Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[p0lka]

Gotcha. We'll put all of the mares, all of the hens, all of the nannys, and all of the women and girls in the west pasture then. Sounds like a great solution that can't possibly result in any confusion. And of course, the women and girls couldn't possibly take offense at being forcibly robbed of their humanity.

You could obviously say female horses or female goats if you wanted to split according to species.
Or you could label them according to what you said with the gender terms as they don't actually care what you call them. It would only be the humans that would have an issue with it.

But, but, don't you know that rooster is a gender term, not a sex term? So obviously roosters can totally lay eggs if that's how they identify, right? RIGHT?!?!?!

Mixing up gender and sex doesn't work. Chickens don't have a societal pressure to conform to a role, it's us that put the labels on them. Our labels is that a rooster is a male so no they can't.

If chickens ever become sentient and build a society that says they have to be a rooster just because they are male, then I'll be arguing about that too.

 

[John Freestone]

Does decriminalization of trans-inclusive spaces (e.g. spas or gyms) count as pandering in the sense used here?

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "trans-inclusive spaces". In one sense, the world needs to be trans-inclusive (as I suggested earlier - victims of the cult need to live and have access to reasonable services that we all do). I'm not sure about spas and gyms. On reflection, I guess if somewhere is specifically advertised as segregated on the basis of identification, it might be simply considered the same as mixed sex. Perhaps my blanket ban is excessive, or maybe a gradual phasing out might be used, not issuing licences for proposed new ventures, or maybe it just needs society to gradually get over this psychic episode and gradually they'll phase themselves out naturally.

I've no doubt this would be the case where I live, much doubt that it would be the case in more progressive states like NY & NJ.

Of course. Some states are advertising for runaway 'trans kids' who can't get poisoned and mutilated elsewhere to come to them.

You'd need something like the Great Firewall^WP to stuff all the gender ideology memes back in the tube.

I'm not sure what you're talking about there, despite knowing what the Great Firewall is, and what a meme is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Try it with a term you might be more familiar with the ab/use of: the n-word.

Can we stretch the limits of human understanding and acknowledge the term is non-negotiably offensive, even if it is used jocularly among those it is directed at? Doubly so if the group using it is in flat opposition to the group it is aimed at?

Are you talking about a "hard R" or a "soft A" variant of the n-word? And is the negotiability of it dependent on the melanin content of the speaker?

Clearly it's NOT non-negotiably offensive, given that a non-negligible number of black people use the term. Also, of course, self-proclaimed social justice warriors use the term when they're fallaciously shoving it into the mouths of strawmen.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

That will be why you keep getting it wrong... you're using an uncalibrated reference device!

 

[John Freestone]

this weird-ass campaign you guys are on to rebrand

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I don't think it is limited to anyone in particular beyond their gender selfID. Some transition, some don't, some for financial reasons, some for others. I don't seek to be a dick to any of them.

No, I dont care about a one size fits all name that can't even theoretically encompass everyone's conceivable gender ID out there.

I've answered this question multiple times. Please stop trolling. It's been a solid half a year for you.

It's not trolling to try to get you to understand the consequences of your position.

MtF implies that the male in question has 1) become female 2) via surgical intervention. The first is flat out false all the time, and the second is false 80% of the time.

So you want us to STOP using the term "transgender-identifying male" because it's "non-negotiably offensive" and instead you want us to use a term that strongly implies something that is false over 80% of the time?

I would also suggest that you go poll people with transgender identities before you take it upon yourself to decide what *they* will accept as an alternative to the term that you have proclaimed is unacceptably offensive to them. I believe you'll find that MtF isn't as acceptable as you think it ought to be - in particular there's a divide between those who think that surgical alteration is expected in order to be recognizes as trans versus those who think only a feeling is required. In shorthand, truscum accepts MtF (and also TiM, by the way). About half of tucute accept it specifically because they believe that their feelings *literally* make them female, because they believe they have a "female brain" and they want the "tF" part that implies they've *actually* become female. The other half of tucute reject it outright and consider it offensive, because it implies a physical transition, and they have taken the position that no objective change to their bodies should ever be required, and that "womanhood" is nothing more than how a person feels about their "gender".

You're trying to be respectful to a group of people who can't even be respectful to each other, and who are routinely outright hostile to female human beings.

At some point, at least for me, it's not worth the effort of trying to appease the unapeasable. The only thing that will appease them is complete capitulation, and I'm not going to do that.

So with as much respect as you choose to infer, I will continue to use unambiguously accurate terminology, and I will use it will no ill intent and no hatred.

 

[smartcooky]

I demand nothing. Choose what you like, but own your chosen slur, and for damn sure don't get preachy with me about the terms I use.

Gave you some earlier, that you surprisingly agreed to if a little reluctantly (and I kind of agree with that): MtF and FtM.

Nope. They don't state what the person actually is, they affirm what the person wishes to be
The also reference "female" which as bad, if not worse, than referencing "women"

So you absolutely have not answered @Emily's Cat's question

 

[Ziggurat]

You should read that back and ponder. This is not about winning anything but getting to the correctness of the matter, and you've successfully argued yourself up your own arsehole.

You are under some serious misunderstanding of the reality of what's going on. You think that your definitions control reality, and that other people will operate according to your understanding of those words.

The world has never worked that way. Pull your own head out of your own arsehole.

 

[John Freestone]

I'll give you my example of what they should ask each individual entering into the custody blah blah that does not mix gender and sex, 'What is your gender?' then 'what is your sex?' it's that simple?

Why would you ask them their gender? What would the purpose be of doing that? You already state that it is as temporary as clothing one puts on for the day according to mood, so why would you ask prison inmates what their gendre du jour is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You could obviously say female horses or female goats if you wanted to split according to species.

You could, sure. Or... and hear me out... you could use the terms "mare" and "nanny" since everybody knows what that means.

Making language less clear and more complex is a bit 1984.

Or you could label them according to what you said with the gender terms as they don't actually care what you call them. It would only be the humans that would have an issue with it.

They're not gender terms when we use them for animals. They're terms that encapsulate both sex and species. In exactly the same way that "woman" does. And similar to how humans use the word "man" to mean both adult human male and to mean all humans collectively, other species have dual-use terms. For cattle, for example, we frequently use "cows" to mean both cows (mature female bovines) and bulls (mature intact male bovines) and steers (mature castrated male bovines) and calves (immature bovines of either sex). "Goose" refers to both a female of the species and to the species as a whole. "Fox" is a male vulpine, but also the collective.

Mixing up gender and sex doesn't work. Chickens don't have a societal pressure to conform to a role, it's us that put the labels on them. Our labels is that a rooster is a male so no they can't.

If chickens ever become sentient and build a society that says they have to be a rooster just because they are male, then I'll be arguing about that too.

Alternatively, we could recognize that gender identity is a social construct. Then we can just ignore it as being irrelevant in normal conversation and we only have to bother with it in some rare philosophical academic situations.

 

[p0lka]

Why would you ask them their gender? What would the purpose be of doing that? You already state that it is as temporary as clothing one puts on for the day according to mood, so why would you ask prison inmates what their gendre du jour is?

See the context of what I was replying to.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "trans-inclusive spaces"

Places which hold themselves out to the public as inclusive of trans folks (e.g. www.SolcanaFitness.com) and which have adopted gender identity sorting of their own volition rather than being forced to do so by law. My contention is that it would be unduly authoritarian to legally ban these gyms or else force them to convert themselves into the sort of sex-segregated spaces which I happen to prefer for myself and my family (e.g. YMCA).

Perhaps my blanket ban is excessive, or maybe a gradual phasing out might be used, not issuing licences for proposed new ventures, or maybe it just needs society to gradually get over this psychic episode and gradually they'll phase themselves out naturally.

Alternatively, we could try to collectively get past the idea that everyone has to adopt the same approach on moral grounds.

 

[d4m10n]

I said it is considered an offensive term.

Considered by whom? Anyone in this forum?

 

[Ziggurat]

Alternatively, we could try to collectively get past the idea that everyone has to adopt the same approach on moral grounds.

Your privilege keeps showing.

 

[d4m10n]

Your privilege keeps showing.

This wasn't a persuasive comeback when the social justice folks coined it and it didn't age well.

 

[Ziggurat]

This wasn't a persuasive comeback when the social justice folks coined it and it didn't age well.

And yet, there's some truth to it. Which is why it caught on in the first place. If you think the problem with the SJW idea is that privilege isn't ever invisible to those who have it, then you really don't understand where they went wrong with it.

You keep treating this as if male access to female spaces is just some preference, and all preferences are equivalent. But they aren't all equivalent, and this isn't just a preference. And you very much are privileged to be able to treat is as if it was mere preference.

 

[John Freestone]

See the context of what I was replying to.

I know what the context is. You replied that you would ask (first) what prison inmates' gender is, then what their sex is. I'm not sure much more context is required, is it? If you just mean you made a mistake and of course you wouldn't ask them what their gender is, because it's utterly irrelevant, then say so. If there's some reason you think we should ask them what their gender is, tell me what it is. It's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rocket science.

 

[Rolfe]

I believe that everyone in this discussion is agnostic or atheistic and doesn't follow any religious tenets.

That part is incorrect, as I believe we have discussed a few times.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That part is incorrect, as I believe we have discussed a few times.

Apologies for forgetting the handful of outliers who don't spend much time talking about religion, then

 

[Thermal]

Considered by whom? Anyone in this forum?

"Can't we use slurs if they are not here?" is not the persuasive argument you might think.