• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Thermal said:
So you keep asserting. You do you. I think we have obligations, often legal ones, to be cool to others.
Click to expand...
Based on mere preference? No, we don't. I prefer that you accept my views on gender and sex. You don't actually have to.
Thermal said:
So you keep asserting. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm finding your repeated proclamations about what I think somewhat less than engaging.
Click to expand...
That's not very nice of you. And you also find the concerns of women who don't like men invading their spaces less than engaging.
 
Ziggurat said:
Based on mere preference? No, we don't. I prefer that you accept my views on gender and sex. You don't actually have to.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But socially, for me to repeatedly call you a bigot in the workplace for instance, crosses a line.
Ziggurat said:
That's not very nice of you.
Click to expand...
That's neutral.
Ziggurat said:
And you also find the concerns of women who don't like men invading their spaces less than engaging.
Click to expand...
That's false. My part, not yours. You can be under whatever 'delusions' you like.
 
Thermal said:
Right. And?
Click to expand...
And those two things contradict each other. The first is a succinct description of delusion. The second tries to deny that you're talking about delusion.

Look, trans is either a delusion or it isn't. If it's a delusion - i.e., actual dysphoric distress when experiencing the reality of one's biological sex - then the person needs treatment, not enablement.

If it isn't a delusion, then it's essentially just cosplay, and the person doesn't need sod all from society, any more than a furry does, or any other cosplayer. So my approach to trans rights advocacy is concerned solely about the former: People who actually need help with a distressing mental health issue. The latter don't need my help. As long as they stay out of my way, I'm happy to stay out of theirs.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
No I'm not. Dysphoria is life altering distress needing medical treatment. A crossed wire that produces no distress is not illness. It's really not that complicated.
Click to expand...
A "crossed wire" that causes no distress at all is a mere preference, and deserves no accommodation.
 
Another Thermal/Also Thermal moment.

On the one hand it causes no distress. On the other hand, it's apparently quite distressing if people don't play along with it.

Like Ziggurat suggests, if a man wants to caucus with the women, but it causes him no distress to caucus with the men, then there's no reason to let him caucus with the women.

On the other hand, if it does cause him distress to caucus with the men, then the question becomes quite different. I've been saying for literally years that if the science comes down on the side of social transition, as the most effective, most ethical treatment for dysphoria, then I will support such policies.
 
theprestige said:
Another Thermal/Also Thermal moment.

On the one hand it causes no distress. On the other hand, it's apparently quite distressing if people don't play along with it.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm left handed, and that's benign. Were I demanded to be right handed, and told I was a perv, that would cause me some degree of distress.
theprestige said:
Like Ziggurat suggests, if a man wants to caucus with the women, but it causes him no distress to caucus with the men, then there's no reason to let him caucus with the women.

On the other hand, if it does cause him distress to caucus with the men, then the question becomes quite different. I've been saying for literally years that if the science comes down on the side of social transition, as the most effective, most ethical treatment for dysphoria, then I will support such policies.
Click to expand...
Would you tell a gay man he couldn't marry? I mean, sex is biologically for procreation, right (cue posters screaming BIOLOGICAL FACT!!1!). Would you expect him to be distressed if he couldn't, and you called him a perv?
 
theprestige said:
And those two things contradict each other. The first is a succinct description of delusion. The second tries to deny that you're talking about delusion.
Click to expand...
I guess this is an impasse point. I accept atypicals, you don't. To you, there is only one holy form of mentally healthy (presumably much like your own self), and any deviation is a put on. I can't get on board with that.
 
d4m10n said:
Her views are anti-trans privilege, though, inasmuch as she opposes creating new civil rights based on self-i.d.
Click to expand...
Her views are more correctly characterized as pro women's rights (rights that are currently under attack from the left)
You average TRA views are the opposite, they are misogynistic - which is why they clash with those of JKR, and its why TRA's hate her.
 
smartcooky said:
And there it is!! You literally don't see the clear and obvious contradiction in your positions that @theprestige has pointed out to you!
Click to expand...
Non-sparring reply: I see and understand exactly what he means. That you guys can't see even vaguely my slightly different take on what a mentally illness is, as opposed to more of a quirk, is the most telling thing in this discussion.

I don't believe a single one of you. No one, as theprestige likes to say, is that confused.
 
theprestige said:
Are you, though?
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
You can disagree all you want to, but what you haven't done is provide any rationale for why we need to bow to mere preferences.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am in good company. I don't endorse inflexible rules for what normal/not mentally ill entails, and am more than willing to 'go along' with atypicals, if it's no skin off the nose. And before you say "but is is skin off the nose because they are bloodthirsty pervets", this end of the discussion does not have any ogres in it. The ogres, we have seen, manifest with or without permission to walk through the unlocked door.
 
Thermal said:
That you guys can't see even vaguely my slightly different take on what a mentally illness is, as opposed to more of a quirk, is the most telling thing in this discussion.
Click to expand...
I see your different take... and like everyone else here, I think that take makes no sense, and its wrong. I see anyone who has a dick and balls and thinks he's a woman, or who has a card-swiper and knockers, and thinks she is a man, as having an obvious mental illness - one that needs treating as a mental illness, not celebration and affirmation. I also regard "gender identity" as bollocks - a pseudo scientific term that has no meaning beyond being used by a minuscule number of people to account for their mental delusions.

I do not find persuasive, the view of (a now ever decreasing) proportion of medical and mental health professionals that gender identity is a real thing, and that transgenderism is not a mental illness. Nor to I find persuasive the views of those same ever-decreasing numbers of medical and mental health professionals who hold that puberty blockers are harmless and reversible.

I am old enough to remember the result when trusted medical health professionals said in the 1950s that thalidomide was harmless and prescribed it for pregnant woman. I was born in 1955, and in later years, I remember the distress in my mother's voice as she told me she had taken thalidomide when she was pregnant with me, and how she was beyond relieved when I was born with no birth defects.

I am also old enough to remember when trusted mental health professionals firmly believed in recovered memories, and participated in the 1980's "Satanic Panic" - the persecution of innocent people for the non-existent, allegedly wisespread ritual sexual abuse of children, all of which was based entirely on the so-called recovered memories of childen whose interviews were deeply flawed due to the use of suggestive questioning, and who testimonies were terribly unreliable.

The medical and mental health profession often get things wrong. The above two are classic examples of that, and IMO, the current position of the mental health profession as regards transgenderism just another example.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Yes, I am in good company. I don't endorse inflexible rules for what normal/not mentally ill entails, and am more than willing to 'go along' with atypicals, if it's no skin off the nose. And before you say "but is is skin off the nose because they are bloodthirsty pervets", this end of the discussion does not have any ogres in it. The ogres, we have seen, manifest with or without permission to walk through the unlocked door.
Click to expand...
Richard Cox. He didn't just walk through unlocked doors, he was allowed to walk through unlocked doors, repeatedly. Absent self-ID policies, authorities in Fairfax would have taken action against him to prevent him from doing so. You still haven't come to terms with this reality.

Nor is any of this responsive to my question. If there's no distress, then why does it matter if we accommodate them or not? Nothing in this post is actually responsive to that question. "Go along" isn't a reason. Why should I have to go along with their preference, rather than them going along with my preference?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom