Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Can you explain to me what exactly skin color has to do with sexual orientation? Why should "blacks and browns" be incorporated into advocacy related to sexual orientation? What exactly does skin color have to do with gender identity?

What plausible reason is there for these three distinctly different things to be lumped together for anything at all? What common cause do they share?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have repeated complained about the extent of consensus in this thread, now that we've driven off @arthwollipot, @LondonJohn & Boudica90.

That's a rather stilted interpretation of events. I would hardly say that we drove them off. All of them continue to be welcome to participate in this thread, and we've repeatedly requested that they bring their arguments here (as well as for several others). They *refuse* to engage on the topics at all, they demand that no debate be had. They flounced off in a huff, which is quite different from being driven off.

 

[d4m10n]

The comparison was between YOU and people who defend Nazis because Nazis like dogs.

For the comparison to work, I would need to be defending some group of morally onerous people who are akin to Nazis.

Care to say which group I'm defending?

 

[d4m10n]

Can you explain to me what exactly skin color has to do with sexual orientation?

Can you explain to me why that matters? Activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to you, or me.

Why should "blacks and browns" be incorporated into advocacy related to sexual orientation?

I have no idea, but those activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to me, or to you.

What exactly does skin color have to do with gender identity?

I have no idea, but those activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to you, or to me.

What plausible reason is there for these three distinctly different things to be lumped together for anything at all?

I could only speculate.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the comparison to work, I would need to be defending some group of morally onerous people who are akin to Nazis.

No, it doesn't. They need to be onerous in some way (and they are), but they do not need to be akin to Nazis.

Care to say which group I'm defending?

The trans activists.

 

[theprestige]

Care to say which group I'm defending?

The trans activists.

"Say what you will about the autogynephiles, pedophiles, and assorted misogynists who have parasitized the trans rights movement, they do have a good point about nondiscrimination in housing and employment."

Next up: Damion reassuring us that the trains to the reeducation camps will run on time.

 

[d4m10n]

They need to be onerous in some way (and they are), but they do not need to be akin to Nazis.

This is manifestly wrong, and not just because the kinship is built right into the analogy.

Nazis are not merely "onerous in some way," that's a phrase that might readily apply to everyday nuisances such as Cybertruck drivers who park across multiple spaces. The emotional force of any analogy which invokes Nazis comes from the fact that we've all seen films like Schindler's List and episodes like Why We Fight. When you deliberately invoke the death camps and all the rest, you have loaded your analogy with some of the most powerfully evil images drawn from real world history which are generally available to English speakers.

If you were a person of introspection, you might ask yourself why you have analogized "trans activists" to the people who ravaged Europe and created the death camps. What have they done which merits this comparison, in your mind? Have you been radicalized by the conspiracy theorists who argue that it's all a secret plot by pedophiles to create a new class of people who are stuck in early puberty?

 

[Ziggurat]

Nazis are not merely "onerous in some way,"

True, but irrelevant. The fact remains, you're defending trans activists on the basis that not everything they say is bad, while ignoring that all of them say bad things. Act as offended as you want to, you have yet to actually grapple with that. And because of that refusal, your complaints about the emotionally charged nature of my comparison just come off as you being butt hurt. Oh well. Address the substance.

 

[d4m10n]

The fact remains, you're defending trans activists on the basis that not everything they say is bad, while ignoring that all of them say bad things.

I think you'll find plenty of posts upthread wherein I've critiqued the bad things. Did you skip over those?

Address the substance.

What substance? I think we can both agree that the trans community was wrong to create a Lupron to Zyklon pipeline.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you'll find plenty of posts upthread wherein I've critiqued the bad things. Did you skip over those?

God damn, but you're good at missing the point. The substance IN THIS CASE which you are still refusing to address isn't the bad things that trans activists say. The substance IN THIS CASE is that ALL trans activists say bad things, and condemning the lot of them on the basis that they ALL say bad things is justified, and your defense of them on the basis that they also say good things isn't really a defense at all.

 

[d4m10n]

The substance IN THIS CASE is that ALL trans activists say bad things, and condemning the lot of them on the basis that they ALL say bad things is justified, and your defense of them on the basis that they also say good things isn't really a defense at all.

You want me to address a claim for which you've provided zero evidence? No, thanks.

Can anyone please link me to the post where I laid out my "defense of them" most clearly?

(I don't recall writing it up at all, but last night was wild.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can you explain to me why that matters? Activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to you, or me.

I have no idea, but those activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to me, or to you.

I have no idea, but those activists don't have to justify the voluntary alliances they have made to you, or to me.

I could only speculate.

You're assuming that there's a voluntary alliance that is generally agreeable to all of the cohorts involved. I don't think there is. I know there are a LOT of gay and lesbian people who do not want to be associated with Trans and Queer stuff at all; I similarly know a LOT of black people who are displeased with being tossed into this amorphous lump without any consultation at all. In fact, I know a lot of black females who see a substantial portion of the pro-trans argumentation as being fundamentally racist as well as misogynistic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is manifestly wrong, and not just because the kinship is built right into the analogy.

Nazis are not merely "onerous in some way," that's a phrase that might readily apply to everyday nuisances such as Cybertruck drivers who park across multiple spaces. The emotional force of any analogy which invokes Nazis comes from the fact that we've all seen films like Schindler's List and episodes like Why We Fight. When you deliberately invoke the death camps and all the rest, you have loaded your analogy with some of the most powerfully evil images drawn from real world history which are generally available to English speakers.

You mean... kind of like how it's inappropriate for trans activists to assert that excluding males from female-specific spaces and services is totally just like racial segregation?

Anyway, you're still missing the point.

X advocates for many things, several of which have substantial negative effects on Y.
You essentially responded with "X advocates for puppies so you can't just condemn people who agree with X"

 

[Emily's Cat]

God damn, but you're good at missing the point. The substance IN THIS CASE which you are still refusing to address isn't the bad things that trans activists say. The substance IN THIS CASE is that ALL trans activists say bad things, and condemning the lot of them on the basis that they ALL say bad things is justified, and your defense of them on the basis that they also say good things isn't really a defense at all.

"Hitler made Volkswagen widely available to all people, so condemning Hitler is just wrongheaded"

 

[d4m10n]

You mean... kind of like how it's inappropriate for trans activists to assert that excluding males from female-specific spaces and services is totally just like racial segregation?

I've literally made that exact argument, several times, in this very thread.

You essentially responded with "X advocates for puppies so you can't just condemn people who agree with X"

Links or the part you (rather misleadingly) put in quotes didn't happen.

I seem to recall talking about ideas, not people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've literally made that exact argument, several times, in this very thread.

Links or the part you (misleading) put in quotes didn't happen.

You know, there are times where being overly specific is tantamount to dodging.

Within this thread, the entire focus of discussion has been around

• transgender advocacy that allows male access to female-specific spaces and services
• transgender advocacy that allows male participation in female-only athletics
• transgender advocacy for medical transition of minors
• transgender advocacy for coercive language changes that disproportionately impact females
• transgender advocacy influencing legislation and judiciary activities that make acknowledgement of biological reality punishable as a hate crime
• transgender advocacy that chills or infringes upon free speech'
• transgender advocacy that harasses, threatens, and sometimes assaults females that do not accept their premises

That's been the focus of the discussion for 15 chapters now. We all know what the arguments have circled around. We all understand the context.. or at least I thought we did. Because up until a couple of pages ago, I would have counted you among that "all".

When someone gets fed up and makes a generalized statement that expresses profound contempt for transgender advocates, the rest of us understand that such contempt is related to the above topics of contention.

So when you respond with "Oh, but they're right about equal employment opportunities"... the rest of us end up inferring that as "what about all the good things Hitler did?"

 

[d4m10n]

When someone gets fed up and makes a generalized statement that expresses profound contempt for transgender advocates, the rest of us understand that such contempt is related to the above topics of contention.

Okay, but when did I say you shouldn't "condemn people who agree" with X?

I make an effort to focus on ideas rather than people and want to see exactly where I slipped up.

(For the record, I don't think personal condemnation is particularly useful, unless you factor in feelings of self-righteousness as something worthwhile.)

 

[d4m10n]

You're assuming that there's a voluntary alliance that is generally agreeable to all of the cohorts involved.

It's not so much an assumption as an observation. Have you spent much time around progressive activists? From what I've seen, they tend to accept the validity of an intersectional OmniCause without question.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Trans-rights activists are a subset of trans-rights supporters. You are still making the mistake of conflating my objection the talking points of the former with those of the latter. @Orphia Nay has made the same mistake... a mistake neither if you have any excuse for making, because I have made my position abundantly clear in many previous posts. You are simply not paying attention.

TRAs are trying to force the things they want on society, to override the rights of others by, the use of violence if they deem it necessary.
In short, anything that TRAs want that is not already part of the wider trans-rights wish list are the things I object to.

My position on transgender pretty much aligns with those of JK Rowling, so I will let her express it for me...

"Like every other gender critical person I know, I believe everyone should be free to express themselves however they wish, dress however they please, call themselves whatever they want, sleep with any consenting adult who wishes to sleep with them, and that trans-identified people should have the same protections regarding employment, housing, freedom of speech and personal safety every other person is entitled to.

But this isn't nearly enough for the dominant strain of trans activism, which asserts that unless freedom of speech is removed from dissenters, unless trans-identified men are permitted to strip away women's rights, with particular reference to single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prison cells, hospital wards, changing rooms and public bathrooms, until we all bow down to their neo-religion, accept their pseudo-scientific claims and embrace their circular reasoning, trans people are more oppressed, and more at risk, than any other group in society."

 

[d4m10n]

TRAs are trying to force the things they want on society, to override the rights of others by, the use of violence if they deem it necessary.

Are you counting the ACLU among those who condone the use of violence to promote trans rights? They are one of the most well-resourced groups out there doing trans rights work, and I'd be surprised to learn that they've made this turn.

In short, anything that TRAs want that is not already part of the wider trans-rights wish list are the things I object to.

That really clears things up, thanks.