Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

No wells have been poisoned, no hands have been wrung; I asked a simple question, and you responded with denialism despite obvious examples of hate and discrimination, such as the military service ban in the U.S.

I do not see barring trans identified individuals from military service as an "actual social problem" (your words). Nor do I see it as particularly hateful. Just pragmatic.

I don't deny that it's intolerant, but as you wisely acknowledge, intolerance is often a good thing - a social solution, not a social problem.

(No mention was made of the word you put in quotation marks there, which makes me wonder if you meant to be addressing @Thermal.)

Those were scare quotes around a colloquialism.

Only one of those two things can be a significant problem at any given time?

I think only one of them is a significant problem at this time.

 

[Thermal]

For those of us who see this, it's at the core of the trans cult.

Agreed, because it is fiction, as is the twiiterer's claim that it afflicts "most" of transpeople. Your portrayal of the "trans cult" is indeed imaginary.

So long as one side is aware of all this and the other side is convinced that nearly all trans-identifying men are clones of Hayley Cropper, we'll go on talking past each other.

Agreed. As long as the anti-trans side relies on fictional shock scenes of people who aren't even trans instead of reality, we'll go on talking past each other.

I think the people who still argue from the position that trans-identifying men should be assumed to be vulnerable, marginalised souls who simply want to live quietly in their cross-dressing persona should read this. Properly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904281001481646493

"This page doesn't exist". Poetic as an anti-trans argument, I guess.

 

[Rolfe]

"Let's just use the Secretary of Defense Hegseth's own words: Transgender people lack warrior ethos, are liars, lack integrity, are not humble, are selfish and can't meet physical mental fitness requirements."

Pentagon 'cherry picked' studies to support transgender service member ban, judge says

A judge on Wednesday signaled that she was deeply skeptical that the Pentagon's handling of transgender service members complies with federal law.

abcnews.go.com

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

 

[Rolfe]

Just a literal sense for me, thanks.

Fine. We don't tolerate people going into places where they have no right to be. If you want to co-opt the word "intolerant" (a word with a distinctly different meaning in normal speech) for this, you do you.

 

[Rolfe]

Agreed, because it is fiction, as is the twiiterer's claim that it afflicts "most" of transpeople. Your portrayal of the "trans cult" is indeed imaginary.

Agreed. As long as the anti-trans side relies on fictional shock scenes of people who aren't even trans instead of reality, we'll go on talking past each other.


"This page doesn't exist". Poetic as an anti-trans argument, I guess.

As long as the trans-lovers continue to rely on the fiction that "most" trans-identifying men are shy, inoffensive flowers who deserve to be cherished, we'll be talking past each other forever. Autogynaephilia is the commonest driver of male trans-identification, and you can call it fictional all you like, it won't change that. I get it that you think it's disgusting and creepy and perverted, therefore you don't want to think about the possibility, but that doesn't change reality.

"People who aren't really trans" has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in this thread as an excuse to discount all the truly disgusting trans excesses we see all over the place, from Isla Bryson to this charmer. You want to allow any man who says he's trans into women-only spaces. How do you propose to keep this one, and all those like him, out?

That link works perfectly well for me, although I don't know why it doesn't render to the tweet itself. However, as it wasn't the first tweet in the thread, I reposted a link to the first tweet in the next post. "See no evil" may be an admirable precept in certain circumstances, but when we're struggling with a genuine evil, it doesn't help.

 

[Myriad]

Just a literal sense for me, thanks.

Given that laws literally delineate what society literally does not tolerate, I can safely conclude that your usage of "intolerant" is an exact literal synonym of "law-abiding."

 

[theprestige]

Given that laws literally delineate what society literally does not tolerate, I can safely conclude that your usage of "intolerant" is an exact literal synonym of "law-abiding."

But also, somehow, "an actual social problem".

 

[Rolfe]

I don't see "hate and intolerance directed against transgender people" as being "an actual social problem", no. I see the aggressive, demanding, misogynistic behaviour of a significant number of trans-identifying men as being an actual social problem. That they're finally getting some push-back is welcome.

 

[Thermal]

As long as the trans-lovers continue to rely on the fiction that "most" trans-identifying men are shy, inoffensive flowers who deserve to be cherished, we'll be talking past each other forever. Autogynaephilia is the commonest driver of male trans-identification, and you can call it fictional all you like, it won't change that. I get it that you think it's disgusting and creepy and perverted, therefore you don't want to think about the possibility, but that doesn't change reality.

Even Professor ◊◊◊◊ Saw and his pair of cheerleaders don't claim that, and no one else in the respectable end of the community even acknowledges this horse ◊◊◊◊ (recall that Blanchard was actually a contributor for DSM-5 and they told him to ◊◊◊◊ off with his zany proposed inclusions). They themselves say there is no reliable data, and roll with their "hunches".

If there is reliable data, I'm all ears.

ETA: the hilited: since you like to use 'trans-lovers', you presumably have no objection to being labeled a 'trans-hater'?

"People who aren't really trans" has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in this thread as an excuse to discount all the truly disgusting trans excesses we see all over the place, from Isla Bryson to this charmer.

You are the one posting people that are not only not trans, but indeed not even real people. Did you forget that?

You want to allow any man who says he's trans into women-only spaces.

That's a lie, and I'm bored out of my mind with pointing it out.

How do you propose to keep this one, and all those like him, out?

Which one? The fictional non-trans character? Or the guy who plays dress up at home, showing no indication that it goes outside his bedroom door?

That link works perfectly well for me, although I don't know why it doesn't render to the tweet itself. However, as it wasn't the first tweet in the thread, I reposted a link to the first tweet in the next post. "See no evil" may be an admirable precept in certain circumstances, but when we're struggling with a genuine evil, it doesn't help.

I tried the link on mobile, where I am signed into "Icks", and you are right, it displays. It comes up as Does Not Exist on laptop, where I am not signed in.

 

[Ziggurat]

No wells have been poisoned, no hands have been wrung; I asked a simple question

Your opening use of "hate" was not a question, it was a statement. You only turned it into a rhetorical question later.

, and you responded with denialism despite obvious examples of hate and discrimination, such as the military service ban in the U.S.

Does the military hate blind people? A ban on service is not axiomatically hatred.

 

[Hercules56]

....You are the one posting people that are not only not trans, but indeed not even real people. Did you forget that?

Sounds like a BS claim. Got evidence?

 

[Thermal]

Sounds like a BS claim. Got evidence?

You appear to be highly confused, putting my words in a quote from Rolfe. Since Rolfe was including the White Lotus scene as evidence of "the core of the trans cult affecting most of them", the fiction is claimed by Rolfe.

I'll wait though till you get your posting sorted out before going any further.

 

[Rolfe]

You are missing the nuance of conversation here. Many people were puzzled by the White Lotus scene, which was fiction, because they didn't understand what it was referring to. It was referring to the reality of the male sexual cross-dressing fetish, known as autogynaephilia, which is at the core of the phenomenon of the trans-identifying male, and its main driver. Getting sexually aroused at the thought of being female, and usually by wearing female clothes, is the central driver for the majority of trans-identifying men. This is the reality that the fictional scene brought into public attention.

I get it that many people who do not share this fetish find it repulsive and disgusting, and are therefore highly resistant to the realisation that their darlings are motivated by this compulsion, but that doesn't change reality.

 

[Thermal]

You are missing the nuance of conversation here. Many people were puzzled by the White Lotus scene, which was fiction, because they didn't understand what it was referring to.

It was a shock scene based on the recently popularized meme of sissy porn. Since the character was not trans, you are making things up and stretching it where it doesn't apply.

It was referring to the reality of the male sexual cross-dressing fetish, known as autogynaephilia, which is at the core of the phenomenon of the trans-identifying male, and its main driver.

No, it isn't. That's a weird fiction made up by the trans-haters. Also, cross dressing is not autogynephilia. At least get your trans-hating terms straight.

You've been asked to provide reliable evidence for your claim. How you doing on that?

Getting sexually aroused at the thought of being female, and usually by wearing female clothes, is the central driver for the majority of trans-identifying men. This is the reality that the fictional scene brought into public attention.

It remains not real, but a talking point of trans haters to sound scientific. Pro-tip: data makes you sound scientific, not fictional TV shows.

I get it that many people who do not share this fetish find it repulsive and disgusting, and are therefore highly resistant to the realisation that their darlings are motivated by this compulsion, but that doesn't change reality.

I don't find it anything but a little weird, and not important beyond that. What people do to get their rocks off between consenting adults in private is not as big on my radar as it is on yours.

But your assertion that it is 'the reality' of trans people and their prime motivator remains a lie.

 

[Rolfe]

You are in denial. I don't know why you're such a supporter of trans-identifying men, but one day perhaps you'll look at the reality rather than the Hayley Cropper style of fiction. I have no interest in "what people do to get their rocks off between consenting adults in private", none at all. However, this is not private. This is a perversion that insists on disporting itself in the full light of the public gaze, and insisting that everyone else has to perform as extras in its erotic immersive role-play. Well, a lot of women have decided they're not playing.

 

[Thermal]

How you doing on that thar evidence for the claim you rely so heavily on?

 

[Rolfe]

There's no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you that the typical trans-identifying male isn't a clone of Hayley Cropper, and that the hordes of porn-addled fetishistic men dressing up as cariacatures of everything from Widow Twankey through Barbie to Tiny Tears are actually real. Maybe in time, when this latest edition of the madness of crowds has run its course, you'll finally get it.

 

[Thermal]

There's no amount of evidence is ever going to convince you...

You could just give any at all. For instance, what you are relying on to make the claim.

Surely you're not just making it up? Perish the thought.

 

[d4m10n]

I do not see barring trans identified individuals from military service as an "actual social problem"

Firing people based on transgender status by painting every single transgender servicemember as negatively impacting "readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity" is irrationally prejudicial; basing policy on our irrational prejudices is an actual social problem. Had the policy been something more neutral like "Soldiers requiring regular injections cannot serve at forward operating bases" then we'd be having a nuanced argument about where to draw the line in terms of operational goals, but this policy is just a blanket ban on service.

A ban on service is not axiomatically hatred.

You are literally comparing a mental health diagnosis which can be treated with psychotherapy to total blindness and you think that is supposed to sound like a counterargument?

Sounds like a fair assessment to me.

What's your experience with military service?

 

[Elaedith]

You could just give any at all. For instance, what you are relying on to make the claim.

Surely you're not just making it up? Perish the thought.

You previously stated that you know autogynephilia is not scientific because it is only proposed by three people, and nothing has been published on it for a long time. When I pointed out that is not true that no other evidence has been published and that you just haven't looked for it, you admitted you hadn't looked for it and have no intention of doing so. At the same time, you accept without question a theory of gender identity that proposes all causes of gender dysphoria or trans identification have the same cause, regardless of age of onset, sex, sexual orientation or any other factor. This theory has no empirical support whatsoever, and is inconsistent with all available evidence.