• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Merged] Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

GdV1oEwaMAAt1Na
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think with trans-identifying females "passing" at a cursory glance is easier for a couple of reasons. 1) Facial and body hair is a very visible strong secondary sex characteristics in males, as is male-pattern baldness, so we've got millennia of evolutionary wiring that predisposes us to read "balding with stubble" as male. 2) There is a larger standard deviation in physical dimensions in males than there is females, so it's more common to see a much-shorter-than-average male than it is to see a much-taller-than-average female. So we end up being less likely to take a second glance at a short-statured, small-handed, fine-boned male-appearing person than we would for a tall-statured, big-handed, broad-shouldered female.

But that really only holds well for that cursory glance.
Click to expand...
True. But here’s the kicker. For most males, most of the time, that’s all anyone gives them.
 
theprestige said:
Men are not analogous to foxes.
Click to expand...
Insofar as all foxes are a threat to all hens, this is true.

Even if only 5% of foxes were known to eat fowl, though, we'd still keep them all out of the henhouses.

Emily's Cat said:
IIRC, cultural marxism - the extension of the core marxist philosophy of bourgeoisie versus proletariat reframed and rubbed all over any situation where one can imagine a disparate outcome. It fundamentally assumes that any existing disparity can only be explained by oppression within that context.
Click to expand...
I'd replace "imagine" with "discover" but yes, this.

For an on point example, NBs who lean into androgyny may well have trouble finding dates. We can sail past explanations rooted in the evolution of the brain via sexual selection to, you guessed it, oppression via transphobia!
 
Last edited:
The notion that a transgender woman is the reincarnation of a female spirit in a male body reflects a rich intersection of spirituality, culture, and personal identity
 
Calderaro said:
The notion that a transgender woman is the reincarnation of a female spirit in a male body reflects a rich intersection of spirituality, culture, and personal identity
Click to expand...

And imagination. It's a notion I've seen raised numerous times in many different contexts. But a few issues arise, depending on the details of the reincarnation beliefs in question.

Starting with: are there male and female spirits? If so, why? Do spirits reproduce in the spiritual realm(s)? No traditions claim so; most explicitly claim the opposite. So what would a spirit being inherently male or female even mean?

Well, then, assuming spirits are indeed sexless, would it make any sense for some spirits to only incarnate as males or only incarnate as females? Again, that's contrary to two major narratives involved in most reincarnation traditions: that incarnations go up and down in status, circumstances, and prestige based on the person's conduct in the previous one (e.g. being reborn in an "inferior" caste or sex as punishment for misbehavior); or that the purpose of multiple serial incarnations is to accumulate a wide range of life experiences as a sort of training for eventually becoming suitable for further stages of existence on higher planes. Limiting the incarnations of a sexless spirit to a single material sex would appear contrary to the purposes of either system. It's supposed to take dozens (or hundreds or thousands) of lifetimes to learn enough of the world to earn some sort of cosmic GED, but it's sufficient to only experience it as a male (or as a female) organism every time?

Then there's the question of, even assuming some system of sex-segregated incarnations, why would it sometimes go wrong and put a spirit into a "wrong-sex" body? Aren't there supposed to be karmic devas or angels or gods or something supervising the process?

One explanation I've seen for transgender incarnations from a Western occult perspective is they happen when there is too short a delay/respite in the higher planes in between incarnations of opposite sexes, which in turn is caused by the world's current high human population leading to a shortage of available spirits and consequent reduction of the recovery time between incarnations. You might enjoy the exercise of further unpacking all the assumptions in play in that narrative.
 
Myriad said:
One explanation I've seen for transgender incarnations from a Western occult perspective is they happen when there is too short a delay/respite in the higher planes in between incarnations of opposite sexes, which in turn is caused by the world's current high human population leading to a shortage of available spirits and consequent reduction of the recovery time between incarnations. You might enjoy the exercise of further unpacking all the assumptions in play in that narrative.
Click to expand...
Do you believe in Spiritism?
 
Calderaro said:
Do you believe in Spiritism?
Click to expand...

The more I examine the world and its stories, the more the word "believe" becomes a meaningless blur of pixels on the page. There are a great many interesting narratives that can be useful as cognitive tools for different purposes in different circumstances but it rarely matters whether or not one bleevzin them.

For what it's worth, I find the claims that bleef in Spiritism is justified by observed phenomena or "scientific" evidence to be insufficient to be of much use. Skepticism holds that one should withhold bleef in such cases. Fine with me.

I consider the narratives of reincarnation through the lens of this question: what's the difference between me dying and being reincarnated as another person with different circumstances, language, education, cultural narratives, personality, and memories; and me dying and then somebody else being born? There is none, in either my own or that person's life experiences. Unless a case of "past life memory" occurs which seems more than anything else to be a flaw in the concept rather than a confirmation of it; or unless as is sometimes claimed there's such a massive amount of individualized karmic record keeping or offline life-experience-memory storage going on in some invisible world behind the scenes that the systems and processes by which this happens must dwarf the living world itself, in which case what's the point? Particularly, if memories can be withheld and restored by some cosmic process or divine agents, why not just give every spirit all the memories and dispense with the living-through-multiple-lifetimes business?

That said, it certainly seems that there's some aspect of my conscious experience that's independent of all my memories, circumstances, language, and so forth. Some phenomenon that, with all those individual details stripped away, might plausibly be identical in everyone. (I have a twin brother born with severe cognitive deficits and my whole life has been a running lesson in how similar we are despite that.) If you want to call that the spark of self-awareness or the spirit or the spoul, I mean soul, go ahead, but if it's identical in everyone then why distinguish between lineages of worldly experience? Who is whose reincarnation? Maybe everyone is everyone's reincarnation, and you're already reincarnated in everyone else in the world. (In the business of shuffling souls around, who says linear time must prevail?) Maybe the Eastern mystical narrative of individual identity being an illusion is worth consideration.

Please excuse my highly insightful rambling. It's not really on topic for discussion of transsexuality, but if your intent was to bring up transsexuality as possible evidence for reincarnation, that's my take on the whole subject.
 
Well hell, most, maybe all Plains Indians believed that mutilating an enemy's body even after death (before was their preference) would cripple his ghost in Shadow Country. Odd damn sort of spirit, wouldn't you say?

But any modern-day white eye will tell you, swooning, that the Native Americans are just SO spiritual & ONE w/ nature & in TOUCH w/ the higher beings & stuff! So they ought to know, right?
 
The idea of souls which can be reincarnated and still meaningfully be the same person despite not retaining anything that's determined by the genes of the previous body (which is a lot, mentally as well as physically), let alone any memories of their previous lives, has never made the slightest sense to me. The idea that the one thing those souls do always retain is their sex, and that they might accidentally get reincarnated in a body that's the wrong one, just brings home how utterly bonkers the whole concept is.
 
I'm pretty cool with transgender issues and think in general that what a person decides is their chosen sexual identity ought to be their own business, and that there are plenty of possible and complicated issues within the brain that cause some people to feel gender dysphoria so strong that they need a gender change, and I don't really see why such decisions need to be justified. If our own children have these issues, sure, we need to understand and make sure things are what they seem to be, and proceed cautiously, but otherwise what business is it of anyone's what we do with ourselves and why should our private parts suddenly become public property. We hate to be told what to do or to be, but love telling other people what they ought to be. People worry about cultural decay and moral ambiguities and crap like that in between bombings and famines and genocides. Think of what's actually important, turn off the TV, read a book, put down the gun, loosen your tie, find someone to kiss and just shut the ◊◊◊◊ up.

But reincarnation and stuff like that? Forget it. The world as it is is marvelously complicated enough, endlessly varied, life and its mysteries virtually unfathomable, possibly unique in a universe that is fascinating beyond understanding. People spend lifetimes trying to find the ghost behind experience and forget to experience it. The wonder of being is already there if we just turn off the noise.
 
Maybe it explains women and minorities who vote Dump. They're simply the spirits of dead white racist men, accidentally reincarnated in non-white and/or female bodies. Man, spiritism has an answer to everything.
 
Courtesy of the contrarians at 'Spiked' magazine...

Former US army intelligence officer Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) was first arrested in 2010, for passing classified documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Wikileaks. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2013, before US president Barack Obama commuted his sentence, leading to his release in 2017.

Manning has now been arrested for a second time – this time over a protest about where men like him should take a leak. On 5 December, Manning and a group of about 15 protesters, led by the ‘Gender Liberation Movement’, stormed the women’s bathrooms on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Click to expand...

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/12/10/the-storming-of-the-capitol-bathrooms/
 
theprestige said:
Nitpick: Manning was never an officer.
Click to expand...
Counter nitpick: The word of "officer" in this context is a working title, NOT a rank. It is used in the same way a that a "police officer" can also be a sergeant. In the military, an intelligence officer can be an NCO such as a sergeant, a Lance Corporal or a Leading Hand, or even not an NCO at all. Bradley was an E-2 Private First Class (PFC). If his job was "to collect, compile or analyze information", that made him an intelligence office no matter his rank.
 
smartcooky said:
Counter nitpick: The word of "officer" in this context is a working title, NOT a rank. It is used in the same way a that a "police officer" can also be a sergeant. In the military, an intelligence officer can be an NCO such as a sergeant, a Lance Corporal or a Leading Hand.
Click to expand...
He was a specialist. Not even an NCO. Coincidentally, I too rose to the lowly rank of specialist in an intelligence office. Nobody ever referred to me as an intelligence officer. My actual military occupational specialty (MOS), my "working title", was Intelligence Analyst.

My boss, a lieutenant, held the MOS of Intelligence Officer. A sergeant, if we'd had one, might have held the MOS of Intelligence Senior Sergeant or Intelligence Master Sergeant.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on that matter. In addition to being a traitor and a scumbag, Bradley Manning is the kind of person to invade buildings for the purpose of intimidating our elected representatives and their staffs. Especially the women.
 
theprestige said:
Anyway, that's all I have to say on that matter. In addition to being a traitor and a scumbag, Bradley Manning is the kind of person to invade buildings for the purpose of intimidating our elected representatives and their staffs. Especially the women.
Click to expand...
The women who would overwhelmingly vote for unisex integration, given the chance to do so with their male colleagues abstaining.
 
It was his friendship with Manning that caused Craig Murray to be so vehemently pro-trans in every possible way. I don't suppose this will put him off, but it does rather give the lie to his characterisation of Manning as being so kind and generous and inoffensive.
 
Pixel42 said:
There are unisex facilities all over the Capitol. That clearly isn't enough for Manning et al.
Click to expand...
Right but isn't it a bit weird to see women being protected by the patriarchy in this particular case?

I mean, why should the Congressmen even have a voice on this?
 
d4m10n said:
Right but isn't it a bit weird to see women being protected by the patriarchy in this particular case?

I mean, why should the Congressmen even have a voice on this?
Click to expand...
It's not the gender, it's the office. The one with authority should have the decisive voice. The office has been held by women, too.
 
d4m10n said:
Right but isn't it a bit weird to see women being protected by the patriarchy in this particular case?

I mean, why should the Congressmen even have a voice on this?
Click to expand...
For the same reasons that I have a voice.

I am a man - I have opinions and a voice on this, and they both support women's rights, and the concept of having women-only safe spaces. I find the idea that biological males ought to be allowed free and unfettered access to women's shelters, rape crisis centres, toilets, changing rooms, prisons and sports to be utterly abhorrent. Further, the idea that women should have this forced upon them over their objections is even more abhorrent.

Is this virtue-signalling on my part? No, it is not!
Is this me being a patronizing male? No it is not!
Is this me putting his unwanted man's nose into women's business. No it is not!

So, what is this then? It is the kicking-in of the paternal instinct to protect the women in my life from harm; my daughters and granddaughters, my female colleagues and my female friends. These people are very important to me - I would do anything to protect them from harm (and as I have made clear in this thread previously, I have broken the law in my country to protect them, and will continue to do so).

But I'd go further than that. I'd argue that ANY men who have wives/partners, daughters, granddaughters, and who take the TRA side in this issue, and who think it's OK to allow the abrogation of the rights of women with regard to the issues being debated here, is failing in their duty to protect the women in their lives.
‎
‎
 
smartcooky said:
For the same reasons that I have a voice.

I am a man - I have opinions and a voice on this, and they both support women's rights, and the concept of having women-only safe spaces. I find the idea that biological males ought to be allowed free and unfettered access to women's shelters, rape crisis centres, toilets, changing rooms, prisons and sports to be utterly abhorrent. Further, the idea that women should have this forced upon them over their objections is even more abhorrent.

Is this virtue-signalling on my part? No, it is not!
Is this me being a patronizing male? No it is not!
Is this me putting his unwanted man's nose into women's business. No it is not!

So, what is this then? It is the kicking-in of the paternal instinct to protect the women in my life from harm; my daughters and granddaughters, my female colleagues and my female friends. These people are very important to me - I would do anything to protect them from harm (and as I have made clear in this thread previously, I have broken the law in my country to protect them, and will continue to do so).

But I'd go further than that. I'd argue that ANY men who have wives/partners, daughters, granddaughters, and who take the TRA side in this issue, and who think it's OK to allow the abrogation of the rights of women with regard to the issues being debated here, is failing in their duty to protect the women in their lives.
‎
‎
Click to expand...
Total nonsense. What you are doing is saying there is a problem when there isn't. I'm a man too. And I care very much about women being safe. They are right now without any action by the government. This is a boogeyman problem. It doesn't exist.
 
Could you possibly address at least one of the arguments that have been made in the thread disputing your assertion, acbytesla? Otherwise you look like all the other posters who make unsupported assertions on this topic (in this thread and others), and just insult anyone who disagrees.

Here's a simple recent statement of one of the major issues that many of us see with unquestioningly acceding to all TRA demands, perhaps you could start by explaining why you disagree with it.

Emily's Cat said:
The actual argument is that giving a subset of males a special dispensation to violate female boundaries on the basis of their subjective and unverifiable internal feelings about themselves has the easily foreseeable effect of entitling ALL MALES to violate female boundaries at their whim, and removes any vestige of safety or dignity for females.
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
Total nonsense. What you are doing is saying there is a problem when there isn't. I'm a man too. And I care very much about women being safe. They are right now without any action by the government. This is a boogeyman problem. It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think you are living in a fools paradise. This problem does exist, and is more prevalent than you think

Both of my daughters have been confronted by men in public toilets. One of the men claimed he had every right to be there. He became aggressive and verbally abusive when my daughter told him to get out.


ETA: If you don't believe crimes by trangender people is a real issue, you need to do some research on the subject. Here's a primer for you

2024 MURDERS
Fangze Wang/Scarlet Blake: Murder of a 30 year old Spanish man, Jorge Martin Carreno, in July 2021
Joanna Rowland-Stuart: Charged with the murder of Andrew Rowland-Stuart (partner of accused)
Steve Wright: Charged with the murder and kidnap of 17-year-old Victoria Hall in September 1999 and the attempted kidnap of a 22-year-old woman the previous night -

2024 SEXUAL OFFENCES WITH CHILD VICTIMS
Anthony/Aria Peers: Two counts of rape, attempted rape, three charges of sexual assault and two offences of inciting a child (a young girl) to engage in sexual activity
Joanna Evans: Multiple sexual assault offences against three young boys
Thomas Quinn/Chloee-Mae Danvers: Multiple child sex offences including attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and possession of indecent images of children
Samantha Norris: Three counts of making indecent photographs of a child, possession of a prohibited image of a child, and possession of extreme pornographic images depicting sexual assault of an animal
Andrew Easton: Downloading and distributing indecent images of children
Janiel Verainer/Jorven Seren: Repeat child sex offender convicted of multiple SHPO breaches
Nigel/Emma Davies: Making indecent images of children and failing to surrender to court

2024 SEXUAL OFFENCES WITH ADULT VICTIMS
Cameron Downing: Sexual assault of six young adults (and additional assault/domestic violence offences)
Alexander/Lexi Secker: Rape of a woman
Kurtis Mawson: Sexual assault on a female, voyeurism, three counts of making indecent photographs of a child and possessing an extreme pornographic image, SHPO breaches
Freddie/Xenia Jade Millar: Rapist convicted of breaching a SHPO and breaching sex offender notification requirements
Charged for suspected sex offences:
Osareen Omoruyi: Charged with two counts each of sexual assault by penetration and causing/inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
David/Denise Flynn: Charged with multiple indecent exposure offences
Arrested in connection with suspected sex offences:
David Griffiths/Penny Price: Convicted sex offender arrested in January 2024 after allegedly being caught in a sting operation by a paedophile hunter group

2024 OTHER VIOLENT OFFENCES
Scarlet Blake: Murderer (see above) who also tortured and killed a cat before putting it in a blender)
Louise Thomas (believed to be new identity of violent trans sex offender Lewis Foord): Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) of a young woman
Jason Graham/Evans: Assault of a woman (a nurse at the hospital where Graham/Evans, a rapist and murderer, was being treated)
Paris Bregazzi: Serial violent offender convicted of assaulting six women in September and of racially aggravated assault by beating of another woman in November
David/Davina Moore: Multiple offences including two arsons, criminal damage and harassment of family members
Marcus Smith/Adam Hodgson/Layla Le Fey: Four counts of sending an offensive/obscene/menacing message via public communication network (threats posted on Twitter/X to women’s rights campaigners)
Andrew Fleming/Susan Hope: Violently threatening and harassing a female neighbour and her husband, assault of a police officer
Rebecca Lowe: Possession of an offensive weapon (after violent altercation with a neighbour)
Alan/Alannah Morgan: Behaving in a threatening or abusive manner on multiple occasions towards an MP and his staff, and two charges of graffitiing business premises
Mark/Marcia Walker: Child rapist convicted of multiple further offences while in prison, including physical attacks on two prison officers and sending threatening voicemails, letters and emails to prison staff
Ella Potter: Threatening and abusive behaviour towards the police and a member of the public

But hey folks, nothing to see here but boogeymen. Amirite?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The women who would overwhelmingly vote for unisex integration, given the chance to do so with their male colleagues abstaining.
Click to expand...
I think this is a class split. Upper class women don’t really care about the threat from predatory males posing as females, because they’re largely immune to it. It’s lower class women who bear the brunt of that. And class very frequently is more important than sex in one’s identity.
 
theprestige said:
It's not the gender, it's the office. The one with authority should have the decisive voice.
Click to expand...
This is just an appeal to authority.

I'm asking why the men shouldn't voluntarily defer to the women—all of whom hold the same office—on an issue which only (potentially) effects the latter group. Why do these men feel like they need to protect the women from their own values and ideas? That approach seems fatherly at best, patriarchal at worst.
 
d4m10n said:
This is just an appeal to authority.

I'm asking why the men shouldn't voluntarily defer to the women—all of whom hold the same office—on an issue which only (potentially) effects the latter group. Why do these men feel like they need to protect the women from their own values and ideas?
Click to expand...
You say that as if congresswomen and female senators are the only women affected. But they aren’t. If you want to go by who is affected, why not give all the female staffers a vote? Why not give all the female visitors to the capitol a vote?
 
Ziggurat said:
If you want to go by who is affected, why not give all the female staffers a vote? Why not give all the female visitors to the capitol a vote?
Click to expand...
Is it your view that Congressmen are a good proxy for those female interest groups?

I mean, you bring up a good point but patriarchy probably isn't the answer.
 
d4m10n said:
Is it your view that Congressmen are a good proxy for those female interest groups?
Click to expand...
I’m saying your premise of the correct way to decide this is fundamentally wrong.
d4m10n said:
I mean, you bring up a good point but patriarchy probably isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
If I was arguing that it should only be men deciding this, you’d have a point. But I’m not, and it doesn’t. This isn’t patriarchy by any sensible definition of the word.
 
d4m10n said:
What percentage of the decision makers would be female in a full House vote?
Click to expand...
What percentage of voters who elected those representatives are female? Is a man elected by women an agent of the patriarchy, or the matriarchy? Or is that perhaps not the right lens through which to view everything?
 
Ziggurat said:
What percentage of voters who elected those representatives are female?
Click to expand...
What percentage of those voters were ever given a female choice, even in the primaries?

Seems to me that men ought to gracefully bow out of decisions about women's health, bodies, privacy, etc. unless they have no choice but to address the issue (e.g. appeals courts). If there are women who can make the choice, let them do so.
 
d4m10n said:
What percentage of those voters were ever given a female choice, even in the primaries?
Click to expand...
Given a choice? Are women somehow incapable of running unless a man allows them to?
d4m10n said:
Seems to me that men ought to gracefully bow out of decisions about women's health, bodies, privacy, etc. unless they have no choice but to address the issue (e.g. appeals courts).
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the idea that we should split democracy into a women’s section and a men’s section is pretty god damn patronizing. Also, as a father, I’m not going to bow out of decisions that affect my daughter. ◊◊◊◊ you and ◊◊◊◊ anyone else who thinks I don’t have a role in that. And before you claim that’s patriarchal, my wife has just as much of a role in what happens to my son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom