Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

And I've noted that you and the Basher Brigade use 'trans identifying males', which is a non-negotiably offensive and derogatory term.

I refuse to surrender the terms "woman" and "man" to be appropriated by the opposite sex in order to affirm their special internal gendery feelings. I refuse to be complicit in creating intentional confusion about the sex of the people being discussed in these situations where sex matters. I also refuse to use intentionally derogatory slurs.

What is your suggested terminology that does NOT hand over the word "woman" to males, and also makes it crystal clear that I'm talking about a male person, regardless of what their feelings about their gendered soul are?

Go on, give me a polite suggestion that accomplishes those goals.

You get that, right? It ain't your call if others find that offensive. No matter what half assed justification for it you try to cook up, it's a slur. You are knowingly and willfully using derogatory language. So take your sanctimonious bull ◊◊◊◊ and shove it.

No, I'm using language that males with transgender identities and their allies find derogatory, but which makes reality clear and accessible to everyone else. As for sanctimonious BS, the ONLY terms that males with transgender identities do NOT find derogatory are terms that SURRENDER the word "woman" to them, and implicitly include them in anything and everything that is addressed to, or intended for females of the human species.

That's authoritarian zealotry, and I do not subscribe to that religion.

A catholic priest might demand that they be called "father" by everyone. But I'm not catholic, and I am not going to submit to their demand. Calling them a catholic priest sufficiently identifies their role and religion with clarity and enables reasonable communication without me having to pretend that I value their belief's hierarchical ladder of spiritual intercession.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed. There are several well known quotes related to this, some from eminent scientists, some from not-so-eminent scientists, and some from people who are not scientists at all!

Biochemist Erwin Chargaff said that "Outside his own ever-narrowing field of specialization, a scientist is a layman".
Canadian philosopher Herbert Marshall McLuhan said "The scientist rigorously defends his right to be ignorant of almost everything except his specialty", and the great Richard Feynman... "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy".

But the pick of the bunch has to be from the American philosopher, diplomat, and educator, Nicholas Butler... "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing".

Alternatively, the old adage in it's complete form: Jack of all trades, master of none; but oftentimes better than master of one.

It implicitly acknowledges that a master is a master in only one field, and often lacks even entry-level understanding of other fields.

 

[theprestige]

The term I used 'transmale' is even more reality based as it's a male who is trans, but Thermal said that wasn't offensive, so I don't think you're correct.

I'm not referring to what Thermal finds offensive or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When did society separate gender from sex as I don't see it? Laws and rules and what not haven't done it which is why it's a big issue.

You're taking too short a look.

Back in the 60s (?) second wave feminists put a fair bit of effort into prying gender roles and gender expression out of sex. The core of the argument was that females are biologically different from males, but that those differences do not and should not be used to prescribe our behaviors, careers, and capabilities. The premise was that females can be doctors and CEOs and politicians just as males can, and that there's nothing inherent in being female that precludes us from participating in society on an equal basis, being paid equivalently for equivalent work, and being recognized as fully developed humans in our own right. Those feminists argued that the set of items that fall under "gender" are those that are socially constructed and fluid. Who should do the dishes, who should wear skirts, who is expected to be obsequious and to give way to the desires of others, who is expected to be quiet and soft-spoken, who is expected to be indecisive, who is expected to focus all of their attention on children and the home, etc.

The intention was a good one, and it was instrumental in the leaps that females made in the 80s and 90s, breaking into politics and business leadership roles, and otherwise shattering that glass ceiling (or at least chipping away substantially).

Then, in the late 90s, early 00s, the activists got hold of that notion and ran with it. They repurposed the word "gender" to no longer refer to socially constructed roles and behavioral expectations... but rather to be synonymous with the relatively new concept of "gender identity". They started their efforts by heavily stressing that sex and gender are different, going so far as to attempt to say that the two are entirely unrelated. This allowed them to take the position that some males are "women" and some females are "men" based on their adopted "gender" regardless of their sex.

Then they shifted the goalposts, and started replacing sex with gender in language, policy, and law... and have now come full circle to squashing the two back together in a really nefarious way.

1) Feminists draw a distinction between gender and sex in order to remove social barriers for females
2) Trans activists expand the separation between gender and sex and argue that gender can be completely independent of sex
3) Trans activists substitute gender for sex in language, policy, and law; at a minimum they add "gender identity" to existing law as being synonymous with sex

What you're arguing for is to regress to step 2 above. I'm more inclined to revisit step 1, and just flat out say that gender is completely irrelevant in language, policy, and law, and that the words "woman" and "man" are understood to mean sex in common usage.

 

[p0lka]

It was both. Females with transgender identities who observably and definitely experience those things, but have mental breakdowns if the word "woman" includes them despite them being adult female human beings. But also males with transgender identities who demand to be included in the word "woman" any time it's used, and have massive meltdowns if something labeled "women" excludes them even if it's biological processes they cannot experience.

WTF do you think "Transwomen ARE Women" is intended to do?

When it's a teensy sliver of females linked arm in arm with a teensy sliver of males, and backed by a rather large number of males who simply don't give a ◊◊◊◊ if females lose the use of sex-specific language (p0lka for example), it is taking something away from females.

I think gender is a social construct as I've said many many times,

I'm not arguing for females or males to lose the use of sex-specific language at all, on the contrary I'm arguing that if you want to segregate by sex then use sex as the label and not gender.
All this segregating and not using the correct terms is daft. Maybe i'm actually arguing for females and males that want nothing to do with gender to reclaim sex as the important thing in certain activities. Gender is a thing but it's not relevent in those activities.

Seriously, what kind of logic are you employing here? If two percent of low income people support a massive tax hike on low income individuals, are you going to argue that it's not taking money away from low income people? All because some of them support it?

Oh yeah, it's totally going to benefit those females with transgender identities to get screenings for the prostates they don't have, right?

Or are you pretending to have entirely missed the point that when speaking of males of the human species, the term "men" was NEVER on the chopping block... but the word "women" has been replaced left, right, and upside down.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, the laws and rules worked under the assumption that gender and sex were equivalent. So womans sports would only have females and mens sports would only have males.
The reason why everyone is arguing is that the laws and rules assumed gender = sex, yet you're telling me they separated it?

The laws and rules work under the assumption that the common meaning of the word "woman" applies only to female human beings.

Your approach requires that female humans completely and irrevocably relinquish the term that identifies both our sex and our species. Why do you think females should be obligated to do this... especially when it won't accomplish what you think it will?

 

[Thermal]

I refuse to surrender the terms "woman" and "man" to be appropriated by the opposite sex in order to affirm their special internal gendery feelings. I refuse to be complicit in creating intentional confusion about the sex of the people being discussed in these situations where sex matters. I also refuse to use intentionally derogatory slurs.

What is your suggested terminology that does NOT hand over the word "woman" to males, and also makes it crystal clear that I'm talking about a male person, regardless of what their feelings about their gendered soul are?

Go on, give me a polite suggestion that accomplishes those goals.

No, I'm using language that males with transgender identities and their allies find derogatory, but which makes reality clear and accessible to everyone else. As for sanctimonious BS, the ONLY terms that males with transgender identities do NOT find derogatory are terms that SURRENDER the word "woman" to them, and implicitly include them in anything and everything that is addressed to, or intended for females of the human species.

That's authoritarian zealotry, and I do not subscribe to that religion.

A catholic priest might demand that they be called "father" by everyone. But I'm not catholic, and I am not going to submit to their demand. Calling them a catholic priest sufficiently identifies their role and religion with clarity and enables reasonable communication without me having to pretend that I value their belief's hierarchical ladder of spiritual intercession.

We've had this identical exchange several times. The repetition till you vanish and repeat it from the top a few pages later is not as interesting to me as it apparently is to you.

 

[p0lka]

I'm not referring to what Thermal finds offensive or not.

You were literally replying to this

Can you please explain why it offends you for someone to call natal males who self-identify as transgender by that label?

Seems fairly neutrally descriptive on its face.

which was a reply to Thermal, What do you mean you're not referring to what Thermal finds offensive or not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Agreed! I also object to laws which make it illegal for the owners/operators of such facilities to segregate on other bases, such as "acquired sex" as they say in British law.

I'm okay with the British approach on this. In some cases, it requires that sex-spearated facilities be provided, because they're situations where nudity or exposure is commonplace and expected. In other cases, however, it allows that facilities need not be separated by sex. But if they're NOT separated by sex, then they must be clearly labeled as mixed-sex.

It's not possible to segregate facilities on the basis of gender identity. This should be obvious, as gender identity is subjective and completely unverifiable. Thus, any facility that is intended to be separated by gender identity is by default a mixed-sex facility.

So you get two choices: Sex separated facilities, or clearly labeled mixed-sex facilities. That way there's no misunderstanding of confusion about what you should expect to see.

 

[Thermal]

The term I used 'transmale' is even more reality based as it's a male who is trans, but Thermal said that wasn't offensive, so I don't think you're correct.

*note: I guessed that it is not considered offensive because it's not actually in use.

None of them are reality based because you can't tell if the modifiers are going to or from the sex/gender indicated. Like, 'transmale' could easily be interpreted as someone who has transitioned to male, as easily as one who transitioned from male. Same with TIM and TIF. It doesn't clear anything up if you are not on board with the meaning from the jump.

 

[smartcooky]

No, I can't, because it doesn't offend me, personally. Been over that a few times already.

But you said it does offend you. You said "transgender identifying male" is, what was it again.... non-negotiably a slur or something?

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I can't, because it doesn't offend me, personally. Been over that a few times already.

Then shoosh about it. If you're not offended, and we're not offended, and nobody in this thread is personally offended... why are you so dead-set on forcing us to comply with the preferred and privileged nomenclature of people who aren't here?

Next thing you know, you'll be giving me hell for calling Mary by their given name of Mary, and leaving out the religion-specific, faith-based honorific of "Sister" in front of it, even though 1) Mary isn't participating in our conversation and 2) nobody in this discussion is catholic, and 3) I believe that everyone in this discussion is agnostic or atheistic and doesn't follow any religious tenets.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Have you considered the term under debate now? Your side is trying to negotiate its usage as being acceptable, while the recipients have made it crystal clear that it is not.

Do you understand WHY they've decided it's not acceptable? Do you accept their reasoning?

 

[p0lka]

*note: I guessed that it is not considered offensive because it's not actually in use.

None of them are reality based because you can't tell if the modifiers are going to or from the sex/gender indicated. Like, 'transmale' could easily be interpreted as someone who has transitioned to male, as easily as one who transitioned from male. Same with TIM and TIF. It doesn't clear anything up if you are not on board with the meaning from the jump.

It's reality based because you can't transition to male or from male as we don't have that technology yet. No one can change their sex. For someone to think it meant that, well I don't know what to do with that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All this segregating and not using the correct terms is daft. Maybe i'm actually arguing for females and males that want nothing to do with gender to reclaim sex as the important thing in certain activities. Gender is a thing but it's not relevent in those activities.

"Female" is insufficient on its own, or without additional terms to add specificity. "Female" is a term that applies to every member of ANY anisogamous species that has the body type that evolved to produce large gametes. It's just as apt a term for horses and geese and clownfish and ivy as it is for humans.

If you want to separate a herd, you don't say "adult female equines in the west pasture, adult male equines in the north pasture". You can simply say "mares to the west, stallions to the north". Similarly, if you want to talk about where your eggs come from, we don't need to painstakingly talk about the "adult female chicken coop" whence they're collected. Rather, we can just reference the hen coop.

Hey, did you know that nearly all of the beef you buy at the grocery comes from castrated young adult male bovines? And almost all of the chicken mean comes from recently post-pubertal male chickens? Do you really think that makes communication clearer and easier for most people?

 

[Emily's Cat]

We've had this identical exchange several times. The repetition till you vanish and repeat it from the top a few pages later is not as interesting to me as it apparently is to you.

You're the one committed to demanding that I only be able to refer to males of the human species who identify themselves as being transgender with words that imply they're actually and for realsies "women", and that my refusal to do so is horrifically and unforgiveably derogatory.

Go on, give me a polite suggestion that accomplishes those goals.

Through several identical exchanges, you always seem to skip this bit. How about you give it a go: Give me an acceptable term to refer to males who identify themselves as transgender that does NOT include the term "woman" in any form. I'll happily use an alternative that conveys biological reality in a way that is clear, unconfusing, and accurate.

All I'm waiting for is a reasonable suggestion from you or those for whom you stan.

 

[theprestige]

You were literally replying to this



which was a reply to Thermal, What do you mean you're not referring to what Thermal finds offensive or not?

Because that is a moving target. I'm referring to the north star it's aiming at.

 

[Emily's Cat]

*note: I guessed that it is not considered offensive because it's not actually in use.

None of them are reality based because you can't tell if the modifiers are going to or from the sex/gender indicated. Like, 'transmale' could easily be interpreted as someone who has transitioned to male, as easily as one who transitioned from male. Same with TIM and TIF. It doesn't clear anything up if you are not on board with the meaning from the jump.

It clears it up admirably... unless you have somehow decided that humans are sequential hermaphrodites like clownfish. Thermal, have you accepted that humans can actually for realsies change their sex?

 

[Thermal]

But you said it does offend you. You said "transgender identifying male" is, what was it again.... non-negotiably a slur or something?

I said it is considered an offensive term. That doesn't mean I am offended. I don't give a ◊◊◊◊, and find it handy for clearly defining who intentionally wants to be offensive.

 

[Ziggurat]

I could do a jordan peterson and ask you 'what do you mean by old?'

Say, from more than 20 years ago.

in an attempt to obfuscate like jordan peterson does, the twat that they are, but I won't.

Why are you using "they" pronouns for him?

Oh. That's why.

I'm not aware of any laws that define gender as distinct from sex and being a different thing entirely, no?
Can i have an example?

You keep proving that you don't know anything about this issue. But yes, you absolutely can have an example.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB132/id/2210293

According to this law, the gender of anyone in California Department of Corrections custody is whatever they say it is. Note also that prisoners get housed in men's or women's prisons according to their preference. Not even according to their self-declared gender, just their preference.