• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
Oh, that's fantastic! What do most people in this thread the relationship between sex and gender is?
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself only, I think the concept of sex is pretty simple: There are two sexes of humans and we reproduce sexually. Just like our nearest ancestors and relatives in the evolutionary tree.

I don't think the word "gender" is really useful when applied to humans. It's a new development, and seems to only muddy the waters and often leads people to talk about things that don't really exist. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I'm more and more thinking that it complicated discussions rather than simplifying them. It also seems to be used for that very purpose by some.

It seems like anytime I see someone use the word "gender" they could have just used the word "sex" instead.

Upchurch said:
I can't remember reading anyone of authority saying it explicitly, but gender is probably also bimodal. The current controversy is mostly stemming from politics.
Click to expand...

Best be careful. This type of bigoted far-right talk will get you voted off of Progressive Island!
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
I know people hate when a question prompts another question, but here it is: What about girls who are displaced from a team by cis girls? Are those girls' wants and needs of lesser importance than of the cis girls who made the team? If not, why not and how is that different from trans girls?
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are joking. Because if you aren’t, this is a hopelessly disingenuous question.

Women who are fairly displaced from a team by a better woman athlete almost universally recognise they weren’t quite good enough, congratulate the replacement and usually train harder.
 
There are people out there who just rolled anti-gay tropes right into the trans-movement without even missing beat. Any sexual deviation (in a literal, demographic sense) has always been painted as predatory. It does this discussion no good to just pretend that isn't true.

As I said nobody here is obligated to pretend that so much of this is the exact same language used to demonize gays.

And there's a... certain demographic who has two and exactly two accusations for everything and one of those is "your preying on young children."
 
varwoche said:
Part of that wiring is having sensitive nerve endings on our sex organs. I realize that falls far short of proving my claim. I'm not a biologist so I'm going to study up a bit and hopefully provide citations in the not-too-distant future.

It's easier to grasp with animal behaviors.
Click to expand...

Humans are animals ;)

I get what you're saying, but I also think this is one of the unstated assumptions of the entire premise behind gender identity - that humans are NOT animals, that we're somehow completely different from animals. The trans activist position is very similar to intelligent design -it relies on an unstated assumption of human exceptionalism, the unstated assumption of a soul that sets us apart from the natural world, and it uses the complexity of systems as a counter to evolution. The whole "sex is a spectrum" argument is pretty much a rebranding of "eyes are super complex", and both take a few leaps from their to reach their conclusion... in the case of transgender ideology, that conclusion is that sex is a mystery, we can't tell male from female, some people are in-between sexes, and therefore we just have to accept that gender identity is real and more meaningful than sex.

Eyeball/sex is super complex... <gish gallops and distractions>... totally can't happen/can't tell... <leaps of faith>... therefore goddidit/gendery souls
 
Upchurch said:
Again, while there is a very loud opinion in this thread that gender and sex are synonymous
Click to expand...

If you were paying attention, you might note that the loudest opinion in this thread, over and over again, is "either they're synonymous or they're not, pick a ******* side and stop conflating the two".

It's something Joe Morgue has brought up repeatedly. And it's your side of this fiasco that insists on substituting one for the other as it pleases you, making the entirety of your position incoherent nonsense.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm scratching my head over what any of those questions have to do with Ethnic Studies World History in the first place.
Click to expand...

Probably some woke retcon nonsense about how "two-souls" traditions in some primitive societies means a woman's mind in a man's body is a real thing and anyone who says they have it is reporting a true condition that's truly true, so therefore the only correct answer is yes some women do have penises.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'd argue that's not gaydar, that's just intimacy. I'd argue that gaydar is a claim to "have a nose for these things" generally, not a claim that you can get to know an individual so well that you pick up on their sexuality.

Whereas picking up on biological sex in general really does seem to be a common ability that most people have to one degree or another.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I was mostly trying to point out that being able to discern a person's sexual orientation without them explicitly telling you is entirely possible, but is mostly a matter of how well you know them, and is not likely to apply to random strangers you pass on the sidewalk.

You know, I've really only run across people making claims of having good "gaydar" in social situations that involve some sort of potential to hook up. Like, in clubs or bars where sex is often part of the social fabric. I don't think I've ever run across someone claiming to have fantastic gaydar for that person on the other side of the street that they only just saw for the very first time :)
 
Upchurch said:
What, you mean like what Intelligent Design advocates want? That kind of teaching the controversy?

At the end of the day, it's a classroom, not a public forum. The test is based off of the material taught. The test is not a discussion board.
Click to expand...

ITT, Upchurch expresses their approval of public schools requiring their students to adhere to beliefs in contradiction of fact.

It's a classroom. Classrooms should not be teaching children religion. They definitely shouldn't be marking their tests as wrong for providing science based answers when the teacher wanted them to regurgitate a catechism.
 
Upchurch said:
And, Intellectual Design is not controversial among the people who actually study evolution. It has instead been made controversial by advocates pushing an agenda.
Click to expand...

The fact that only males have pensises and only females are capable of pregnancy is also not controversial among people who study evolution.

It's the philosophers, sociologists, and religious adherents who are push an agenda to make it controversial.
 
varwoche said:
I chose that wording to prempt possible objections that would distract from my point, while staying within the bounds of reality.
Click to expand...
I know :) I was using your posts as a springboard to reiterate a point of my own.

varwoche said:
Speaking of my point, I re-invite Upchurch to answer: What about girls who are displaced from a team by trans? Why are these girls' wants and needs of lesser importance?
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. I'm starting to think that Upchurch has engaged a forum function of which we shall not speak in order to avoid having to address questions for which they can't provide a reasonable answer.
 
Upchurch said:
I know people hate when a question prompts another question, but here it is: What about girls who are displaced from a team by cis girls? Are those girls' wants and needs of lesser importance than of the cis girls who made the team? If not, why not and how is that different from trans girls?

ETA: An I'll re-invite you to answer: Are you willing to put your 99% accurate DNA perception to the test?
Click to expand...

This is yet one more instance of the patented Upchurch Approach... "I'm not going to answer your question until you answer my question that I just asked you after you asked me your question"

:rolleyes: This is not a good-faith interaction.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I think at a certain point, the refusal of the TRA movement to deal with their fellow travelers becomes objectively pro-groomer.
Click to expand...

True. There's some wiggle room early on, because groomers try to hide. But at some point, when there've been repeated instances, and there's language wedged into trans-related position statements and policy proposal... it really needs to be addressed.
 
Emily's Cat said:
True. There's some wiggle room early on, because groomers try to hide. But at some point, when there've been repeated instances, and there's language wedged into trans-related position statements and policy proposal... it really needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...

The foundation of queer theory is pedophilia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom