Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

It's not an attack at all. It's a neutral observation. You know, like calling a transwoman wrestling with their identity a male. I thought you said you liked that.

You're basically admitting that you're insulting me, because you do think it's an insult to call a transwoman male, and you're equating these two things. The obvious point of your comparison is to try to demonstrate that calling a transwoman a male is an insult, and you do that by comparing it to another insult that you know is an insult. It's a rational debate tactic, but 1) it exposes your professed standards as hypocritical, and 2) the comparison fails because they are not in fact the same.

The thing about calling a transwoman male isn't that it's neutral, it's that it's true. It's an objective fact. I can defend saying it on the basis that it's an objective true fact. You saying that I lack empathy isn't an objective true fact. It's a personal attack based on your subjective negative opinion of me. You cannot appeal to the objective factual nature of the claim as a defense of making that claim.

I have, and repeatedly.

No, you haven't. You've said that they're struggling with their identity, but that's not actually an explanation.

Both, and the incongruity between them.

You said that they knew what their sex was, that they weren't confused about that part at all. You were quite adamant about that when you got your panties in a twist when I talked about someone under a delusion about their sex. I understand the concept of struggling with an incongruity between what they think their gender identity is and what they know their sex is, but how can they struggle with their sex if they know what it is?

Such people basically don't exist.

There are trans people who claim that their sex (not their gender identity) is something other than their actual biological sex. We had such a person in this very thread. So either they're delusional, or they're lying. Which is it?

We are not looking for equivalency. We were demonstrating how you can understand that a word can become tainted without seeking data to support it

I never asked for data. But "because I said so" or even "because trans activists said so" isn't a good enough reason, and that's basically all you have to offer.

You want to know why "negro" is considered offensive? As you noted, it didn't used to be. But it is considered offensive now. Something changed. What changed is society. The general view about race is radically different now than it was in the 1940's. So even though the word didn't mean anything bad back then, it's still associated with that time period. And that gives it an association with the general views on race from that time period. So for a person to say that today is taken as a signal that they hold views from that time period which might be considered offensive today. It's not the word itself that's the problem, it's what it might indicate about the person saying it.

And that is also the reason why TRAs find "trans identifying male" to be offensive too. Not because the phrase itself means anything bad, but because it's not their term. And if you're not using their term, then that's a signal that you don't buy into their ideology. And THAT is what they actually find offensive. Don't think a man can become a woman? That's offensive. Don't think a transwoman is a woman? That's offensive. Don't think children should be sterilized and stunted? That's offensive.

But *I* have no reason to find disagreeing with trans ideology to be offensive. So *I* have no reason to find the term offensive. And I have no reason to stop using it. Bitch and moan all you want to, surrender to the trans ideology all you want to (even though you pretend you don't), but I'm not taking that path. And it's got nothing to do with hating trans people, it's got nothing to do with a lack of empathy. It's about the fact that I won't be bullied into denying reality, and not speaking the truth even if people find it uncomfortable.

 

[Thermal]

I certainly know from personal experience how mean-spirited and hurtful it feels having terms like "low-income" rubbed into my face while I'm struggling with the disturbing mismatch between my bank balance and my true identity as a billionaire.

Nonetheless, I resent any implication that I'm at all delusional about my actual economic situation, when what I'm actually claiming is that my material wealth simply shouldn't matter when there's expensive stuff I want to own.

And I very much resent young hotties not treating me like an irresistible young stud, and pointing out that I am in fact a middle aged dad, albeit remarkably good looking and replete with boyish charm. Were they to consistently refer to me as 'wretched old coot', knowing I am sensitive about it, some would think that unnecessarily mean, scientificaly accurate or not. YMMV.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I very much resent young hotties not treating me like an irresistible young stud, and pointing out that I am in fact a middle aged dad, albeit remarkably good looking and replete with boyish charm. Were they to consistently refer to me as 'wretched old coot', knowing I am sensitive about it, some would think that unnecessarily mean, scientificaly accurate or not. YMMV.

I won't weigh in on the question of accuracy, but there's nothing scientific about "wretched" or "coot". And you aren't claiming it's offensive if someone were to KEEP repeatedly referring to an individual as a "trans identifying male", something that isn't happening in this thread to any participant of this thread. You're claiming it's offensive to say it even once, in reference to people who aren't here and will never even know it was said. An argument based on the cumulative effects of repetition on the referent doesn't work to justify concluding single-time use is offensive.

 

[Myriad]

And I very much resent young hotties not treating me like an irresistible young stud, and pointing out that I am in fact a middle aged dad, albeit remarkably good looking and replete with boyish charm. Were they to consistently refer to me as 'wretched old coot', knowing I am sensitive about it, some would think that unnecessarily mean, scientificaly accurate or not. YMMV.

One could try to be insulting and call a middle aged dude a wretched old coot. One could try to be flattering and call him a silver fox. One could try to be polite and call him a senior citizen. But when the government really wants to know for instance what social security benefits he's eligible for, it doesn't use any of those terms. It asks, or reports, what his actual biological age is. "64."

A mean doctor might describe my weight as "fat-ass" and a kind one might describe it as "above my ideal BMI" but what an actual doctor writes in her actual chart is "237 pounds."

"64 years old" is not unnecessarily mean, even if someone is sensitive about their age. "237 pounds" is not unnecessarily mean even if someone is sensitive about their weight. "Low-income" is not unnecessarily mean, even if someone is sensitive about their wealth. (Though it comes the closest; consider how applying for economic assistance in the US requires would-be recipients to not only announce but prove they're "low-income" or "needy" or "below the poverty line" or some other unpleasant and insulting status.) There are plenty of sex-specific derogatory terms for people. "Male" is not one of them.

 

[smartcooky]

Very much agreed. I think they know it is not and cannot be so, but like I've said, I think they desperately want to feel right in their own skins. It's a position I am very sympathetic towards, and maybe I'm being overly abrasive in this thread because of it.

Ya think?

I hear this, which is why I think we should lean towards compassionate discussion rather than debate. But maybe it's too hot button an issue? I dunno.

Unfortunately, that is not going to be easy. The TRA position is, and always has been, that no discussion or debate is allowed - the truth of a child's gender expression must be affirmed and accepted without any question. There are people in Europe trying to get this codified into law, which if passed, would effectively tie the hands of any therapist or counsellor.

 

[John Freestone]

Don't be silly. You tell the inmate to report to their new cell. Then you note if they go while refusing to ask for directions, or if they say they are not good at spatial relations.

You seem to be piling in on the joke that was at your expense. Maybe that's progress. I expected an explanation (of sorts) of how the NJ justice system tests whether a self-id-tranny is true-tranny or fake-tranny. But your gender identity is clearly troll, and all you saw as an off ramp was to pretend to enjoy being a laughing stock.

 

[John Freestone]

Hey, did I change the default language in the thread from "trans-identified" to "trans-identifying"?

(I was looking for a 'proud' smilie, and that was the nearest.)

 

[theprestige]

Very much agreed. I think they know it is not and cannot be so, but like I've said, I think they desperately want to feel right in their own skins. It's a position I am very sympathetic towards, and maybe I'm being overly abrasive in this thread because of it.

I hear this, which is why I think we should lean towards compassionate discussion rather than debate. But maybe it's too hot button an issue? I dunno.

A few of us tried compassionate discussion, in the early chapters of this thread. We were immediately and unrelentingly reviled, shouted down, and gaslighted.

After a while, we realized this was the one and only strategy of Trans Privilege Activism. Its proponents were not at all interested in compassionate discussion. And they'd already browbeaten dismayingly large swaths of the medical community into submission with this strategy.

Once I realized that, I lost all appetite for compassionate discussion. TPA is bad for dysphorics, it's bad for women, and it's bad for society. There's no compassionate discussion to be had with its proponents, or even its dupes except in the service of deprogramming them.

It was the violent rejection of our attempts at compassionate discussion that turned me against even preferred pronouns.

And the person I have the least compassion for, in this whole debate, is the man who demands access to women's spaces whether women like it or not, just because he says he wants to. Just like I have no compassion for any other variety of unapologetic sex pest.

I have plenty of compassion for people who struggle with pedophilic urges. But I have zero interest in compassionate discussion about how we should accommodate NAMBLA at least a little bit, for compassion's sake.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Very much agreed. I think they know it is not and cannot be so, but like I've said, I think they desperately want to feel right in their own skins. It's a position I am very sympathetic towards, and maybe I'm being overly abrasive in this thread because of it.

I hear this, which is why I think we should lean towards compassionate discussion rather than debate. But maybe it's too hot button an issue? I dunno.

I don't think there's an easy - or only one - answer on how to best be compassionate. For that matter, there's not only one one group of trans-people - there's TW vs TM, people who experience gender dysphoria from a very young age, the heterosexual males >40 who transition (whose female counterparts are conspicuously absent).

As part of my job, I read medical records to look for symptoms/phenotypes to help us uncover the genetic basis of kids conditions. I've read records now of a~ couple dozen trans kids - all have had a prior autism or other mental health issue dx. And as you noted - desperate to fit in.

As I noted earlier, I believe the (understandable) antipathy towards the Trump admin (& their lack of empathy/tact) will continue to hold back discourse on the left back regarding trans issues. The country is now so divided and tribalism so omnipresent that I don't think reasonable discussions are probably not possible (For that matter, I think it's clear the country has little hope for a future as a cohesive unit).

 

[smartcooky]

A few of us tried compassionate discussion, in the early chapters of this thread. We were immediately and unrelentingly reviled, shouted down, and gaslighted.

After a while, we realized this was the one and only strategy of Trans Privilege Activism. Its proponents were not at all interested in compassionate discussion. And they'd already browbeaten dismayingly large swaths of the medical community into submission with this strategy.

Once I realized that, I lost all appetite for compassionate discussion. TPA is bad for dysphorics, it's bad for women, and it's bad for society. There's no compassionate discussion to be had with its proponents, or even its dupes except in the service of deprogramming them.

It was the violent rejection of our attempts at compassionate discussion that turned me against even preferred pronouns.

Any person whose entire worldview is based upon denying observable scientific reality cannot be reasoned with. As the old vanard states... You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

And the person I have the least compassion for, in this whole debate, is the man who demands access to women's spaces whether women like it or not, just because he says he wants to. Just like I have no compassion for any other variety of unapologetic sex pest.

Bingo!!

 

[John Freestone]

I don't think there's an easy - or only one - answer on how to best be compassionate. For that matter, there's not only one one group of trans-people - there's TW vs TM, people who experience gender dysphoria from a very young age, the heterosexual males >40 who transition (whose female counterparts are conspicuously absent).

As part of my job, I read medical records to look for symptoms/phenotypes to help us uncover the genetic basis of kids conditions. I've read records now of a~ couple dozen trans kids - all have had a prior autism or other mental health issue dx. And as you noted - desperate to fit in.

As I noted earlier, I believe the (understandable) antipathy towards the Trump admin (& their lack of empathy/tact) will continue to hold back discourse on the left back regarding trans issues. The country is now so divided and tribalism so omnipresent that I don't think reasonable discussions are probably not possible (For that matter, I think it's clear the country has little hope for a future as a cohesive unit).

Yes, and from following the debate for several years, it's also my opinion that a significant number of those young people who are aided in identifying as trans by compassionate (usually ideologically captured) clinicians "fit in" less and less through those efforts.

They typically experience 'gender euphoria' for weeks or months following each round of social, hormonal and medical intervention, followed by increasing dysphoria, whereupon their own 'sunk cost', and that of their trans communities online and offline, persuade them that they just haven't gone far enough and should take the next step.

Years later, having gone down that sorry route, they report that the more they passed as the opposite sex, the more they suffered mentally, troubled by feelings of inauthenticity and alienation. How can you accept yourself as a woman when every conversation with women reminds you that you're not one, when you don't share the significant experiences of womanhood and never can (or vice versa)?

They recognised what the truly compassionate had been trying to warn them of all along, and which they dismissed as hate, phobia, and regressive politics: trying to be what you're not is a fool's errand, humans can't change sex, they're never 'born in the wrong body', there aren't two puberties that a person can choose from, exogenous hormones in mega-doses are toxic, and removing healthy body parts is physical abuse.

The intrinsic lie of the phrase 'becoming my authentic self' dawns hard.

 

[John Freestone]

So ◊◊◊◊ your "compassion", @Thermal.
ETA: Or if it was "empathy", ◊◊◊◊ that. It's the same empathy as failing to point out that an anorexic is thin because their preferred designation is 'disgustingly fat', and supporting their wish for amphetamines to help them reach their desired weight. Especially when you know full well they want that because of "crossed wires somewhere upstairs".

 

[d4m10n]

Reddit threads have quite a bit to say on how rubbing "male" in the face of a transwoman who is very likely struggling with their gender identity is just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited.

You surely realize that only males can become "transwomen," so what you seem to be saying here is that it is just fine to remind them that they are male using your preferred nomenclature but it is "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited" and literally "torments trans people" to remind them them that they are male using the nomenclature preferred by gender critical feminists. This might make sense on an emotional level, but the words are conveying literally the same meaning.

Do we have to run a class here in how we don't repeatedly address people as crippled or deformed or fat

Analogies like this assume that the phrase under contention here is often used as an insult—as these terms are—but that is precisely what I'm asking you to demonstrate. Has anyone here at ISF used "trans identified male" in an insulting way?

I'll ask you the same question I posed to Ziggurat that went unanswered: do you generally call black people you dont know 'negros'?

Siempre que los hombres negros hablan español, otherwise not so much.

It is fairly easy to argue that this specific term has already fallen off the euphemism treadmill, there is even a paragraph on the relevant wiki:

Another example in American English is the replacement of "colored people" with "Negro" (euphemism by foreign language), which itself came to be replaced by either "African American" or "Black". Also in the United States the term "ethnic minorities" in the 2010s has been replaced by "people of color".​

I'm not arguing that anyone here needs to drop "negro" though, because I do not accept that this sort of linguistic treadmill is actually helpful or healthful, though it does seem to be inevitable.

Do you request documentation or statistics on whether the term is considered intentionally offensive in casual speech

Wikipedia will serve just fine in this specific case, no need for further documentation.

 

[d4m10n]

So what are you doing to oppose indirect sex discrimination, now that we've agreed what it is?

If women choose voluntarily to join a trans-inclusive inclusive gymnasium or spa or soccer league or music festival, then those women are going to have to deal with the disadvantages incurred by making those spaces inclusive of certain males—disadvantages which you might well characterize as indirect sex discrimination.

I trust women to make this call on their own, so I'm not about to white knight into the tiltyard in an effort to save them from their own choices.

 

[Ziggurat]

You surely realize that only males can become "transwomen," so what you seem to be saying here is that it is just fine to remind them that they are male using your preferred nomenclature but it is "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ mean-spirited" and literally "torments trans people" to remind them them that they are male using the nomenclature preferred by gender critical feminists. This might make sense on an emotional level, but the words are conveying literally the same meaning.

That's because it's not actually about reminding them that they are male, it's about signaling whether or not you subscribe to their ideology. Using the in-group term confirms adherence to the in-group ideas, whereas using the out-group term suggests you might hold out-group ideas. Which is why "colored people" and "people of color" hit so differently. They don't mean anything different, they're the same words in a different order, but they are interpreted as signals of what you believe.

And it's offensive to not agree with trans ideology. Therefore, it's offensive to not use their preferred terminology. It's got nothing to do with what the words themselves mean.

 

[Ziggurat]

I trust women to make this call on their own, so I'm not about to white knight onto the tiltyard in an effort to save them from their own choices.

You say this as if the choice to not do certain things is essentially cost-free, but it isn't. Women who choose to self-exclude are paying a price for this choice. It may well be the right choice, and the price might not be life-or-death stakes, but it's not fair that they have to pay that price. So to just appeal to the fact that they have the choice to self-exclude in order to claim that there's no problem is a copout.

 

[d4m10n]

You still don't understand your privilege in this regard.

Among my privileges is allowing other people to make their own choices. If women choose to keep Michfest^WP female-only, that's just fine with me. If they choose to convert it into a gender-based affair, that's also just fine with me. As Ben Franklin famously said "Mind your business."

You say this as if the choice to not do certain things is essentially cost-free

I literally mentioned "disadvantages incurred by making those spaces inclusive of certain males," so this is clearly a mischaracterization.

What you and @Aber seem to be saying is that men have a duty to save women from their own choices. That stance strikes me as fairly anti-feminist.

 

[d4m10n]

WNYC had Michael Shermer on yesterday and the show got into genderwang around the 17 minute mark.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yes, we know:

Post in thread 'Transwomen are not Women - Part 15'

Jan 28, 2026

A 'Skeptic' on Finding the Truth | The Brian Lehrer Show | WNYC

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, offers advice for evaluating information and sources and argues that getting to the truth is still possible.

www.wnyc.org

Michael Shermer appeared on this short radio phone-in show. The host, and some of the callers, found what he said about the trans issue to be rather upsetting.

• Matthew Best

• 

 

[Ziggurat]

I literally mentioned "disadvantages incurred by making those spaces inclusive of certain males," so this is clearly a mischaracterization.

That's a reference to the disadvantages to the people running those spaces (ie, a loss of customers).

What you and @Aber seem to be saying is that men have a duty to save women from their own choices.

No. You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying. When Rolfe (I think it was Rolfe, if it was someone else, that's not actually important here) says she has self-excluded from a theater because of its trans-inclusive bathrooms, and I say that this theater should not allow males in the women's bathroom, I'm not seeking to protect Rolfe from her choice to self-exclude. She doesn't need protection from her choice, because that choice is likely optimal under the circumstances. I'm seeking to protect Rolfe from the theater's choice, one which I think is decidedly NOT optimal. Do not conflate Rolfe's choice with the theater's choice. That's not my duty as a man, that's my duty as a person who understands why allowing males into the women's bathroom on the basis of self-ID is a bad idea.

You've objected to using government force to make the theater prohibit men. But I'm not actually arguing for that here. I'm arguing for an acknowledgement that allowing men into the women's bathroom is a bad policy. Even if you don't want to use government force to prevent that, why are you so hesitant to even say that it's bad policy, that they shouldn't do that?