• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
No worries about the quibble.

I understood Boudicca's complaint to be more generally about transsexualism and transvestism being used historically as code for "morally depraved" in popular media. Buffalo Bill was an evil cross-dresser. This depiction is common enough that authors shouldn't be tolerated in resorting to evil cross-dresser characters in their works.

It's a fair point, and I'm curious how an evil and deranged character like Buffalo Bill would be received in the modern day, where being trans isn't unanimously seen as some great character or psychological disorder.

To the best of my recollection, the author treats Bill with a bit of nuance. The character was claimed to be too mentally unwell to be a good candidate for gender reassignment surgery, at least by the assessment of our near-omniscient psychoanalyst Dr. Lecter, and that the root cause of Bill's violence is attributed to years of childhood abuse. That being said, it seems clear that the killer being trans is included as a lurid detail.

One might wonder if the author would make similar choices today.

According to the earlier article, this won't even be the first inclusion of a dangerous trans character in her crime series. The second book features a trans woman which stalks and attempts to stab another character.

Seems that the crime filled world of Rowling's imagination is just chock full of aggressive, dangerous trans women. Curious.
 
Last edited:
This is actually one of the reasons why I'm a little reluctant to engage in this discussion. Discussing whether transwomen are women or not on a forum is all well and good, but I have no illusion about the fact that very vile institutions are just waiting for opportunities to make the lives of transgender people miserable.

They would definitely see a legal decision that transwomen/transmen aren't women/men as such an opportunity and try to use it in order to erode transgender rights.

Someone would have to give me an extremely good reason to argue this point anywhere where it actually mattered.
 
That's fair, and there is probably plenty of real issues to discuss around very specific problems, such as perhaps any unfair athletic advantages, that honest people could disagree with in good faith.

I find the dark shadow of extremist bigotry makes such discussion dubious. I've noticed there is often a reluctance of some to distance themselves from such people. The CT case was mentioned here, but I see no mention that it is being spearheaded by a explicitly bigoted anti-queer group that would likely systematically sterilize, imprison, or outright murder gay and trans people if they had their way, and is doing their best to criminalize their day to day lives using the legal system.

Perhaps I am wrongly perceiving hostility where this is none, but the lack of outrage over these types of groups being involved in the anti-trans movement makes me very suspicious.

Again I fully and without reservation grant that most people who are against transgenderism do so for reasons that have no intellectual validity and no moral foundation.

I'm aware that me saying "there are no gender roles" and very bad people mad that transpeople are subverting gender roles sometimes makes for some overlap in our arguments and language on a purely surface level. Believe it doesn't make me happy. That's why I've tried (I said try, I'm human) to keep my argument as clear as possible throughout this entire discussion (and many, many discussions before it) and to re-iterate at every point that I will treat on any functional level any transperson exactly as they want to be treated, I just will not do them, myself, or the world in general the disserve of just nodding my head and going "Yeah this all makes sense to me" when asked directly just because.
 
Again I fully and without reservation grant that most people who are against transgenderism do so for reasons that have no intellectual validity and no moral foundation.

I'm aware that me saying "there are no gender roles" and very bad people mad that transpeople are subverting gender roles sometimes makes for some overlap in our arguments and language on a purely surface level. Believe it doesn't make me happy. That's why I've tried (I said try, I'm human) to keep my argument as clear as possible throughout this entire discussion (and many, many discussions before it) and to re-iterate at every point that I will treat on any functional level any transperson exactly as they want to be treated, I just will not do them, myself, or the world in general the disserve of just nodding my head and going "Yeah this all makes sense to me" when asked directly just because.

I don't doubt your intentions one bit.

It's more of a reluctance on my part to engage the issue when the specter of systematic bigotry is looming so large.

I wonder about the plantiffs in this case, for example. Perhaps they felt honestly aggrieved by being outperformed by the trans athletes. I lose all respect for them when they accept aid from the ADF. You can't break bread with bigots. The well is poisoned by associating with these people, so I no longer am concerned with the merits of the case.

I'm reluctant to engage with even people like you discussing in good faith until the vipers are out of the room, so to speak. You can't turn your back on these people even for a moment.
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt your intentions one bit.

It's more of a reluctance on my part to engage the issue when the specter of systematic bigotry is looming so large.

I wonder about the plantiffs in this case, for example. Perhaps they felt honestly aggrieved by being outperformed by the trans athletes. I lose all respect for them when they accept aid from the ADF. You can't break bread with bigots. The well is poisoned by associating with these people, so I no longer am concerned with the merits of the case.

I'm reluctant to engage with even people like you discussing in good faith until the vipers are out of the room, so to speak.

Well yeah but if a bunch of good potential allies halfway on the fence get browbeaten into just nodding "Sure this all makes sense" when they don't really believe it just because we can't even have that level of discussion out letting the darkness in... that's a center that can't hold.
 
Well yeah but if a bunch of good potential allies halfway on the fence get browbeaten into just nodding "Sure this all makes sense" when they don't really believe it just because we can't even have that level of discussion out letting the darkness in... that's a center that can't hold.

It would be nice if the darkness was acknowledged from time to time, at least. I doubt anyone would have noted that a bunch of Christian bigots were bankrolling this case unless I brought it up. Seems like a significant oversight. If intentional, a very telling one. In the interest of charity, I will assume it was an simple oversight by those bringing up this case.

I don't think "on the fence" decent people have to concede the point just because bigots get involved, but perhaps a "rain check" is in order until there's untainted ground to stand on.
 
Last edited:
Regardless at the end of the day nobody is being helped if the "I don't understand, but I will support and protect" voices aren't in the discussion. Because, real talk, the internet forgets that hardcore full on transgenderism is still really, really niche in real life not like Twitter and Tumblr where every other person you meet is going to be one.

You're not wrong, I totally understand where you are coming from, I just wonder if the actual best strategy in the long term.
 
Last edited:
It's a fair point, and I'm curious how an evil and deranged character like Buffalo Bill would be received in the modern day, where being trans isn't unanimously seen as some great character or psychological disorder.

To the best of my recollection, the author treats Bill with a bit of nuance. The character was claimed to be too mentally unwell to be a good candidate for gender reassignment surgery, at least by the assessment of our near-omniscient psychoanalyst Dr. Lecter, and that the root cause of Bill's violence is attributed to years of childhood abuse. That being said, it seems clear that the killer being trans is included as a lurid detail.

One might wonder if the author would make similar choices today.
Can't possibly be any worse than the choices the author ended up making in the sequels.

According to the earlier article, this won't even be the first inclusion of a dangerous trans character in her crime series. The second book features a trans woman which stalks and attempts to stab another character.

Seems that the crime filled world of Rowling's imagination is just chock full of aggressive, dangerous trans women. Curious.

Aw. You were saying interesting and insightful stuff, and then suddenly you went all ignorant.
 
Yes. The entire reason Iran has been at the forefront of trans rights and sex reassignment is exactly because homosexuality is forbidden in Iran, so homosexuals get the choice: execution or sex change. There is every reason to suspect that there are many such cases even in the West, not only do we have statements by former psychologists at the relevant treatment centers to that effect, but I'm surprised that you seem to think there wouldn't be plenty of people who'd prefer a heterosexual daughter over a homosexual son, out of religious or other reasons ultimately rooted in homophobia.

I wouldn't say Iran is at the 'forefront of trans rights' because I understand transgender people in Iran suffer considerable social ostracism and discrimination. However, it does have one of the highest rates of sex reassignment surgery in the world, specifically as you say to erase homosexuality and gender non-conformity.
 
I agree. It's like expecting to have a rational debate with religious fundamentalists.

I found this article from a former ideologue interesting.

"When asked why I believed transwomen were, in fact, women, I asserted that some boys and girls are “born in the wrong body,” and that our brains are gendered (thus, transwomen had a male body, but a “woman’s brain”). When asked to elaborate, I pointed to vague notions of “knowing” and “feeling,” rather than terms that were rooted in science and could be operationalized. When asked to explain further, I resorted to circular reasoning: some men feel like women, and only women can feel like women, therefore some men are women. When pushed on the question of how it is possible to “feel like a woman,” I’d argue that because I “felt” like a woman, it must be true. Other times I resorted to name-calling, labeling women who said transwomen were male “bigots” who were “stuck in the ‘50s,” and didn’t believe in civil rights. If all else failed, I’d mention my PhD. Then, I would end the conversation, as I did not believe I needed to reflect upon this further. After all, I had federal law backing me. Clearly I was on the right side of history. And so, instead of listening, I kept climbing my personal peak, feeling more righteous the higher I went."

"Now, when I reflect on my “switch” from being an unrelenting trans activist/“ally” to being critical of gender identity ideology and legislation, I’m chilled at how easy it was for me — a psychologist (now retired), ostensibly trained to understand the human mind — to become so caught up in the momentum of “trans rights” that I avoided critical thought, much like a new member of a cult. And, while I’m reluctant to call trans activism a “cult,” I’m aware of many disconcerting similarities: the absolute refusal to allow anyone to criticize issues; silencing, smearing, and ostracizing those who do ask questions (in this case, labeling them “transphobic”) about the ideology of transgenderism; and pressuring individuals (from parents to health professionals) to blindly adhere to the view that some people are “born in the wrong body,” and that the only way to “fix” this error is through medical intervention, such as puberty-suppressing drugs, cross-sex hormones, and various surgeries, rather than with psychological intervention. And, much like in a cult, those who push gender identity ideology discourage independent thought, and instead respond to requests for evidence and facts to support their beliefs with platitudes, mantras, and scare tactics, repeated over and over, until they become reality."

Wow... I read the whole thing and it just confirms how easy it is to use propaganda against us to make a potential ally hate us.

All it took were the actions of one woman who does not represent all of us and who's actions have been reprehensible to turn her. And linking the trans rights movement with Naziism and the Holocaust?! Absolutely deranged.

Ironically, her attitudes towards us became much more Nazi-like after she came to this "revelation" about us. But history has shown how easy it is to get the oppressed to hate the oppressed when they are different.
 
One of the more intriguing possibilities is that maybe in some cases they don’t. There has been very little research into mixed sex chimerism.

Sure. But just like intersex conditions, let's remember that most intersex people do NOT identify as trans. And most trans people are NOT intersex.

The existence of a very, very few hermophroditic people whose doctors and parents made a choice for them as infants doesn't add anything (positive or negative) to the trans discussion. Chimerism in rare, and really not supporting evidence for trans identification, nor an argument against it.

As a silly analogy, the existence of albinism among people of african ethnicity neither supports nor counters the concept of transracialism.
 
Interesting choice on labeling trans-acceptance a matter of orthodoxy by ideologues. Meanwhile the anti-trans case against the CT school district is brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, and Christian nonprofit that wants to reassert Christian hegemony over the country.



https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom

Champions of individual liberty and free thought.

TERFs and the religious right are increasingly finding common ground, probably because they are realizing their views ultimately come from the same place. An outdated view of feminism and gender that does nothing but repress people.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/radic...christians-team-up-against-transgender-people
 
Last edited:
I think the point is not that this is widespread. The point is that self-ID allows an opening that could be abused with little recourse until a tangible crime can be proven. While the number of incidents are few, it does demonstrate that the loophole exists.

Homo/bisexual men don't even have to ID themselves as anything and yet they can share changing rooms and public showers with other males and that's apparently totally okay.

People have indeed argued, and continue to argue, that gay men can not be trusted to behave. The arguments are the same as those used to justify denying transwomen access to women's areas.

I'm not arguing, and I don't think I've ever argued, that people should be allowed to change their legally recognized sex arbitrarily on their own accord. There are very good reasons for regulating the process of legally changing ones sex or gender, although it is mostly about keeping people from making rash decisions that have long term consequences.

Yet some people are intent on excluding transwomen from women's areas when they apparently don't have any issue with the presence of creatures who have such severe chromosomal/genetic abnormalities that makes one wonder whether they even qualify as human let alone one of the female sex. Or the perverse lesbians that are out there perving up on other females with impunity (I've read about how lesbian athletes and footballers can behave in changing rooms).
 
No we've established only straight, cismen are unhinged sex monsters that have to be quarantined from everyone else.
 
No worries about the quibble.

I understood Boudicca's complaint to be more generally about transsexualism and transvestism being used historically as code for "morally depraved" in popular media. Buffalo Bill was an evil cross-dresser. This depiction is common enough that authors shouldn't be tolerated in resorting to evil cross-dresser characters in their works.

Exactly. The two were never distinguished against in the past, it was all considered a perversion regardless of the motivation for cross dressing. And it was always considered at least part of the reason why they were murdering, raping, etc.

It's a trope that needs to die, but people like Rowling want to keep it alive because it feeds into her hatred of us and our views.
 
Black minority: "I demand the right to sit down on the bus, even if the bus is full and a white person boards the bus".

White majority: "The rights of the few trump the rights of the many. Bollocks to that."

:dl:

You just made my argument for you and didn't even realise it.

We told those whites to piss off, because the ones who wanted segregation were a minority. The minority lost.

If you want a racial analogy, you're supporting gender Apartheid.

Please carry on.
 
Homo/bisexual men don't even have to ID themselves as anything and yet they can share changing rooms and public showers with other males and that's apparently totally okay.

People have indeed argued, and continue to argue, that gay men can not be trusted to behave. The arguments are the same as those used to justify denying transwomen access to women's areas.

I'm not arguing, and I don't think I've ever argued, that people should be allowed to change their legally recognized sex arbitrarily on their own accord. There are very good reasons for regulating the process of legally changing ones sex or gender, although it is mostly about keeping people from making rash decisions that have long term consequences.

Yet some people are intent on excluding transwomen from women's areas when they apparently don't have any issue with the presence of creatures who have such severe chromosomal/genetic abnormalities that makes one wonder whether they even qualify as human let alone one of the female sex. Or the perverse lesbians that are out there perving up on other females with impunity (I've read about how lesbian athletes and footballers can behave in changing rooms).

Yep. Like I have brought up before, when I was gay and in the military at a time when that still wasn't allowed and I would get kicked out if anyone found out (which ended up making me paranoid), I had guys openly say to me how they didn't trust gay men at all.

They would say they were afraid we would sexually assault them in the showers or rape them in the dorms. They were afraid of even the possibility of us coming on to them and would react violently to the thought of it. They didn't know I was gay, but the kind of open hate and distrust I felt against me made it so I couldn't trust them and became more isolated.

All this is how I see things happening in the trans rights debate right now. The parallels between the gay rights movement and trans rights are almost 1:1, and I should know.
 
So what you are saying is that somehow the fact that transwomen actually strive to act and look like other women flew over your head?

Are you aware of the substantial push to accept as women people who do nothing at all to look and act like other women? The push to have self-id alone be considered sufficient, with no expected change in looks or behaviors?
 
:dl:

You just made my argument for you and didn't even realise it.

We told those whites to piss off, because the ones who wanted segregation were a minority. The minority lost.

If you want a racial analogy, you're supporting gender Apartheid.

Please carry on.

You just ended up strengthening the argument further.

I suppose it is much more similar to your country, as the whites (transphobes and TERFs in this analogy) who want segregation ARE a minority, and you ARE losing.

You want to segregate us, but we have been winning the legal arguments to protect our rights from you.
 
I don't really know what idea you're intending to convey here.

Because I'd say you're being asked to do exactly the same wrt transgender people as you are asked to do with homosexual people: be accepting, understanding, accommodating and non-discriminatory, in a way which respects everyone's rights (including your own); and with particular respect to transgender people: to accept that properly-diagnosed transgender people have a valid lived condition (and one which is in line with mainstream medical thinking), and to allow them to live their lives in the gender to which they have transitioned (again, with the proviso that everyone's reasonable concerns are addressed with dignity and respect).

If that's what was being asked for, there would be a lot less discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom