Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Okay. Mea Culpa. I don't know the answer to the question.

You don't know the answer to Pixel42's question...

"What specifically do you believe that transgender identified males share in common with females that they do not also share in common with males? What specifically makes this set of males a subset of females in your eyes?"

But you are absolutely sure that "transwomen and a subset of women". If you were sure of your ground, that question would be very easy to answer.

 

[Mycroft]

No, it absolutely isn’t. Trace it back a little farther, till you get to Trausti’s post that you responded to. You have clearly forgotten what you were talking about.

Not that important to me. If you insist you didn't say it, I'll take your word for it that I misunderstood somehow.

 

[Mycroft]

Only just noticed this edit.

I list supposed characteristics of women (dictated by and for men) which have nothing to do with biology, and point out that women have fought against and rejected them. It's only transwomen who seem to want to perpetuate such outmoded gender stereotypes.

Okay, but one could name a bunch of attributes that are not outmoded gender stereotypes. Then you could argue that they're also outmoded stereotypes and I would say so what? They're still attributes embraced by women and not men?

So where are we going with this?

 

[smartcooky]

Okay, but one could name a bunch of attributes that are not outmoded gender stereotypes.

Ok, name them!

 

[theprestige]

They used to say the same about being gay.

They still say the same thing about Munchausen's by proxy.

 

[Paul2]

I don't answer questions that force me to adopt a paradigm I don't agree with.

Then why don’t you answer the question by briefly identifying the paradigm assumed by the question and state that you don’t accept it?

 

[Pixel42]

Okay, but one could name a bunch of attributes that are not outmoded gender stereotypes. Then you could argue that they're also outmoded stereotypes and I would say so what? They're still attributes embraced by women and not men?

So where are we going with this?

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind your assertion that transwomen are a subset of women, when istm that they lack every single one of the minimum essential attributes which distinguish me from a man. Including, but very much not limited to, a sisterly concern for the needs and feelings of other women, where in contrast their arrogance, selfishness and sense of entitlement simply screams male to me.

I don't know what it is you are trying to achieve. It seems at first sight that you just want to mansplain to me why my feelings on the matter are unimportant because I'm just a woman and men know better, but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt whilst you explain your reasoning in ways that make logical sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not that important to me. If you insist you didn't say it, I'll take your word for it that I misunderstood somehow.

You really are lazy. All it would have taken is a couple clicks to see how we got here, which you should have done a few posts ago, but you couldn't be bothered to figure out what YOU were discussing. So I'll do it for you. We start with Thermal. He's replying to someone else, but that doesn't really matter. For our purposes, we only care that it sets up Trausti's response.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

Now Trausti's response, which is the heart of the exchange: Being a woman isn't a costume. Note: no mention of clothing.

That being a women is not a costume?

Then you respond to Trausti:

I don't think trans-people believe it's a costume either.

And I respond to you:

They act like it, though.

As of this point in the conversation, no mention of clothing, not by Thermal, not by Trausti, not by you, and not by me. Clothing isn't what's being considered a costume or not a costume. Womanhood is.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, but one could name a bunch of attributes that are not outmoded gender stereotypes.

Then bloody well name them.

Here's the thing, though. Whether they are outdated or not is actually irrelevant. What matters is if they're actually part of being a woman, or just correlate with being a woman. For example, women tend to be short. But not all women are short, and not all short people are women. So while being short correlates with being a woman, height is NOT a criteria one should actually consider when trying to determine if a person is a woman.

So where are we going with this?

We're still trying to figure out if there are ANY qualities that transwomen share with women but not with men. So far we've just had the equivalent of "short": stuff which might correlate with being a woman, but aren't actually part of being a woman. Can you offer anything more substantive?

You cannot.

 

[Thermal]

As of this point in the conversation, no mention of clothing, not by Thermal, not by Trausti, not by you, and not by me. Clothing isn't what's being considered a costume or not a costume. Womanhood is.

I get what you are saying. The 'costume' is metaphorical, a behavioral playing at dress-up. But that's not my understanding. I see it, as I have said from the beginning, as a subjective feeling. Like, I'm a dude, and I 'feel like' a dude and not a babe, without considering my junk or clothes at all.

Exactly like if I felt the way I do right now, and I looked down and saw a woman's body. It would be intuitively jarring. That's why I relate to a trans person more easily than, say, a gay person. I can't 'picture' being gay, because a man is no more sexually arousing to me than a goat. But I can picture being out of synch with that ever-so-ambiguous self-ID.

 

[d4m10n]

Do I think they need to be absolutely analogous in every conceivable detail and therefore unable to be compared in any way to any other situation in history in order to even mention them?

I didn't mention "every conceivable detail," only two specific details.

Here they are again, as unanswered questions.

1) Are the groups being segregated similar enough such that segregation was never actually justifiable in the first place?

2) Are spaces being set aside for the sake of an oppressed group (e.g. females) or an oppressor group (e.g. whites)?

It seems to me that you've crossed the streams here, analogizing an oppressed group which protested for the establishment of separate facilities (females) to an oppressed group that was forced into separate facilities against their will (blacks) and that alone should be considered fatal to the analogy since we're ultimately talking about abuses of power by some groups against others.

 

[Thermal]

I didn't mention "every conceivable detail," only two specific details.

Here they are again, as unanswered questions.

1) Are the groups being segregated similar enough such that segregation was never actually justifiable in the first place?

2) Are spaces being set aside for the sake of an oppressed group (e.g. females) or an oppressor group (e.g. whites)?

It seems to me that you've crossed the streams here, analogizing an oppressed group which protested for the establishment of separate facilities (females) to an oppressed group that was forced into separate facilities against their will (blacks) and that alone should be considered fatal to the analogy since we're ultimately talking about abuses of power by some groups against others.

{NVM, edited. Analogy withdrawn bc it just doesn't matter, and I have a hunch we might be getting somewhere with the current discussion}

 

[Ziggurat]

I get what you are saying. The 'costume' is metaphorical, a behavioral playing at dress-up. But that's not my understanding. I see it, as I have said from the beginning, as a subjective feeling.

Feelings and actions aren't the same. Regardless of how they feel, there are plenty of transwomen who don't actually act like women, they act like men playing an over the top parody of women (Dylan Mulvaney comes to mind).

Or sometimes, they just act like men. There's a clip of Ben Shapiro on some debate, sitting next to a transwoman, and I think Ben used masculine pronouns for the transwoman. And the transwoman got pissed, grabbed Ben by the back of the neck, and physically threatened Ben. Now, I do not know how this transwoman felt. But I saw how he acted. And he acted like a man, not like a woman. And all those twitter transwomen telling people to suck their lady dicks? Yeah, that's very male behavior too. Admittedly, this isn't a statistically representative sample, but it's still very much a thing.

 

[Thermal]

Feelings and actions aren't the same. Regardless of how they feel, there are plenty of transwomen who don't actually act like women, they act like men playing an over the top parody of women (Dylan Mulvaney comes to mind).

Or sometimes, they just act like men. There's a clip of Ben Shapiro on some debate, sitting next to a transwoman, and I think Ben used masculine pronouns for the transwoman. And the transwoman got pissed, grabbed Ben by the back of the neck, and physically threatened Ben. Now, I do not know how this transwoman felt. But I saw how he acted. And he acted like a man, not like a woman. And all those twitter transwomen telling people to suck their lady dicks? Yeah, that's very male behavior too. Admittedly, this isn't a statistically representative sample, but it's still very much a thing.

Agreed. That's because no matter what their subjective feeling or ID, they are in a male body with testosterone coursing through their veins. If you could give a bio female those levels without her experiencing organ failure, she might well act just as aggressively, or 'male'. Or of the more 'flamboyant', parody type- I could introduce you to bio women who act exactly like that, Barnum and Bailey makeup and gaudy leopard print jackets and the works.

ETA: that's why this whole 'what are women's traits that the transwoman is said to be emulating?' thing falls flat. They are not putting on an act, or trying to adopt anything. They are acting out what feels intuitive. For some, it's behaving plus or minus how other women act, but without aping anything. It just feels right, exactly like it feels right for the bio women. I'm adopting some characteristics specifically from the American male cultural presentation, surely. But not intentionally. It's as...unthought... as liking the color green over orange.

 

[Mycroft]

You really are lazy. All it would have taken is a couple clicks to see how we got here, which you should have done a few posts ago, but you couldn't be bothered to figure out what YOU were discussing.

I did go back a few clicks and you said I was wrong anyway.

Yeah, I get lazy when other people want to send me on their errands. I ask myself if it’s worth it then I make a judgment call.

As of this point in the conversation, no mention of clothing, not by Thermal, not by Trausti, not by you, and not by me. Clothing isn't what's being considered a costume or not a costume. Womanhood is.

Alright, you split that hair through it’s root. I hope it made you happy.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind your assertion that transwomen are a subset of women, when istm that they lack every single one of the minimum essential attributes which distinguish me from a man. Including, but very much not limited to, a sisterly concern for the needs and feelings of other women, where in contrast their arrogance, selfishness and sense of entitlement simply screams male to me.

Wow! They do all that just by existing?

Clearly your emotions are very strong on this issue

I don't know what it is you are trying to achieve. It seems at first sight that you just want to mansplain to me why my feelings on the matter are unimportant because I'm just a woman and men know better, but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt whilst you explain your reasoning in ways that make logical sense.

Not all women hate transwomen the way you do. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but not everybody, not every woman, shares your feelings.

I imagine feelings were similar when bathrooms were integrated.

 

[Mycroft]

Then bloody well name them.

Dude, calm down. Deep breaths, in through the nose, out through the mouth. It may help to close your eyes for a bit.

Here's the thing, though. Whether they are outdated or not is actually irrelevant. What matters is if they're actually part of being a woman, or just correlate with being a woman. For example, women tend to be short. But not all women are short, and not all short people are women. So while being short correlates with being a woman, height is NOT a criteria one should actually consider when trying to determine if a person is a woman.

It has to be attributes only women have? Does clothing not count because Harry Styles sometimes wears a dress? Jewlry, makeup and hair doesn’t count because men use these things too?

I think you’re trying to make yourself a gate-keeper of people who are not asking you. It’s not your job to define what makes a woman for someone else, and your opinions don’t invalidate the thoughts and opinions of actual trans-people.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Luchog?

We're still trying to figure out if there are ANY qualities that transwomen share with women but not with men. So far we've just had the equivalent of "short": stuff which might correlate with being a woman, but aren't actually part of being a woman. Can you offer anything more substantive?

You want to define trans-people out of existence.

You cannot.

I was going to make a list, but now I don’t think I need to. I’m not trying to be a gatekeeper, you are.

 

[d4m10n]

I’m not trying to be a gatekeeper, you are.

Unless you're hoping to see exactly one top-level league, record book, & category (with no qualifications for either sex or gender) then you are still okay with gatekeeping in elite sport, at the least.

Unless you're hoping to see fully unisex replacements for all sex-segregated spaces (e.g. locker rooms, showers, cabins at youth camps, Korean spas) then you are still okay with at least some gatekeeping, whether it's by sex or by gender identity.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread commit to full abolition of all the gates, but it'd surely be exciting to see someone try.

 

[Thermal]

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Luchog?

Luchog's partner deadrose (also a forum member) passed away, and hasn't posted much since.

 

[Mycroft]

Unless you're hoping to see exactly one top-level league, record book, & category (with no qualifications for either sex or gender) then you are still okay with gatekeeping in elite sport, at the least.

Unless you're hoping to see fully unisex replacements for all sex-segregated spaces (e.g. locker rooms, showers, cabins at youth camps, Korean spas) then you are still okay with at least some gatekeeping, whether it's by sex or by gender identity.

I don't agree I need to want these things in order not to be a gatekeeper. I don't even understand how you're extrapolating these things.

I've yet to see anyone in this thread commit to full abolition of all the gates, but it'd surely be exciting to see someone try.

Good luck with that.