Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
Any who publish? I'd be interested in seeing what progressivism looks like without intersectionalism.
Click to expand...
Your most likely places to look is in states where our presidential votes don't count because we don't swing -- specifically in the minority party. That doesn't necessarily mean we're "moderates," by the way. It just means that we're not in an echo chamber (or are in the wrong echo chamber).

Reading material and press releases are too genre-fied to include such views, usually. If you don't fit into an easily identified category, you don't usually get published. My ideas are mostly my own, not a rehashing of crap I read. There may be others saying the same thing in different ways though.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Your most likely places to look is in states where our presidential votes don't count because we don't swing -- specifically in the minority party.

Reading material and press releases are too genre-fied to include such views, usually. If you don't fit into an easily identified category, you don't usually get published. My ideas are mostly my own, not a rehashing of crap I read. There may be others saying the same thing in different ways though.
Click to expand...
So what ideas do you have about the trans entitlement to sex-segregated spaces for women via self-ID?

What ideas do you have about irreversible trans-affirming care for minors?

What ideas do you have about criminalizing parents who don't respect their minor child's preferred pronouns?
 
Manopolus said:
So you prefer a definition that was force-fed to you by a politically polarized press, in other words... one that they constructed FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of profiting monetarily from a divided population?
Click to expand...
Again, it's not the press that changed the definition. Self-professed progressives did.
 
Ziggurat said:
Again, it's not the press that changed the definition. Self-professed progressives did.
Click to expand...
And you don't think there was a selection process as to what gets airtime? You do know that clickbait works, don't you? It's the same thing. Pitting one group against the other, distributed as evenly as possible, to manufacture outrage is the norm, not the exception. It's not accidental. The distribution is no more an accident than the outrage.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. You don't need a conspiracy when self-interest can cause it independently. You still end up with an entire industry drifting in a particular direction.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
So what ideas do you have about the trans entitlement to sex-segregated spaces for women via self-ID?

What ideas do you have about irreversible trans-affirming care for minors?

What ideas do you have about criminalizing parents who don't respect their minor child's preferred pronouns?
Click to expand...
Well, that's just it. It's not something I think about much. Therefore, not exactly my cause. I came to the thread primarily because I don't have a solid idea about it. I hear all the noise, but it doesn't really describe anything I'm up in arms about.

I'm actually okay with males and females using the same facilities and am not mortified by the idea of one sex seeing the other naked. So that hook won't impress me. I think it's just as disturbing to shower with the same sex as the opposite if you're used to neither. And I've done both... with no sexual overtones involved... initially with family right on up to age 10 or so. It wasn't every day, but I've had the experience.

And then there was a little skinny dipping even after puberty (right up into adulthood) with girls who weren't related, too. I can't say that was entirely asexual... I was definitly interested in looking, but no actual sex or even groping occurred. I don't see that sort of thing as unacceptable in any way for either sex. Males (even CIS-hetero males) are entirely capable of controlling themselves. Sometimes it takes a little practice, though. Send away the ones with boners for sure until they can control themselves, but it can be done.

I have no interest in being a sports spectator, and by extension don't care to have a say in how they do it. No kids, so there aren't any dependents directly affected, but I don't suspect I'd mind either way if there was. It's kind of hard to know how you'd think in a different situation you're not actually in, though.

There's just not a lot there of interest to me.

Do I have to have an opinion? Can't I just leave it to people that know/care more than I do about it?

The way I see it, the fashionistas (the same people that decide what art is popular and such in this period of history) decided that this particular time was all about trans. Do I have to get on board and make it a factor in my own life, or am I allowed to just go on as normal? I was never particularly hostile towards the group to begin with, but I also don't go out of my way to hang out with them, either.

Mostly, I'm just annoyed by all the noise. I know that's selfish, but is there any reason I simply MUST be dragged into it? I'm not talking about here... the noise goes well beyond the forum and I'm quite aware that I could just not click on the thread.

I did know someone with obvious gender dysphoria when I was a kid, but that doesn't mean I have any expertise about it. We were sort of friends, but it was often awkward. That was in the early 1980s though. I wouldn't presume to know what would've been best for the kid in today's world. Only he (or she... not even sure he/she cared about pronouns at the time, but was physically male) can answer that. I have had no contact with this person since Junior High when the family moved away, though.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
And you don't think there was a selection process as to what gets airtime?
Click to expand...
Even if you're right, so what? It is what it is. This isn't the thread to delve into why exactly identity politics is now part of progressive ideology in the US. It suffices to note that it is.
 
d4m10n said:
I think you'll find plenty of posts upthread wherein I've critiqued the bad things. Did you skip over those?
Click to expand...
You're trying to have it both ways... or if you like, trying to apply a zero sum game. You critique the bad things, but present it all as some kind of balance with the good things, and you think that makes TRAs the good guys.

I see it differently. Even if the Nazis did make the trains run on time; even if they began the world's first animal welfare campaign; even if they were one of the first to start anti-smoking campaigns, they get ZERO credit for those good things because none of them in any way compensate for human medical experimentation or the genocide of the Jews.

I apply the same philosophy to TRAs. They get ZERO credit from me for the good things they support becasue the bad things they demand such as right to self-ID, forcing biological women, against their will, to accept biological males into sex segregated spaces, are so bad, they obliterate the good.
 
Just a quick clarification for myself and others who may have missed it: is the thread acknowledging a difference between being in favor of trans acceptance and "TRA"s? Because anyone who has "radical" in their name is not likely to be reasonable. Actual TRAs would be a fairly small, if loud, minority view?
 
Thermal said:
Just a quick clarification for myself and others who may have missed it: is the thread acknowledging a difference between being in favor of trans acceptance and "TRA"s? Because anyone who has "radical" in their name is not likely to be reasonable. Actual TRAs would be a fairly small, if loud, minority view?
Click to expand...
Where is this "radical" supposed to be?
 
smartcooky said:
You critique the bad things, but present it all as some kind of balance with the good things, and you think that makes TRAs the good guys.
Click to expand...
Please provide a post where I said anything remotely resembling "that makes TRAs the good guys," or else retract this statement.

As skeptics, we should not feel free to sling unevidenced claims at one another.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Please provide a post where I said anything remotely resembling "that makes TRAs the good guys," or else retract this statement.

As skeptics, we should not feel free to sling unevidenced claims so freely.
Click to expand...
You can't hide behind this pathetic "I never said that exact thing" malarkey. For the last few pages, you have been defending TRA talking points, and when you do that, you are, by default, defending TRA's themselves. You know it, I know it, and everyone else here reading your posts knows it.
 
Matthew Best said:
Well, "terf" is a slur, so pointing to the fact that it has a word in it that connotes something negative isn't very interesting or meaningful.
Click to expand...
It's a slur now but I don't think the OG radfems like Jane Clare Jones would have a problem with admitting that radical materialist feminism excludes males by design, because "male people as a class benefit from exploitation of the bodies and labour of female people as a class."
 
smartcooky said:
You can't hide behind this pathetic "I never said that exact thing" malarkey. For the last few pages, you have been defending TRA talking points, and when you do that, you are, by default, defending TRA's themselves. You know it, I know it, and everyone else here reading your posts knows it.
Click to expand...
I'm embarrassed on your behalf that you typed this out and thought it made a good point.

If you'd a modicum of intellectual integrity, you'd retract your false claims about me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom