TERFs crash London Pride

Natasha Chart talks about what it's like to oppose transgender ideology:



Trans Activists’ Threats To Execute Women Sure Don’t Look Like Social Justice

According to this popular transgender pornographer, it’s just blowing off steam for a man to say that he wants to punch me, or rape me to death, because my opinions made him angry.

A few weeks ago, eight lesbian feminists jumped in to lead the London Pride parade to protest sexism and anti-lesbian hate in the LGBT movement. Men across the Left in several countries have been losing their minds about it ever since. They claim it was an intimidating act of “invalidation,” in a collective tantrum of man-baby fury.


Can you imagine? Lesbians at Pride! Protesting sexism! The nerve.
Click to expand...
 
To update an old saying, "Your right to swing your experience ends at the tip of my experience."

If people objecting to e.g. transwomen as sexual partners learn to say "I'm not attracted to you because I don't experience you as a woman," instead of "You are not a woman" or even worse "Transwomen aren't women," a large chunk of the dispute will be immediately resolved.

The whole issue is, after all, rooted in the doctrine that ones own experience is the sole relevant determiner of identity. Promoters of identity politics cannot afford to fall into the trap of being caught out explicitly dismissing others' experience.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Exactly being able to reproduce is really all that matters, and so we need to lump all sterile people together as other. It makes the whole thing much more simple. Gets rid of the going Hmm this individual has some mix of characteristics what do they count as? Well they are sterile and so don't count at all.
Click to expand...

In case this is not your own idea but not an intentional strawman, this is NOT what I suggested.
 
Can everyone agree on one thing - that the the term "cotton ceiling" is gross? I don't care how you feel about the concept, that is one bad name. It makes my skin crawl. Why not something a touch more academic?
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
It gives a simple and clear answer with out any ignoring of a percentage of the population and seems exactly what you want.
Click to expand...

Not a useful definition for these purposes. I already provided one that I think is good enough almost all the time, and an alternative (functioning SRY gene) that I think accounts for all cases or close enough to all cases that I don't care.

I never said that I need a definition that accounts for 100% of cases, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I explicitly said that some scientific terms have edge-cases where things aren't super well defined. It's not just "sex" that falls into this category.
 
pharphis said:
Not a useful definition for these purposes. I already provided one that I think is good enough almost all the time, and an alternative (functioning SRY gene) that I think accounts for all cases or close enough to all cases that I don't care.

I never said that I need a definition that accounts for 100% of cases, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I explicitly said that some scientific terms have edge-cases where things aren't super well defined. It's not just "sex" that falls into this category.
Click to expand...

Because how can it be scientific if it fails to define all males or females? This gives a nice simple clear rule for male vs female vs other.

If you are fine ignoring a percentage what percentage is too high enough to be ignored?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Because how can it be scientific if it fails to define all males or females? This gives a nice simple clear rule for male vs female vs other.

If you are fine ignoring a percentage what percentage is too high enough to be ignored?
Click to expand...

well I gave a rule for male vs female. A dichotomy. Your rule might make sense in a different context, where the context is specific reproductive capability and possible mate pairings or something...

I'm not sure what upper percentage I'm willing to ignore, but even the basic XX vs XY definition accounts for 99%+ afaik, which I am completely satisfied with for these discussions. The higher resolution definition I provided accounts for virtually everything
 
pharphis said:
well I gave a rule for male vs female. A dichotomy. Your rule might make sense in a different context, where the context is specific reproductive capability and possible mate pairings or something...

I'm not sure what upper percentage I'm willing to ignore, but even the basic XX vs XY definition accounts for 99%+ afaik, which I am completely satisfied with for these discussions. The higher resolution definition I provided accounts for virtually everything
Click to expand...

So bringing it back to the origin of this thread, are non heterosexual individuals a small enough minority that they can also be ignored?
 
Myriad said:
If people objecting to e.g. transwomen as sexual partners learn to say "I'm not attracted to you because I don't experience you as a woman," instead of "You are not a woman" or even worse "Transwomen aren't women," a large chunk of the dispute will be immediately resolved.
Click to expand...

Nope, nope.

Money on the table, right now says in 5-10 years that will be considered a transphobic opinion.

I have a strong, strong suspension that within a decade or so the idea that not being sexually attracted to transgender people who "identify" as your preferred sex will be seen by some (not all, probably not even many, hell probably not even a lot but enough so it's not statistically meaningless) will be seen as transphobic.

The argument will be you're attracted to X, they identify as X, ergo you cannot be non-attracted to them specifically because you don't consider them X. That will be seen as transphobic, denying their identity, or some other similar concept.

ETA: Suspicion, not suspension stupid auto-correct...
 
Last edited:
Of course, that's why it's illegal to only be attracted to tall people, or blondes. Of course, when you turn someone down, you don't say "You must be this tall to ride", unless you're a complete tosser. You just politely decline.
 
AFAIK ‘truscum’ as used by angry young people just means people who crap on anyone who suspects themselves of being transgender but hasn’t got the resources/interest for a diagnosis, and/or on anyone who self-describes experimentation with gender presentation/identity as themselves being transgender. “You can’t be transgender without gender dysphoria” “oh yeah, truscum?” Playground stuff.
 
Do trans people think people who are clearly not attracted to them sexually (They have said it) can be magically attracted to trans people if trans people moan enough?

Or do they just not want the people to say it out loud?
 
pharphis said:
well I gave a rule for male vs female. A dichotomy. Your rule might make sense in a different context, where the context is specific reproductive capability and possible mate pairings or something...

I'm not sure what upper percentage I'm willing to ignore, but even the basic XX vs XY definition accounts for 99%+ afaik, which I am completely satisfied with for these discussions. The higher resolution definition I provided accounts for virtually everything
Click to expand...


I was thinking about 5-α-reductase deficiency, but you know I think you've covered that one. Have you covered total androgen insensitivity too?

You know, this is nuts. Over 99% of people clearly fit in one or other of these categories. The distribution is like a dumbell where the bell-ends are the size of Jupiter and the middle bit is the width of a hair. To take this as some sort of basis for declaring that sex isn't binary but some sort of smooth continuum is flying in the face of reality. Also, actual intersex people say they're sick and tired of yelling leave us out of this for pity's sake!! They don't want to be used as game tokens by normally-developed folks who are having an argument about something different.
 
AFAIK ‘truscum’ as used by angry young people just means people who crap on anyone who suspects themselves of being transgender but hasn’t got the resources/interest for a diagnosis, and/or on anyone who self-describes experimentation with gender presentation/identity as themselves being transgender. “You can’t be transgender without gender dysphoria” “oh yeah, truscum?” Playground stuff.
Click to expand...


I have heard the term used for gender-critical trans-sexuals, who side with the feminists in this argument. People like Miranda Yardley. (Also Georgina Beyer mentioned in the other thread. I'm not sure if the Oxford Union realises it has invited a gender-critical trans-sexual who holds TERF views to come to speak to them.)

I could be wrong, but I thought that was the usual context of the term.
 
cullennz said:
Do trans people think people who are clearly not attracted to them sexually (They have said it) can be magically attracted to trans people if trans people moan enough?

Or do they just not want the people to say it out loud?
Click to expand...


It seems to be a philosophical point. I appreciate that you may not be attracted to me, they say, but if you declare that you can never be attracted to anyone with a penis then you're a hate-filled bigoted transphobe. Because transwomen have women's souls and a true lesbian is attracted to a woman's soul not her body. If you reject lady-dick then you're not a lesbian you're a vagina-fetishist.

(I actually know one of the most prominent cotton-ceiling opponents. Started giving that person a pretty wide berth since I discovered that I have to confess.)
 
isissxn said:
Can everyone agree on one thing - that the the term "cotton ceiling" is gross? I don't care how you feel about the concept, that is one bad name. It makes my skin crawl. Why not something a touch more academic?
Click to expand...


Can we agree that would be much better as just a band name?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom