Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
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.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
But it is a culture war....
Trans Radical Activists are using their soldiers (ideas) and their culture to invade the rest of society. They demand society bow to their way of thinking; they label anyone who doesn't fall into line in the slightest as a transphobe and a bigot; use orchestrated attacks on social media to attack dissenters, use letter writing and phone campaigns to get people fired and deplatformed, use physical violence against people who protest against what they are doing.
Transgender people are not the enemy, but Trans Radical Activists are, and if you repeat their talking points and propaganda, then you align yourself with them... (if six friends are sitting at a table, and one of them is a Nazi, then there are six nazis at that table!)
Last edited:
Abooga
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,116
I guess both sides can make unfair assumptions, but it´s the TRA side the one which repeteadly insults whoever questions their fallacious positions and also the side which doesn´t want to engage in skeptical enquiry.
...
WOS has posted on this issue.
"Prejudice and ill-treatment against the victim group starts off being acceptable and normal, then some people start to question it, then authorities clamp down brutally on those people, the injustices suffered by them focus more attention on the plight of the victim group, public sympathy and support starts to grow, political groups adopt the cause, and eventually – usually after several decades of struggle – change occurs.
But that isn’t how it went with transactivism. Most people had never even heard the word “transgender” in 2015, when Stonewall decided to start championing it alongside (or at the expense of) their advocacy for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Yet just a couple of years later it had comprehensively captured the vast bulk of the apparatus of Western society, whether political, commercial or third-sector. Parties of government, multinational corporations, animal charities and even police forces and fire engines were all suddenly draped in a new flag
But oddly, the louder and more powerful the trans lobby got, the less the public bought into it. As today’s YouGov polls show, the more people learn about trans ideology, the more they oppose it.
...
Transactivism is an oddity in the progressive political development. It´s a step backwards and helped elect Trump, which looks like is going to have incalculable negative effects all around the globe. The sooner this BS is abandoned, the better.
Last edited:
Perhaps some day in an appropriate thread, I'll demonstrate the foolishness of this fact-challenged musing.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Damion seems to have taken the position that we can't have a policy about trans entitlements, unless it properly accounts for CAIS and other edge cases.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
I disagree, but I see no point in discussing it further. It's obviously a sticking point for him, so that's that.
It's true that TRAs like to appeal to irrelevant edge cases, when they're cornered on questions of sex segregation. They hope that they can make the perfect the enemy of the good. However, I think that Damion is more concerned with having a stronger rebuttal to such antics. A perfect rebuttal, for a bad faith appeal to perfection.
But, as we've seen in the other thread, it's edge cases all the way down. There's always something a pedant, well-meaning or otherwise, can find to pick at, can use to declare the policy unfit for purpose.
And that's why I've settled for a rebuttal that calls out the bad faith and dismisses the pedantry. I doubt Damion and I will ever agree to disagree. So I'll just continue to point out that the debate over trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about securing women's locker room rights for people with CAIS, and move on.
---
TRAs aren't looking for a complete definition of sex that covers all edge cases in a humane and respectful way. They're looking for an excuse to admit autogynephiles and misogynists into women's spaces on the strength of self-ID. If Damion doesn't like my response to that, well. Neither do TRAs. I can live with this.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Oh come on now, I'm quite curious
Plus, there's a rather high tolerance for non-combative derails in this thread, unlike several other areas of the forum.Rolfe
Adult human female
As a starter for ten, I would have thought that "anyone with a functioning SRY gene is male, with the exception that anyone with a confirmed diagnosis of CAIS will be regarded as female for the purposes of this legislation" would leave relatively few weeds. You could, if you like, add certain criteria such as testosterone concentrations to specify that anyone meeting these criteria will be assumed to have a functioning SRY gene.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Talking points should be especially easy to rebut since you've already seen them so often; no need to make this about me at all.
Firstly, giving you a chance to rebut their talking points is good for you and for the lurkers, because it affords you the opportunity to show where they went wrong (either in terms of their premises or their deductions) and it affords everyone else the opportunity to see you succeed or fail in the attempt. This is a discussion board, after all, not a consensus board.
Secondly, treating people with whom you disagree on policy questions as enemies is, well, authoritarian. It's fairly ironic that you compare them to fascists, since that accusation is often used by trans-activists against people like yourself.
And yet the TRA side was compared to Nazis by the anti-TRA side here on this very page.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If a policy paper purports to classify everyone for purposes of federal policy (e.g. Title IX) then it needs to account for edge cases.
No idea why this should even be slightly controversial, but it is probably best pursued elsewhere.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Rolfe
Adult human female
Why does it have to?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Consistency is a hobgoblin.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
IIRC, this subthread started when I criticized that policy in particular.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Bothsidesism at its very best/worst.
There is no "both sides" to be debated here. There are facts and there are falsehoods, both from an observable, scientific reality standpoint, and a social practicality standpoint. The entirety of the TRA position is based in falsehoods - they have zero valid points to argue.
Their position is not a policy, its a religious dogma
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's very clear that that EO does not include any definition of what is meant by "sex at conception". Since the vast majority of people (>99.9%) are genetically and phenotypically normal, it isn't something that's going to matter in the initial stages of its implementation. If (hopefully when) it comes to be codified in law then attention can be turned to writing a proper definition that will encompass your edge cases satisfactorily. Until that's done, then let's wait to see whether anyone starts insisting that women with Swyer's or CAIS must be made to use the male facilities.
The overwhelming majority of people who want to use the facilities of the sex they aren't are normal men (and some normal women) with mental health issues. That's the reality, and that's what this EO sets out to address.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Correct.
Trans Radical Activists want to use DSD as a wedge issue. They employ this "foot-in the door" tactic in which they state (correctly) that it can be difficult to determine which biological sex applies to people with DSD, but then they use it to extrapolate that difficulty (incorrectly) to include ALL people, with a consequence that biological sex is therefore flexible, and therefore a male can be female.... if he wants. We hear this exact argument from Dr. Upton in the employment tribunal case involving FIFE Health, Nurse Peggie and Upton himself. He states, in his evidence, under oath, and I quote.... "Biology is significantly more complicated than a stick figure with trousers and a stick figure with a skirt." That is a talking point right out of the TRA playbook, and it's only true for the tiny minority of people, the aforementioned people with DSD. For the rest of us, 99.982%, is really is simple. Upton also stated, under oath, that biological sex was "nebulous term which doesn't really mean anything". This is another TRA playbook talking point. If that is what he truly thinks, then he ought not be allowed near anyone in the role of a medical practitioner.
The pointless sidetrack into the nature of DSD that has been going on in the last few pages contributes nothing to the debate regarding the real issue, the question of whether or not transwomen are women. Its an issue that is not about the minuscule proportion of people with DSD, all of whom who can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; it is about mentally ill men , as well as men with nefarious motivations, using self ID (the magic words "I identify as a woman") to gain access to invade women's safe spaces.
Spoiler content may offend some people.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Tell that to the justices listening to both sides in U.S. v. Skrmetti.
This is all true in every case argued by two sides hoping for opposing outcomes.
No, they just have zero people left in this thread.
I'm unsure why you would say that individuals who are rare are somehow morally inconsequential.
If this was about the rights of cisgender women, you wouldn't be comfortable with a "wait and see" approach.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Again, there is no both sides here.
Pumping drugs into minors in order to prevent their normal, natural development into adults, purely on the basis of a child's say so, is WRONG.
If a child said "I identify as a cat", would it be OK to shut them in a cage, naked, with a bowl of Smuckers Meow Mix and a litter tray?
If a child says "I identify as a cancer patient", would it be right for doctors to start them on a course of chemotherapy?
If a child says "I identify as an amputee" would it be right to cut their legs off?
IMO, gender dysphoria is a mental illness, and should be treated as such, but even if it weren't, we must at least allow the child to grow up, to become an adult, at which point they can make their own decisions.
Only when its possible for both sides to be right. In this case, only one side can be right.
TRA's are arguing that the impossible is the truth. They argue that transwomen aren't just women, but that they are FEMALE, and indistinguishable from someone who is born female. They argue that the ability to concieve, birth or father a child is irrelevant, that motherhood and fatherhood are meaningless.
This biologically, scientifically, observably and irrefutably false.... and the test of this is a skeleton. If what they claim was true, you could look at a male skeleton, and be able to tell that the person, when they were alive, was a transwoman. But you can't... you can only tell if the skeleton belongs to someone who was biologically male, or biologically female.
Nope. I wasn't just talking about this thread, I was talking about TRAs in general in the wider community
A strawman.... @Rolfe never said they were "morally inconsuqeuntial"
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Every American medical association disagrees with you, last I checked.
You can disagree with the expert consensus, but you cannot reasonably pretend they do not exist.
Last edited: