting arguments if ever I express skepticism of any gendercrit position or supporting argument.

Treating ideas as soldiers in a culture war instead of scouts to give us a map of reality isn't rational or skeptical, it's just what comes naturally.
 
One of the strange things about this thread in particular is that people assume I'm siding with TRA positions and supporting arguments if ever I express skepticism of any gendercrit position or supporting argument.

Why are you assuming that abooga's response to Rolfe is an indictment of you?

About the only time I think you're siding with TRA positions is when you're actually using TRA talking points... and that's been a relatively recent thing from you, and it's fairly limited scope. Like taking a firm stance opposing EOs that claw back gender identity as an interpretation of sex and reinforce the right to single-sex spaces as being a problem because of CAIS and down in the weeds pedantry ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom