Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[p0lka]

I prefer the status quo ante: Woman is a sex-based label.

and all the chaos that ensues?

It's already obvious that gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. It's already obvious that every entitlement that trans women want is a sex-based entitlement. So there's no reason to pretend that "woman" isn't a sex-based label. Stick with the long-standing convention that "woman" means "adult human female", and this whole orwellian pretense of confusion over labels goes away.

And in conclusion, nobody is as confused about the labels as you pretend to be.

saying that gender is functionally meaningless when decoupled from sex is kinda my point? gender is a societal cultural thing that I think we all grew up learning through something akin to osmosis, some people said no. Why do you think it has to be functional?

 

[p0lka]

Also, the uk ruling that woman is defined by biological sex under equality laws causes more problems that it solves. I predict it's temporary and it will have to be looked at again, and they then maybe come to the logical conclusion which is mine.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Also, the uk ruling that woman is defined by biological sex under equality laws causes more problems that it solves. I predict it's temporary and it will have to be looked at again, and they then maybe come to the logical conclusion which is mine.

I honestly don't see what you mean. That ruling clarified the original intent, which should have been unnecessary in the first place, but became necessary because of the introduced and artificial obfuscation of what the word gender means. What problems does it create?

 

[theprestige]

and all the chaos that ensues?

Nobody is this confused. The chaos is entirely manufactured by cynical scumbags. You don't have to play along with their nonsense.

saying that gender is functionally meaningless when decoupled from sex is kinda my point? gender is a societal cultural thing that I think we all grew up learning through something akin to osmosis, some people said no. Why do you think it has to be functional?

I'm not saying it has to be functional. I'm saying it has no practical applications, except in relation to sex.

Get rid of that relationship, and it has no practical meaning. You keep trying to get practical meaning from it, while ignoring the relationship to sex.

Go ahead. Define "woman", without reference to sex, and without circularity.

By contrast, here's my sex-based definition of "woman": Adult human female. This definition has practical applications. For example, it tells us who does and doesn't belong in a women's restroom.

So what's your sex-agnostic, but non-circular and practical definition of "woman"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Just for clarification: I'm pointing out that for any "tranny perv" you can hold up as "things that never happen that just keep happening", I can hold up worse in the general population.

Sure. Which is why cis men should be prohibited from women's bathrooms too.

You're just basically showing very bad people who are also trans, with no indication whatsoever that there are proportionally more bad transpeople than cis folk.

I never claimed they were any worse. But trans identifying males are still males. And as we have also seen predatory males will claim to be trans to gain access to women's spaces. Can you tell by looking at them the difference between Hill and Bryson? I can't.

So keep them out. Your only justification for letting them in is they don't want to be kept out. Which isn't good enough.

 

[Pixel42]

Pretending segregation is the natural order for humans rather than just a social construct is exactly the same type of thinking used to justify all prejudiced and de-humanising behaviour throughout history.

Some things are still segregated by sex even in societies with legislation enforcing sexual equality because of the objective biological differences between males and females which place females at significant disadvantage. For example, these differences make females far more likely to be the objects of - and physically more vulnerable to - unwanted sexual attention from random males, and domestic abuse by their partners, than vice versa. These biological differences are not a social construct and they cannot just be wished away.

 

[smartcooky]

They are not bad analogies,

They are not even analogies at all

Self-identified gender is a CHOICE.
Biological sex, race, skin colour, ethnicity and sexual orientation are not.

Gender and biological sex are synonymous.

Only if you also recognize gender as biological

Pretending segregation is the natural order for humans rather than just a social construct is exactly the same type of thinking used to justify all prejudiced and de-humanising behaviour throughout history.

Its not a pretense, it's a construct humans have developed to protect the most naturally vulnerable members of society.

 

[Brainster]

The far-right is rubbing its hands together and getting ready for government.

Trans advocacy has become the Democrats' tar baby, and the Republicans do not seem inclined to throw them into the briar patch. But at least you can console yourself that the good guys are losing nobly.

 

[catsmate]

 

[smartcooky]

The sad and tragic thing about your attached meme is that it wasn't mean as a joke... there are transgender identified men who actually believe this stuff to be true. These are mentally ill members of society who need psychological couseling, therapy and treatment, not affirmation and butchery.

 

[theprestige]

Misogyny on parade. Men make the best women.

Tell us you hate women without by telling us you hate women.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gender and biological sex are synonymous.

What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that transwomen are biologically women? Or do you mean their gender is male? I would guess you meant the former, but it's only a guess.

Pretending segregation is the natural order for humans rather than just a social construct is exactly the same type of thinking used to justify all prejudiced and de-humanising behaviour throughout history.

Guess what else is just a social construct? The prohibition on rape. Rape is very natural. Animals do it all the time, humans have done it since before we even were human. There's nothing in the "natural order" that says we can't rape.

I think I'm ok with having some social constructs.

Maybe the far-right will give some of you a badge for being useful idiots.

Bwahahahaha!

 

[Rolfe]

The prohibition against paedophilia is another thing that's totally a social construct.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1954275979511386477

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

They are not even analogies at all

Self-identified gender is a CHOICE.
Biological sex, race, skin colour, ethnicity and sexual orientation are not.

I suspect you think people who absolutely believe that a particular limb does not belong to them and want it chopped off are not making a choice to believe that their limb doesn't belong to them. You think, just as I do, that there is something in their brains that makes them perceive their body that way. So why do you think people who believe they are in the wrong body are making a choice? I can't comprehend either point of view and find them both logically inconsistent: the body I'm 'in' is the only body I could be 'in'. While I don't think the trans point of view should be promoted to anyone, particularly children whose personality is still developing and are often not comfortable in their own skin, I accept that there are adults who genuinely hold it.

If the above was TL;DR, how about this: Your argument boils down to transsexuals have free will while gay people don't have free will. Please explain (a) what part of the brain has free will and (b) why only people you disagree with have free will?

Only if you also recognize gender as biological

Apologies. I somehow missed the 'not' out of that sentence. To be clear I meant to say: Gender and biological sex are *not* synonymous.

Its not a pretense, it's a construct humans have developed to protect the most naturally vulnerable members of society.

BS. It's as much of a pretence as any crazy religious rule.

 

[lionking]

While you keep using the false gay analogy, I will choose to ignore your posts.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

While you keep using the false gay analogy, I will choose to ignore your posts.

Thank you.

 

[Pixel42]

While I don't think the trans point of view should be promoted to anyone, particularly children whose personality is still developing and are often not comfortable in their own skin, I accept that there are adults who genuinely hold it.

I accept there are people who genuinely believe that their body is disgustingly fat, even though in reality it's a perfectly healthy weight, and have every sympathy for them. I don't think they should be encouraged to have bariactric surgery, join their local weight watchers class, or take the new weight loss drugs.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suspect you think people who absolutely believe that a particular limb does not belong to them and want it chopped off are not making a choice to believe that their limb doesn't belong to them. You think, just as I do, that there is something in their brains that makes them perceive their body that way.

Interesting choice of examples. OK, let’s accept that they have no choice in feeling that way.

Do you think they have a choice about whether to actually chop it off or not? Do you think they should chop it off based on that feeling? Do you think everyone else should be obliged to help them chop it off?

Or might it not be better for them to learn to deal with those feelings without actual self-mutilation?

Apologies. I somehow missed the 'not' out of that sentence. To be clear I meant to say: Gender and biological sex are *not* synonymous.

Ok, that makes much more sense.

BS. It's as much of a pretence as any crazy religious rule.

Males and females are biologically different. They are behaviorally different to because of those biological differences. Social constructs are necessary for civilization to work, so calling something a social construct is not a strike against it. Social constructs which account for the differences between males and females in order to protect females are not a bad thing. You have provided no reason to think they are.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I accept there are people who genuinely believe that their body is disgustingly fat, even though in reality it's a perfectly healthy weight, and have every sympathy for them. I don't think they should be encouraged to have bariactric surgery, join their local weight watchers class, or take the new weight loss drugs.

While it is true that transsexual people are more at risk of suicide, there are many examples of transsexual people who have satisfying, productive lives, outside the hate they face for having the temerity to exist and making people feel uncomfortable. I doubt there are many, or probably any, people who are actively anorexic that have satisfying, productive lives.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Interesting choice of examples. OK, let’s accept that they have no choice in feeling that way.

Do you think they have a choice about whether to actually chop it off or not? Do you think they should chop it off based on that feeling? Do you think everyone else should be obliged to help them chop it off?

Or might it not be better for them to learn to deal with those feelings without actual self-mutilation?

It depends. For example, are they going to attempt to harm themselves if the limb is not removed? E.g., try to remove it themselves or damage it to the point it has to be removed. In those cases the least harm option is probably to remove the limb.

This is what the NHS does (or at least did) in Bradford for circumcision. Bradford has a large Muslim population who feel strongly compelled to mutilate their male children because their God said so. Rather than deal with the consequences of back-street providers the NHS provides (or did provide) circumcision service as harm reduction. I'm not sure if the service is still in operation.

In the case of transsexual people I think we have to be realistic about the probability of successfully treating them, particularly when there are many examples of people living as their chosen gender who are more content than when pretending to be something they don't feel they are.

Ok, that makes much more sense.

Males and females are biologically different. They are behaviorally different to because of those biological differences. Social constructs are necessary for civilization to work, so calling something a social construct is not a strike against it. Social constructs which account for the differences between males and females in order to protect females are not a bad thing. You have provided no reason to think they are.

My argument is that the additional protection provided by excluding males from spaces currently reserved for females is being played up and the harm to transsexuals because of that exclusion played down. It will be interesting to see if the number of assaults on females drops because of the strengthening of the law in the UK. I suspect violence against women will actually increase because of a rise in poverty and cuts to services and that any reductions in assaults from banning transsexuals from the ladies loo wont even register above the noise.

I also think the idea that it is obvious that human males and females must be segregated for the safety of the females is a signal something is very wrong with society and needs to be addressed, not just accepted that human males are just like that and there is nothing to be done about it.