Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ivor the Engineer said:
The world I advocate that we ought to be living in is where reasonable accommodation is made for all groups.
Click to expand...
You advocate for unreasonable accommodations for trans-identifying men, at the expense of reasonable accommodations for women.

It's pretty obvious you concluded who was right and who was wrong without giving the matter much thought, and now the only thought you're willing to give it is whatever justifies your predetermined conclusion.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Not quite. I think people in this thread are being played by the far-right. In fact if Thermal and I weren't posting it would be a near perfect cesspit of hate echo chamber.
Click to expand...
Not how it happened for me - i.e. I wasn't led to criticize the trans movement by the right (nor were most posting in this thread). Like many, I assumed it must be essentially above criticism because the right was against it. As the pandemic hit, I spent more time on social media -
I first noted some folks on "sci-twitter" (people who had mutual connections with scientists I knew or institutions where I'd been) claiming that sex was a spectrum/ not a binary during (the biologists involved were mostly not repro/devo/evo types). I initially engaged a bit and was told that stating that sex is binary is seen as a "transphobic dog whistle". Those social media arguments and the recent papers referenced explicitly appeal to social justice/inclusivity in their critiques (i.e. rather than a well-reasoned functional issue with the definition).

The more I dug, the worse it looked - in addition to the the falsehoods about biology there was the misogyny, the homophobia, the lack of an assay and evidence for transitioning kids (+ denial of the the social contagion aspect) as well as the obviously false premise at the core of the movement. Yes, you can make people recite the mantra (TW are W/ TM are M), but it will never be widely believed. In short, the movement does not hold up under even a bit of scrutiny.

When I was a grad student, I heard an older scientist say the right (in the US) doesn't like science that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible and the left rejects that which conflicts with "accepted hippy wisdom."
The politicians on the right would love for the movement to continue as long as possible - it's a gift that keeps on giving for them.
 
The Tickle vs Giggle appeal decision is being handed down tomorrow. I’m hoping for the best, but I have no great faith in Appeals Courts in matters like this. I hope the judges have read the UK Supreme Court decision.

en.wikipedia.org

Tickle v Giggle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
d4m10n said:
We can think of ourselves as men or women without relying on any "internal sense" to reach that point, but most every definition of gender identity is explicitly grounded in subjectivity of experience. If we use the same process (reasoning from observation) to detect sex in ourselves as we do on random passerby at the beach then we are missing an essential element of what people mean when they talk about gender identity.

Perhaps, though, you didn't mean "man or woman" as sex categories but rather something else such as social roles? Worth exploring, if so.

I do not recall asserting any such belief in that thread; seems to me you must be reading it in between the lines.

OP was about three people (Thrace, Wintemute, & Coleman) who seem not to be able to generalize from their own subjective experience to the broadly held notion that everyone experiences gender identity. I find those people fairly lucid and even relatable, but even if I made the same assertions which they do, that would not constitute an attempt to generalize but rather an attempt to exceptionalize.

That thread was designedly not about what "trans and nonbinary people feel" but about the claim that everyone experiences gender identity, including people—such as ourselves—who do not experience any discomfort when considering our primary and secondary sex characteristics. The degeneration of the discussion into focusing on transgender and nonbinary identities was perhaps inevitable, despite clearly warning against it in the OP. The question remains whether gender identity can be conceptually nailed down in such a way that basically everyone who takes the time to really think about it would eventually nod and say, "Aye, I've got that."

Analogies are invariably imperfect, but consider the idea of consciousness. We can imagine p-zombiesWP who lack it, but everyone we talk to about consciousness affirms that they experience it and we tend to take them at their word, even though the concept itself is pretty hard to nail down. If I were to run a poll about whether every adult has the property of consciousness, we'd generally agree that they do, after setting aside coma patients. It would be quite difficult to find serious writers like Wintemute and Coleman asserting that they have done a bit of introspection and yet find themselves to be unconscious.
Click to expand...
Hmm- not clear that it (gender identity) is functionally seperable from
Ziggurat said:
And yet, and yet.

Between 2023 and 2025, we conducted 1,452 confidential interviews with undergraduates at Norwestern University and the University of Michigan.​
...​
We asked: Have you ever pretended to hold more progressive views than you truly endorse to succeed socially or academically? An astounding 88 percent said yes...​
...​
Perhaps most telling: 77 percent said they disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in such domains as sports, healthcare, of public data - but would never voice that disagreement aloud...​

I wouldn't count on the youth agreeing with you on this issue.
Click to expand...
and again- young heterosexual males are never going to broadly regard any subset of males as potential partners for long-term relationships.
 
d4m10n said:
We can think of ourselves as men or women without relying on any "internal sense" to reach that point, but most every definition of gender identity is explicitly grounded in subjectivity of experience. If we use the same process (reasoning from observation) to detect sex in ourselves as we do on random passerby at the beach then we are missing an essential element of what people mean when they talk about gender identity.

Perhaps, though, you didn't mean "man or woman" as sex categories but rather something else such as social roles? Worth exploring, if so.

I do not recall asserting any such belief in that thread; seems to me you must be reading it in between the lines.

OP was about three people (Thrace, Wintemute, & Coleman) who seem not to be able to generalize from their own subjective experience to the broadly held notion that everyone experiences gender identity. I find those people fairly lucid and even relatable, but even if I made the same assertions which they do, that would not constitute an attempt to generalize but rather an attempt to exceptionalize.

That thread was designedly not about what "trans and nonbinary people feel" but about the claim that everyone experiences gender identity, including people—such as ourselves—who do not experience any discomfort when considering our primary and secondary sex characteristics. The degeneration of the discussion into focusing on transgender and nonbinary identities was perhaps inevitable, despite clearly warning against it in the OP. The question remains whether gender identity can be conceptually nailed down in such a way that basically everyone who takes the time to really think about it would eventually nod and say, "Aye, I've got that."

Analogies are invariably imperfect, but consider the idea of consciousness. We can imagine p-zombiesWP who lack it, but everyone we talk to about consciousness affirms that they experience it and we tend to take them at their word, even though the concept itself is pretty hard to nail down. If I were to run a poll about whether every adult has the property of consciousness, we'd generally agree that they do, after setting aside coma patients. It would be quite difficult to find serious writers like Wintemute and Coleman asserting that they have done a bit of introspection and yet find themselves to be unconscious.
Click to expand...
Hmm- not clear that it (gender identity) is functionally separable from (some aspect of) personality. Without an assay, there's no testable hypothesis.
 
d4m10n said:
Personally, I'm excited to hear insights about sex which will somehow apply to the entire cladogram derived from the most recent common ancestor of mammals and birds.
Click to expand...
Well, one thing that cladogram makes clear is that only definition of female and male that works is based on gonads/gametes - relevant to this thread, that makes a female brain in a male body in impossibility.
 
lionking said:
The Tickle vs Giggle appeal decision is being handed down tomorrow. I’m hoping for the best, but I have no great faith in Appeals Courts in matters like this. I hope the judges have read the UK Supreme Court decision.

en.wikipedia.org

Tickle v Giggle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Short of an absolute miracle, or unless Appeals Court judges have suddenly grown a spine, I have zero confidence the decision will be in accordance with observable, scientific reality - the Australian judiciary is totally captured by the Holy Cult of gender ideology. Whatever decision is handed down, this will be headed to the High Court of Australia (for those who don't know, this is the equivalent of the Supreme Court in other countries).

If Sall Grover wins, the transgender self-identified man known as "Roxanne" Tickle will appeal. He is extraordinarily well-funded by transgender lobby groups and other groups with vested interests.

If Tickle wins, Sall Grover will appeal. She is also well funded by, the public of Australia. "Giggle for Girls" has raised almost $550,000 to fight this judicial atrocity, and the amount keeps increasing every day. This is something of a miracle, given that the entirely captured Australian media have been silencing themselves on this story. As a result, so not many Australians even know its happening, let alone undertand the importance of this court case.

In the end, I think Sall will have to register the Giggle for Girls" app in the UK where she will be out of Australian jurisdiction, and out of the reach of scummy people like Tickle. She may be forced to geo-block Australia so she might want to consider getting a VPN software company to sponsor her app, and have a download link for her clients.

Ultimately, the level of violent threats against her and her family and children from TRAs and other scum will escalate, and she will have to consider leaving Australia.
 
Thermal said:
Wait till you hear about homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Do you actually think that's clever? You'll note I said heterosexual. You've said you don't regard transwomen as women. Neither will other straight men. Nor will straight women broadly see transmen as men. And gay men definitely aren't into transmen. It's a core lie that's being sold to young people. If you check out the trans forums on reddit, you'll see that as a common complaint (i.e. they're not being treated as the sex they're mimicking).
 
Louden Wilde said:
Do you actually think that's clever? You'll note I said heterosexual. You've said you don't regard transwomen as women. Neither will other straight men. Nor will straight women broadly see transmen as men. And gay men definitely aren't into transmen. It's a core lie that's being sold to young people. If you check out the trans forums on reddit, you'll see that as a common complaint (i.e. they're not being treated as the sex they're mimicking).
Click to expand...
When dealing with this gender bending, I don't think homo/hetero sexuality is as straightforward as we would like to think. I can't even get a clean read on whether transwomen think they are homo or hetero if they are attracted to females. It depends on what they say they are themselves, which is not always clear to us.

But you're right, it was an unnecessary comment. This thread makes me cranky.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
As you should know by now from my posts I'm not on either team TRA or TERF. I've never been a team player.
Click to expand...
Your attempt to distance yourself from TRAs is both adorable and transparent.

Your posts are drenched with TRA talking points and misogyny.... it is obvious to the rest of us that you ARE on team TRA, along with your buddy @Thermal - even if you have deluded yourself that you aren't.
....
Ivor the Engineer said:
I don't care what people want, I want what works for as many groups as possible.
Click to expand...
You want compromise? Jews v Muslims? Republicans v Democrats? Canadians v Parti Québécois? Spaniards v Euskadi Ta Askatasuna?

Good luck with that... Happy Compromisin'
 
smartcooky said:
Short of an absolute miracle, or unless Appeals Court judges have suddenly grown a spine, I have zero confidence the decision will be in accordance with observable, scientific reality - the Australian judiciary is totally captured by the Holy Cult of gender ideology. Whatever decision is handed down, this will be headed to the High Court of Australia (for those who don't know, this is the equivalent of the Supreme Court in other countries).

If Sall Grover wins, the transgender self-identified man known as "Roxanne" Tickle will appeal. He is extraordinarily well-funded by transgender lobby groups and other groups with vested interests.

If Tickle wins, Sall Grover will appeal. She is also well funded by, the public of Australia. "Giggle for Girls" has raised almost $550,000 to fight this judicial atrocity, and the amount keeps increasing every day. This is something of a miracle, given that the entirely captured Australian media have been silencing themselves on this story. As a result, so not many Australians even know its happening, let alone undertand the importance of this court case.

In the end, I think Sall will have to register the Giggle for Girls" app in the UK where she will be out of Australian jurisdiction, and out of the reach of scummy people like Tickle. She may be forced to geo-block Australia so she might want to consider getting a VPN software company to sponsor her app, and have a download link for her clients.

Ultimately, the level of violent threats against her and her family and children from TRAs and other scum will escalate, and she will have to consider leaving Australia.
Click to expand...
It’s very unlikely to go to the High Court in my view. You need to get leave, and I don’t believe there are any Constitutional issues.

The other reason is that to this day Australian courts look to precedents in the mother land. I’ll be very surprised if the UK Supreme Court decision isn’t referenced. Also Federal Court rulings, unlike state Supreme Courts, cover the whole nation.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
When dealing with this gender bending, I don't think homo/hetero sexuality is as straightforward as we would like to think. I can't even get a clean read on whether transwomen think they are homo or hetero if they are attracted to females. It depends on what they say they are themselves, which is not always clear to us.

But you're right, it was an unnecessary comment. This thread makes me cranky.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the BBC is either alarmist or unfriendly to transgender people. Yet:

www.bbc.com

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

Some lesbians say they have been called transphobic for not wanting sex and relationships with trans women.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

You will no doubt find a way to reject this commentary:

"It's very disturbing that you find people saying 'It doesn't happen, nobody pressures anybody to go to bed with anybody else', but we know this is not the case," said Ms Jackson.
"We know a minority, but still a sizeable minority of trans women, do pressure lesbians to go out with them and have sex with them and it's a very disturbing phenomenon."

There are also comments from a number of proud lesbians with penises demanding sex from their lesbian sisters.

I think that it’s far to say that lesbians have a problem with biological men wanting to ◊◊◊◊ them.
 
lionking said:
I don’t think the BBC is either alarmist or unfriendly to transgender people. Yet:

www.bbc.com

The lesbians who feel pressured to have sex and relationships with trans women

Some lesbians say they have been called transphobic for not wanting sex and relationships with trans women.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

You will no doubt find a way to reject this commentary:

"It's very disturbing that you find people saying 'It doesn't happen, nobody pressures anybody to go to bed with anybody else', but we know this is not the case," said Ms Jackson.
"We know a minority, but still a sizeable minority of trans women, do pressure lesbians to go out with them and have sex with them and it's a very disturbing phenomenon."

There are also comments from a number of proud lesbians with penises demanding sex from their lesbian sisters.

I think that it’s far to say that lesbians have a problem with biological men wanting to ◊◊◊◊ them.
Click to expand...
Again, those things that are not happening seem to still be happening!
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
How is simply being male more dangerous? Was this guy more dangerous because he was male?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
Are you denying that statistics are absolutely clear that men commit much more violent crimes than women?
And especially rapes?

As far as I am aware, noone claimed that every man is violent.
Therefore bringing up Stephen Hawking as an eyample of a nonviolent man borders on idiocy.

I'm not sure if you are simply not able to admit that you are wrong or if that's some strange kind of performance art.

​

 
Georg said:
Are you serious?
Are you denying that statistics are absolutely clear that men commit much more violent crimes than women?
And especially rapes?
Click to expand...
Its another TRA talking point

For someone who claims he's not on team TRA, he sure parrots a ◊◊◊◊-load of their talking points!
Georg said:
As far as I am aware, noone claimed that every man is violent.
Therefore bringing up Stephen Hawking as an eyample of a nonviolent man borders on idiocy.
Click to expand...
Only borders on idiocy? Well, that's very generous of you!

Georg said:
I'm not sure if you are simply not able to admit that you are wrong or if that's some strange kind of performance art.
Click to expand...
What on earth makes you think these are mutually exclusive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom