• 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:
Forgot to respond to above: we are not arguing 'not having a policy'. Of course we need one. But the end policy is just a one size fits all resolution, and usually a clumsy one. It doesn't remotely deal with the subtleties and nuances of the issue.
Click to expand...
You haven't proposed a nuanced policy. You are free to propose a nuanced policy. In the absence of such a proposal, this is just you bitching about other people not being as nuanced as you.

But you aren't actually nuanced. You're just noncommittal.
Thermal said:
Whether policy is directed by sexism and bigotry or mutual respect is a major talking point in how we craft a fair policy.
Click to expand...
Your claims of motive are suspect, and a way to avoid addressing the actual merits or failings of any given policy. A well-intentioned policy that produces massive problems is not better than a cynically motivated policy that actually works well.
 
Ziggurat said:
You haven't proposed a nuanced policy. You are free to propose a nuanced policy. In the absence of such a proposal, this is just you bitching about other people not being as nuanced as you.
Click to expand...
Orly? In the post above that, I laid out my basic policy. You really think bald denial and repeating that I hadn't literally just done so is a strong position?
 
Thermal said:
Orly? In the post above that, I laid out my basic policy. You really think bald denial and repeating that I hadn't literally just done so is a strong position?
Click to expand...
I didn't say you hadn't proposed any policy. I said you hadn't proposed a nuanced policy. And you have not. Your policy isn't nuanced at all. It is, like so much else you do in this thread, basically just a dodge.
 
Thermal said:
Please stop lying about other posters. Its a bad look for your integrity and the forum.

I've said very consistently that simple modesty is one of the more persuasive arguments, and in changiing areas, sex segregation should be implemented. What I tend to argue against is the assertion by the bigots that them trannys is all a bunch of dangerous cross dressing pervs.
Click to expand...
But you ALSO have said that OUR REASONS for objecting to males having access to female spaces are BAD REASONS.

Do you genuinely think that the primary objection we have is that we somehow think that all males with transgender identities are perverts?

I'll also point out that once again, you're using much more degrading language than we tend to do.
 
Thermal said:
GTFOOH. I have defined 'gender' as I use it. The posters who then try to peanut butter sandwich it out of existence are dildos, and aren't that interesting or productive.
Click to expand...
Remind us what your definition of gender is, why you believe it's a good and useful definition appropriate for this topic, and why we should accept your definition?
 
Thermal said:
So you keep saying.

Because policy purposes are the final dumbed down, one size fits all implementation. Your policy proposal is "let's just say gender is bio sex and not acknowledge trans people at all", and the TRAs is "let's just say gender is whatever we we think and not acknowledge bio sex at all". Both are unsatisfying.
Click to expand...
You're wrong about Zig's policy proposal - which is the same one shared by most of us. We're not saying "make gender the same as sex", we're saying that in the spaces where it matters gender is as irrelevant as hair color or favorite ice cream flavor, and the only thing that should be considered in those spaces and services and sports is sex. Gender can be whatever the hell anyone wants it to be - it doesn't make any difference to space that are separated on the basis of sex.
Thermal said:
Yes I have. It's when your internal ID doesn't classicly jibe with your natal sex.
Click to expand...
My internal ID doesn't jibe with my actual height. Rachel Dolezal's internal ID doesn't jibe with their ancestry and melanin content. An anorexic's internal ID doesn't jibe with their actual body mass.

Why should this - and only this - mismatch grant special privileges that obligate other people to pretend that the internal state is a truer reflection of reality than their external?
Thermal said:
It's not me saying that. It's Western medicine.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not western medicine saying it, it's activists saying it. They claim that their view is backed up by medicine, but it isn't.
 
Thermal said:
Forgot to respond to above: we are not arguing 'not having a policy'. Of course we need one. But the end policy is just a one size fits all resolution, and usually a clumsy one. It doesn't remotely deal with the subtleties and nuances of the issue. Whether policy is directed by sexism and bigotry or mutual respect is a major talking point in how we craft a fair policy.
Click to expand...
What nuance and subtlety is involved do you think should be involved in policies that seek to grant males the privilege of transgressing female intimate spaces, services, and sports?

How do you not understand that we don't actually care about any other policies?

Sure, there are things that piss me off, like seeing a male who adopted a transgender identity in their 50s lauded as "the first female admiral of HHS" or whatever the title was. Or seeing males who 'discovered' their true internal femaleness in middle age getting awards and recognitions as the "woman of the year" or "the highest paid female CEO" or "best female author" or "most influential woman of the decade" or other such nonsense. That's a massive slap in the face to females, because it very clearly communicates that males are better than females at everything, including being female. And that makes me incredibly angry. But I'm not seeking laws or regulations to disallow such blatant sexism. I'm only concerned about policies when it comes to sex-separated spaces, sports, services, prisons, and the sterilization of kids.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1670499974650494976

That pretty much sums it up. Like NJ having bathroom laws that let males use female restrooms if they feel like it. Sure, no legal complaints filed, because there's no basis for filing a complaint. Sure, no lawsuits because there's no basis for filing a suit. No charges of voyeurism or exposure, because it's no longer defined as a crime for a male to look at a nude female without consent as long has the male says he's a transwoman, and it's not exposure for a male to get their penis out in a female-only space when the law says that male is legally allowed to be there. Suddenly what would constitute peeping or flashing to a normal person has been made legal by policies that favor the feelings of males over the experiences of females.

"Show me the studies that prove females are harmed" skirts the issue. The studies don't exist because nobody is measuring the actual impact.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why should this - and only this - mismatch grant special privileges that obligate other people to pretend that the internal state is a truer reflection of reality than their external?
Click to expand...
I would also be interested in hearing any answers to this recurring question, especially from any trans rights advocates lurking here.

Those who can remember the Hypatia transracialism controversyWP know that this question has been with us for some time.
 
d4m10n said:
I would also be interested in hearing any answers to this recurring question, especially from any trans rights advocates lurking here.

Those who can remember the Hypatia transracialism controversyWP know that this question has been with us for some time.
Click to expand...
I remember it but didn't see what all the fuss was about at the time.
Reading the article, I get the impression the directors FAFOd themselves.
 
d4m10n said:
I would also be interested in hearing any answers to this recurring question
Click to expand...
Because mental health professionals have realized this one has teeth, throughout history and cross-culturally? As opposed to say, millions of people who are 5'6" insisting they are 6'6" centuries ago and today?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Because mental health professionals have realized this one has teeth, throughout history and cross-culturally? As opposed to say, millions of people who are 5'6" insisting they are 6'6" centuries ago and today?
Click to expand...
Mental health professionals like John Money?

Save us from the professionals.
 
Thermal said:
For starters, I am not arguing *for* anything. I'm conflicted on the issue. Might have mentioned that a few dozen times.
Click to expand...
I agree that you say you're conflicted. But you don't seem to be making much progress in resolving the conflict.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Mental health professionals like John Money?

Save us from the professionals.
Click to expand...
And pretty much the entire world medical community for generations, yes. If you and others here think you are pulling rank on them, by all means I'd love to see your research. I mean, more than "dagnabit, them fruity pervs is all plumb loco".
 
Thermal said:
And pretty much the entire world medical community for generations, yes. If you and others here think you are pulling rank on them, by all means I'd love to see your research. I mean, more than "dagnabit, them fruity pervs is all plumb loco".
Click to expand...
Really? This is your defense of Money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom