Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[John Freestone]

The social indoctrination is that gender roles should be something that you should care about. Transpeople care about gender roles and so do people in this thread, and I guess everyone does, which confounds me. Change the labels to sex and solve the problem.

It's weird how much I agree with you whilst still thinking your views make no sense at all. You say "Transpeople care about gender roles," and that this is due to indoctrination, and it confounds you. Yes. And that is key to understanding my position that 'transpeople' is a fundamentally flawed concept. If you follow your own logic, a 'transperson' is someone who cares so much about gender roles (through indoctrination don't forget) that they fixate on their gender expression, measuring all aspects of themselves against other members of their sex and comparing them with members of the opposite sex, and come to the conclusion that they should have different labels, maybe were actually born with a body-mind mismatch. And there has been a concerted effort by the activists to make everyone introspect about their 'gender identity' - the thing that confounds you, and you keep trying endlessly to reify.

You buy into that and reinforce it by using those exact same qualities to judge that someone female is a man (only men, you think, have big muscles, wide shoulders, and facial hair), and by defining gender as someone's feelings (again, always based on sex stereotypes), and by likening it to clothing we put on as we feel on the day, and by aping the activists' pronouns, "they/them" all over the place.

I'm finding it impossible to square all that. I wonder if you can see what I'm saying. The way to make gender vanish is to recognise that it isn't a thing, it's just a subjective judgement of sex stereotypes that are indoctrinated into us as defining what the sexes should be like.

It's right what's being told to you about the militant end of the movement, they don't care about your labels on toilet doors, but on the victim end too, people, kids, think they are a particular gender (by which they literally mean sex) on the basis of what they like and don't like. And that's putting them on a conveyor belt towards separation from themselves and their families, sterilising medication, and surgeries that permanently damage perfectly healthy organs. In their thousands!

Saying there are female men can only collude with the gender cult. The fix the labels need is a simple reaffirmation of what we all knew for millennia, and have been in all the dictionary for centuries: men and boys are male; women and girls are female, and 'gender' is a polite term for 'sex' or a linguistic category.

 

[smartcooky]

But as the UK recently demonstrated, even what the law says doesn't always matter. Like the old maxim about how it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes, what the law says doesn't matter as much as how the law gets interpreted.

Indeed. The NHS continues to brazenly break the law...they have been taken to court three times, they have been comprehensively handed their arse twice, and the third case (that of Jennifer Melle) is about to start, and its likely to garner a similar result.

There are also other organizatons, especially within the British government, as well as a number of sporting bodies that are showing the Supreme Court the middle finger.

They all claim they are waiting for the government to issue ECHR guidance - what they are in fact doing is wilfully dragging their heels... there is no need to wait - the law is clear, safe spaces must be provided on the basis of biological sex. The End!!

And in fact the ECHR have already issued guidance, and presented it to the goverment. The minister responsible, Bridget Phillipson, knows what it says but she is sitting on it because she is terrified of her back-benchers.

 

[John Freestone]

Toilets could be labelled AMAB and AFAB. Some TRAs would piss in the corridor in protest.

 

[smartcooky]

Toilets could be labelled AMAB and AFAB. Some TRAs would piss in the corridor in protest.

Actually, sex is not assigned at birth it is observed... so technically, those signs should read OMAB and OFAB... but you're right about the last part...TRAs would piss in the corner!

 

[John Freestone]

I watched The Secret of Me last night on Channel 4, about an intersex guy, Jim Ambrose who, like lots of kids were and are still, was operated on at three months to 'correct' his sexual presentation, which was basically just that he had a micro-penis. Medical belief then was that people with such conditions should be castrated (removal of internal testes in the case of babies) and the small penis removed, raised as girls, given oestrogen, and, around puberty, have a fake vagina carved into their groin constructed out of a piece of their colon, and the fact kept secret from them and the world that they had ever been male.

It was going on before, but not long before Jim was born, John Money had revolutionised human biology with his invented idea, 'gender identity' and the tragic experiment of raising one of identical twin boys as a girl through this method while his brother was left intact and raised a boy, and the world had not yet woken up to the travesty - both men went on to die sad deaths, one by a possibly accidental death by overdose, the other by suicide (and Money turned out to be something of a paedophile).

The parallels with the current medical scandal were clear. Like experiments in transgender 'medicine', there was no follow-up of 'patients' whose presentation (this time mere expression of gender nonconformity in behaviour, usually presaging same-sex attraction) was deemed a problem to be fixed. Poor outcomes were swept under the rug by an establishment unwilling to consider that it could ever be fallible. In the case of transgender, a whole industry drove it and thrived on the profits, gaslighting with biased studies and corruption of biological facts. And years later, after Money's hypothesis that we just absorb maleness or femaleness by upbringing and hormones was thoroughly debunked, the unnecessary mutilations still go on.

Jim, once he found out, was traumatized and joined the campaign to stop these procedures. Still looking feminine due to the oestrogen, and presenting as female as he had from childhood, he got involved in the 'queer community'.

I was sorry to hear him repeat the current (at best) article of faith, (at worst) heinous lie, that genital reconstruction, if chosen, is life-saving. The evidence is mounting that the opposite is true. The establishment is again dragging its feet, denying, refusing to publish research damaging to the cause.

ETA: the sick irony, also, is that the activists still use 'intersex' people as a way to promulgate mutilation of children, as well as hijacking gay rights.

 

[d4m10n]

The way to make gender vanish is to recognise that it isn't a thing, it's just a subjective judgement of sex stereotypes that are indoctrinated into us as defining what the sexes should be like.

Can I ask for a bit of clarification; which of the four meanings of gender are you tryna disappear?

(I'm guessing 2 or 3, but the TRAs are pushing 4.)

ETA: I really don't think you can "make gender vanish," in any case, but I don't want to push back until it's clear what exactly you're trying to de-reify.

 

[theprestige]

Can I ask for a bit of clarification; which of the four meanings of gender are you tryna disappear?

(I'm guessing 2 or 3, but the TRAs are pushing 4.)

ETA: I really don't think you can "make gender vanish," in any case, but I don't want to push back until it's clear what exactly you're trying to de-reify.

"Gender is stereotypes."

"Can you be more clear? Do you mean gender is stereotypes, or do you mean something else?"

Why do you do this, damion?

 

[d4m10n]

Why do you do this, damion?

"kids, think they are a particular gender (by which they literally mean sex)"

AFAICT, John invoked at least three of the four meanings in just that one post.

I would also object to abolishing normative sex stereotypes themselves, e.g. "Males shouldn't compete in female leagues, Lia." or "Males shouldn't hang dong in the women's spa, Agee." Not much point in objection until we nail down what we're trying to abolish, though.

 

[Thermal]

"Gender is stereotypes."

"No, it does not mean that beyond the ken of patrons of the local watering hole. The 4th definition is the only one that matters, medically, legally, and even socially. If you want to dismiss multiple medical disciplines with a grand sweep of your arm, you are of course free to do so, but we are not going to be having much of an interesting discussion."

 

[theprestige]

"kids, think they are a particular gender (by which they literally mean sex)"

AFAICT, John invoked at least three of the four meanings in just that one post.

I would also object to abolishing normative sex stereotypes themselves, e.g. "Males shouldn't compete in female leagues, Lia." or "Males shouldn't hang dong in the women's spa, Agee." Not much point in objection until we nail down what we're trying to abolish, though.

Thanks, now I see the nature of your confusion. I don't share it, but that's okay.

 

[theprestige]

"No, it does not mean that beyond the ken of patrons of the local watering hole. The 4th definition is the only one that matters, medically, legally, and even socially. If you want to dismiss multiple medical disciplines with a grand sweep of your arm, you are of course free to do so, but we are not going to be having much of an interesting discussion."

First, tell it to John, who I was paraphrasing.

Second, congratulations. You're back to fiat self-ID. And in policy terms, you're back to men being entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want, if they simply say they want to.

Third, I don't think the 4th definition matters medically, unless this inner sense of self happens to be one of your "crossed wires" and causes debilitating distress in the person suffering from the condition. No condition, no distress, no medical interest in definition four.

 

[Thermal]

First, tell it to John, who I was paraphrasing.

I answered your paraphrasing as it related to d4m10n's query and your criticism of it.

Second, congratulations. You're back to fiat self-ID.

Never really left self-ID as being... self-identified. I forget what the 'fiat' means in That Thread speak.

And in policy terms, you're back to men being entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want, if they simply say they want to.

Wrong on the usual multiple accounts: men cannot do anything they want. Any carve-outs would only apply to that tiny fraction of men who are not entirely men. And you can't override what isn't ridden in the first place. There ain't, nor ever been (recent Potty Laws excepted) sex segregation in any meaningful or enforceable sense. What a random man says he wants does not give him carte blanche to do anything. Police and courts reject self ID when they believe it to be opportunistic.

Third, I don't think the 4th definition matters medically, unless this inner sense of self happens to be one of your "crossed wires" and causes debilitating distress in the person suffering from the condition. No condition, no distress, no medical interest in definition four.

Homosexuals have carve-outs in the law in terms of 'overriding sex segregation' marriage roles we traditionally applied, often in actual law. We modified those laws to allow homosexual marriage to override the sex segregation, even though there was no suffering a medical distress in gay couples simply wanting to marry.

 

[theprestige]

I answered your paraphrasing as it related to d4m10n's query and your criticism of it.

If you say so. I read it as a rebuttal to the claim John was making. I think my interpretation is more reasonable.

Never really left self-ID as being... self-identified. I forget what the 'fiat' means in That Thread speak.

Fair enough. I've been using it as a shorthand for "the final authority for this is the claimant, and nobody has standing to gainsay them." But I've never published a glossary, so I understand if you'd prefer to ignore it, and just think "self-ID".

Wrong on the usual multiple accounts: men cannot do anything they want. Any carve-outs would only apply to that tiny fraction of men who are not entirely men.

Who are not entirely men according to their stated inner feeling that cannot be inspected or verified or challenged in any way.

And you can't override what isn't ridden in the first place. There ain't, nor ever been (recent Potty Laws excepted) sex segregation in any meaningful or enforceable sense. What a random man says he wants does not give him carte blanche to do anything. Police and courts reject self ID when they believe it to be opportunistic.

Too subjective. And yes, there has been sex segregation enforcement, mostly through social taboos and enforcement of adjacent laws where necessary.

Homosexuals have carve-outs in the law in terms of 'overriding sex segregation' marriage roles we traditionally applied, often in actual law. We modified those laws to allow homosexual marriage to override the sex segregation, even though there was no suffering a medical distress in gay couples simply wanting to marry.

Homosexuality is not analogous to trans identification.

 

[Ziggurat]

Homosexuals have carve-outs in the law in terms of 'overriding sex segregation' marriage roles we traditionally applied, often in actual law.

No, actually, they don't. What happened is that sex segregation in marriage was legally abolished. There is no longer any sex segregation to be overridden, and both heterosexual AND homosexual people can now engage in same-sex marriages (just as homosexual people could previously engage in opposite-sex marriages). There is never any test of sexuality for legal marriage in the US.

The complete abolishment of a sex segregation is fundamentally different from maintaining sex segregation but allowing some people to override it.

 

[smartcooky]

Never really left self-ID as being... self-identified. I forget what the 'fiat' means...

Are you really going to keep up this pretense that you are stupid...

​

fiat​

a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.​

So 'fiat self-ID in this case is a formal decree by a man that he is a woman.

in That Thread speak.

That thread being "The Thread Where Intellectual Cowards and Science Deniers Fear to Tread"

Wrong on the usual multiple accounts: men cannot do anything they want.

This conflicts with your self-declared support for ge idea that men can self-ID as woman.

Any carve-outs would only apply to that tiny fraction of men who are not entirely men.

No carve outs for anyone is my position. If you were OMAB, you are not permitted in women's safe spaces...The End.

 

[Ziggurat]

Police and courts reject self ID when they believe it to be opportunistic.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do not.

Police in Fairfax County did not reject Richard Cox's self ID, despite it being obviously opportunistic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Homosexuality is not analogous to trans identification.

Hey, at least he's moved on from claiming it's analogous to race. So that's progress of a sort.

 

[theprestige]

Hey, at least he's moved on from claiming it's analogous to race. So that's progress of a sort.

I fear it's less "moved on" and more "moved another quarter turn around the circuit". We'll be back to the spurious race analogy soon enough, I believe.

 

[p0lka]

It's weird how much I agree with you whilst still thinking your views make no sense at all. You say "Transpeople care about gender roles," and that this is due to indoctrination, and it confounds you. Yes. And that is key to understanding my position that 'transpeople' is a fundamentally flawed concept. If you follow your own logic, a 'transperson' is someone who cares so much about gender roles (through indoctrination don't forget) that they fixate on their gender expression,

yes

measuring all aspects of themselves against other members of their sex and comparing them with members of the opposite sex,

no

and come to the conclusion that they should have different labels,

Yes.

maybe were actually born with a body-mind mismatch.

no, that's spiritual nonsense. It's culture/society based.

And there has been a concerted effort by the activists to make everyone introspect about their 'gender identity' - the thing that confounds you, and you keep trying endlessly to reify.

You buy into that and reinforce it by using those exact same qualities to judge that someone female is a man (only men, you think, have big muscles, wide shoulders, and facial hair), and by defining gender as someone's feelings (again, always based on sex stereotypes), and by likening it to clothing we put on as we feel on the day, and by aping the activists' pronouns, "they/them" all over the place.

I said they were more manly than me, which was in reference to the gender stereotypes.

I'm finding it impossible to square all that. I wonder if you can see what I'm saying. The way to make gender vanish is to recognise that it isn't a thing, it's just a subjective judgement of sex stereotypes that are indoctrinated into us as defining what the sexes should be like.

It is a real thing though, look at the problems it has caused by being treated as the same thing as sex.

It's right what's being told to you about the militant end of the movement, they don't care about your labels on toilet doors, but on the victim end too, people, kids, think they are a particular gender (by which they literally mean sex) on the basis of what they like and don't like. And that's putting them on a conveyor belt towards separation from themselves and their families, sterilising medication, and surgeries that permanently damage perfectly healthy organs. In their thousands!

Maybe gender and sex being separated could sort that?

Saying there are female men can only collude with the gender cult. The fix the labels need is a simple reaffirmation of what we all knew for millennia, and have been in all the dictionary for centuries: men and boys are male; women and girls are female, and 'gender' is a polite term for 'sex' or a linguistic category.

It's a cult now?

 

[theprestige]

It's a cult now?