Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

It's mainly a Trojan horse for autogynaephilia. But then the AGPs who retrospectively wish they could have transitioned as children so they never developed deep voices and beards and Adam's apples and so on started to push the concept of the "trans child". Even though they themselves were normal boyish boys. The idea seems to be that if children, whom we all know are innocent, non-sexual beings, are innately trans, then it's not a sexual thing and certainly not this fetish they call autogynaephilia. It's that lady brain thing, they always knew, and they're telling us from their perspective of men who went through puberty that it's a kindness to castrate these boys before they grow into horrible ugly hairy men. The irony is that most of the men advocating for this were/are married with children, something they don't think the "trans children" should be able to experience. They're all about the drugs and the surgery for the children, while they themselves very seldom have any surgery or even take hormones.

But then, a bunch of really unsavoury characters have joined in the trans activism, characters often not trans themselves, or at most they're "non-binary", but who are extremely keen on feeding children puberty blockers. These are the ones who seem to be collecting the convictions for child abuse. And the rest of the TRA lobby seem far keener on protecting these people, or if push comes to shove pretending they were never pals with them, than rooting this cancer out of their midst. (Consider the Challoner mess. Father - not trans - convicted for torturing and raping a little girl, and while he was awaiting trial acting as election agent for his trans son who wanted to be a LibDem MP. And the LibDems took a lot of persuading before they ditched "Aimée", who of course just joined the Greens. Multiple people have been expelled from political parties for pointing out that there was a child abuser in their midst, because that's just transphobia talking.)
 
d4m10n said:
This is obviously untrue.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't
d4m10n said:
Trans rights talking points are the points which trans rights groups like to promote as within the ambit of trans rights, whether broadly accepted (or not) in any given social context. You don't get to Humpty Dumpty us here.
Click to expand...
No, we are talking about Trans Rights ACTIVIST talking points, they are subset of a wider group of talking points. There are trans-gender people, and indeed, trans-rights groups who are totally opposed to some of the extreme parts of the TRA agenda. They recognize the harm the TRA cohort is doing to the whole movement, and the loss of credibility with the wideer public that TRA's extreme views are causing
 
d4m10n said:
As already explained, I was bringing up a "TRA talking point" which we all agree with to serve as a counterexample to the claim that one must accept all TRA talking points or else reject all TRA talking points as a package. All-or-nothing is an activist framing, not a centrist framing.
Click to expand...
This is a "how many angels can you fit on a pin-head" argument.
 
smartcooky said:
No, it isn't

No,
we are talking about Trans Rights ACTIVIST talking points, they are subset of a wider group of talking points.
There are trans-gender people, and indeed, trans-rights groups who are totally opposed to some of the extreme parts of the TRA agenda. They recognize the harm the TRA cohort is doing to the whole movement, and the loss of credibility with the wideer public that TRA's extreme views are causing.
Click to expand...

????

So the Trans Rights ACTIVISTs have talking points which are stopping trans-gender people and trans-rights groups from achieving trans rights?

Dude, are you just making this ◊◊◊◊ up as you go?
 
Graham2001 said:
A report comissioned by the UK Government on '...data, statistics and research on sex and gender'.

It's results will like the Cass Review and the unnamed John Hopkins study be memory holed as quick as possible, since it comes to the 'wrong' conclusions.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think that. The report was commissioned under the previous Tory government. That report was about youth gender medicine whereas this one is a broader review is it not?
 
Came across "forced teaming" in the wild yesterday, at the mall.

It's so pernicious that the rainbow people want to include the pastels and the blacks and browns.
 

Attachments

  • 20250320_150107.jpg
    20250320_150107.jpg
    566 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
No, we are talking about Trans Rights ACTIVIST talking points, they are subset of a wider group of talking points.
Click to expand...
I already provided a lengthy list of activist issues at #3,132. If you want to argue that some of those aren't really the issues that mainstream trans rights groups talk about, go ahead and make the argument, I guess.
 
d4m10n said:
I already provided a lengthy list of activist issues at #3,132. If you want to argue that some of those aren't really the issues that mainstream trans rights groups talk about, go ahead and make the argument, I guess.
Click to expand...
I think there's an important distinction to be made between demanding the same rights as everybody else, and demanding additional rights over and above those universal rights.

Dressing however you choose, presenting yourself however suits you, fancying whoever it comes naturally to you to fancy, all without fear of discrimination and intimidation - these are among what most people would now consider universal rights (though it's taken a long time to achieve). I don't think many people have a problem with granting trans folk those rights, and I haven't seen anything to suggest any of the regular posters on this thread do. In my country they already have those rights. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally encounter discrimination and intimidation whilst exercising those rights, sadly I'm sure they do, but that's a different issue.

I suspect what's being referred to as 'TRA talking points' are the additional rights that are being demanded for trans folk. The right to be treated as if you are the opposite sex to the one you are biologically is a right which no one has ever previously had. What makes it an issue is that, if granted, it directly conflicts with the traditional rights of others.

For example: female (and indeed male) patients have traditionally had the right to ask for a nurse or doctor of the same sex to perform intimate procedures and examinations. Is insisting that a trans person of the opposite biological sex should be allowed to step forward to do so a denial of that patient's rights? Is disallowing a trans person of the opposite biological sex from stepping forward to do so discrimination against them, and hence a denial of their rights? This is where the problems - and the arguments and insults - arise.
 
d4m10n said:
I already provided a lengthy list of activist issues at #3,132. If you want to argue that some of those aren't really the issues that mainstream trans rights groups talk about, go ahead and make the argument, I guess.
Click to expand...
I've made this point before and it got ignored, but in short, so what?

They can talk about all sorts of issues, but what's of actual interest is the issues which are actually under dispute. And employment rights aren't actually under dispute. Access to female spaces is under dispute. Medicalization of minors is under dispute. Self ID is under dispute. Because those are the issues under dispute, those are the issues which actually define trans activism. You don't have to be a trans activist to support employment non-discrimination. But you cannot be a trans activist if you don't support self-ID, male access to female spaces, and medicalization of children.
 
Pixel42 said:
I suspect what's being referred to as 'TRA talking points' are the additional rights that are being demanded for trans folk.
Click to expand...
If so, that strikes me as something akin to stacking the deck. Over a score known areas of talking points to choose from, but the only ones which really matter as "TRA talking points" are the controversial ones which conflict with more venerable rights.
Pixel42 said:
The right to be treated as if you are the opposite sex to the one you are biologically is a right which no one has ever previously had. What makes it an issue is that, if granted, it directly conflicts with the traditional rights of others.
Click to expand...
Some of the talking points do indeed cause conflicts with traditional rights, such as the right to request same sex medical exams.

Others don't, such as the right to carry a passport which matches gender identity instead of sex at birth.

Whether any given ask falls into one category or another ought to matter to us, and might well be determinative in many cases.
 
Ziggurat said:
I've made this point before and it got ignored, but in short, so what?
Click to expand...
So we need to consider the possibility that some talking points are acceptable and others unacceptable, instead of taking a burn the lot of them approach.
Ziggurat said:
They can talk about all sorts of issues, but what's of actual interest is the issues which are actually under dispute.
Click to expand...
There isn't a single issue on the list that isn't under dispute here in the Bible Belt—my #MAGA in-laws would roll it all back, given half a chance.
Ziggurat said:
...you cannot be a trans activist if you don't support self-ID, male access to female spaces, and medicalization of children.
Click to expand...
You do know that no one literally gatekeeps activism, right? If someone wanted to advocate for every bullet point other than medicalization of children, they are free to do so in a free country.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
So we need to consider the possibility that some talking points are acceptable and others unacceptable, instead of taking a burn them all approach.
Click to expand...
At this point, I have to conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding that statement. It's like saying we shouldn't condemn all Nazis because they liked dogs. So what? That's not the part that anyone has a problem with. Condemning all the trans activists doesn't mean that we condemn every single thing they say any more than hating Nazis means a person hates dogs. It means that all the trans activists believe in something reprehensible, not that everything the believe is reprehensible. The acceptable things that the trans activists believe in? Yeah, you don't need to be a trans activist to agree. And again, those things are already mainstream.

So instead of finding acceptable things that trans activists say, I suggest you instead try to find some trans activists who DON'T say reprehensible ◊◊◊◊. It would be especially effective if you found some trans activists that actually pushed back against the reprehensible ◊◊◊◊. THAT would be an effective counter-argument.
 
Ziggurat said:
At this point, I have to conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding that statement. It's like saying we shouldn't condemn all Nazis because they liked dogs. So what? That's not the part that anyone has a problem with. Condemning all the trans activists doesn't mean that we condemn every single thing they say any more than hating Nazis means a person hates dogs.
Click to expand...
You find yourself comparing trans activists to a group so hated that Americans keep churning out bloody revenge flicks several decades later and don't even stop to wonder whether you've perhaps gone over the edge?
Ziggurat said:
It means that all the trans activists believe in something reprehensible, not that everything the believe is reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I have repeated complained about the extent of consensus in this thread, now that we've driven off @arthwollipot, @LondonJohn & Boudica90. That said, I don't think we've yet reached the point where we unanimously find precisely the same talking points reprehensible. I don't really care about the passport markers, for example, but I bet some of you folks really do.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
You do know that no one literally gatekeeps activism, right?
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by "gatekeep". There is no legal gatekeeping mechanism that prevents anyone from claiming to be an activist and saying whatever they want. But there absolutely are practical gatekeeping mechanisms (including employment discrimination and social ostracization). And it's naive to ignore that.
d4m10n said:
If someone wanted to advocate for every bullet point other than medicalization of children, they are free to do so in a free country.
Click to expand...
Sure. And yet, how many people do you see actually doing that? Have you ever wondered why?
 
d4m10n said:
You find yourself comparing trans activists to a group so hated that Americans keep churning out bloody revenge flicks several decades later and don't even stop to wonder whether you've perhaps gone over the edge?
Click to expand...
God damn it, pull your head out of your ass. The comparison WASN'T between trans activists and Nazis. The comparison was between YOU and people who defend Nazis because Nazis like dogs. And that comparison was based on the shared logical flaw in both positions, and NOT a claim that you're morally equivalent to a Nazi defender.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, I know you're smart enough to figure this stuff out if you want to. But you seem intent on not figuring ◊◊◊◊ out yourself.
 
Trump freezes $175 million in funding to Penn over Lia Thomas:

The Trump administration is pausing $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender athlete policies, the White House announced Wednesday in a post on X.

The post said the Ivy League university's policies are "forcing women to compete with men in sports" and ended with the Trump tagline, "Promises made, promises kept."
Click to expand...
Virtue signalling ain't free of consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom