• 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.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hercules56 said:
I know its crazy, but human gender is not a mere social construct.
Click to expand...
When I say genderWP, I usually mean a set of characteristics socially associated with femininity or masculinity, e.g. girls wear dresses to the prom, boys wear tuxes. These social norms are constructed and deconstructed and reconstructed by social forces over time, and only occasionally influenced by biology (e.g. fly openings in y-fronts).

When you say gender is more than this, I'm interested in unpacking that further.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
I'm not.
Click to expand...

In that case my reach for the misogyny label is hardly reflexive. You can't associate with an objectively misogynistic movement, express unconcern at the association, and then complain about being tarred with that brush.

(I mean you can, but trans-activism beclowns itself overmuch already. Why pile on?)
 
Hercules56 said:
I know its crazy, but human gender is not a mere social construct.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is common sense, or perhaps I should say, "common sense". i.e. it's how normal people talk and what normal people think.

However, the regulars in this thread have moved way beyond that, into kind of a meta-discussion about the meanings of words.

My recent take on things is basically I am fine with saying that there is something called "gender" that is, in fact, a social construct, and that it is ok to use the word "woman" or "man" to refer to people who have some sort of this "gender" thing. Moreover, there is evidence that some people are biologically inclined to participate as one gender or the other, even if they don't have the reproductive biology normally associated with that gender. However, regardless of how you define and/or use words that have traditionally meant one thing, there are unchanging realities that don't change when you change a name. I have also said that, having redefined those words we traditionally used, we really ought to have new words about those things that do not change.

As an example, if someone wants to say that men can have babies, I'm willing to consider a change in language that would make the statement true. However, there is a class of people who used to be known as "men", and that class of people cannot and will never have babies, so I keep trying to find a word to use for that class of people.

Sometimes I say something like, "people who don't have a uterus", which occasionally prompts someone to say something stupid about hysterectomies. That's kind of the level of the discussion these days. Some people point out obvious truths. Some people try to dodge them. Once in a while, there's actually some intelligent give and take, but that's pretty rare.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
In that case my reach for the misogyny label is hardly reflexive. You can't associate with an objectively misogynistic movement, express unconcern at the association, and then complain about being tarred with that brush.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining.

For one thing, I don't "associate with an objectively misogynistic movement." I have said what I have said already about trans athletes competing in sports - I think it is likely unfair and therefore I don't support it.

That said, I do NOT support bullying or attacking transpeople either. How you have discerned that I am a "trans activist" I have no idea.

As for being "tarred with that brush" I have no concerns. If it is merely you telling me that I am a misogynist, I really don't care. The charge is palpably absurd on its face and you haven't even tried to support the claim because you know full well you cannot make it stick.
 
I'm not sure it's strictly relevant, but I couldn't figure out another thread to post this, and I believe this is where it was mostly discussed. The cross-dressing teenage boy who sexually assaulted two girls at two separate schools in Loudoun County has been sentenced to a residential treatment facility and will be on the sex offenders registry for life, after the judge said she looked at his psychosexual evaluations and "Yours scares me. What I read scares me for yourself, your family and society in general."

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/202...ender-in-loudoun-co-high-school-sex-assaults/
 
Matthew Best said:
I'm not sure it's strictly relevant, but I couldn't figure out another thread to post this, and I believe this is where it was mostly discussed. The cross-dressing teenage boy who sexually assaulted two girls at two separate schools in Loudoun County has been sentenced to a residential treatment facility and will be on the sex offenders registry for life, after the judge said she looked at his psychosexual evaluations and "Yours scares me. What I read scares me for yourself, your family and society in general."

https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/202...ender-in-loudoun-co-high-school-sex-assaults/
Click to expand...

Probably not really relevant, as it seems this supposed trans boogieman turned out not to be trans.

I hope the victims got some sense of closure or justice from this, lord knows this frothy mouthed witch hunt didn't do them any favors.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Probably not really relevant, as it seems this supposed trans boogieman turned out not to be trans.
Click to expand...

Which actually makes it far, far, more relevant than if he were trans.


But that's a message several of us have stated over and over and over in lots of different ways, and you are still oblivious to the message.
 
(Oh, what the heck. I can't resist the challenge.)

SuburbanTurkey,

Will you acknowledge that this is a case where a person who was not trans was pretending to be trans?
 
Meadmaker said:
(Oh, what the heck. I can't resist the challenge.)

SuburbanTurkey,

Will you acknowledge that this is a case where a person who was not trans was pretending to be trans?
Click to expand...

Is there evidence for this?

All indications was that the boy liked to dress androgynously and met up his girlfriend for secret liaisons in the toilets.

Is there any evidence he was actually presenting himself as a girl or openly using the women's room?

I've yet to see anything to suggest there was ever permission for him to be there rather than just sneaking in, which is something any unambiguously masculine boy hoping to get laid might do.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Will you acknowledge that this is a case where a person who was not trans was pretending to be trans?
Click to expand...

SuburbanTurkey said:
Is there evidence for this?
Click to expand...


That's what I thought.


For those who didn't follow this, the school administration was surprised to discover that the boy identified as male. Also, despite what you have read in many media sources, the school policy was to allow trans kids to use the bathroom of their gender identity since at least 2019.

Is there evidence of (fill in the blank)?

There has been very little posted anywhere about anything that has not been directly relevant to the court cases. I would love to hear some commentary on this situation from students from the school, but there's nothing.
 
Meadmaker said:
That's what I thought.


For those who didn't follow this, the school administration was surprised to discover that the boy identified as male. Also, despite what you have read in many media sources, the school policy was to allow trans kids to use the bathroom of their gender identity since at least 2019.

Is there evidence of (fill in the blank)?

There has been very little posted anywhere about anything that has not been directly relevant to the court cases. I would love to hear some commentary on this situation from students from the school, but there's nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "Trans boogieman" of the gaps argument once again.

Sounds to me like the admin didn't really know the facts of the incident very well. This doesn't reflect well on their concern for a sex crime happening under their supervision, but I'm not sure what other facts I'm supposed to glean from this.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Which actually makes it far, far, more relevant than if he were trans.


But that's a message several of us have stated over and over and over in lots of different ways, and you are still oblivious to the message.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're totally correct. And the fact that one of the female victims had previously had sex with the boy and invited him into the girls' toilets to have sex again (but he turned it into a sexual assault)...meaning this was in no way a "Reefer Madness"-style instance of a boy pretending to be transgender in order to enter the girls' bathroom to carry out perverted offences....

...has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

:rolleyes:


(You're being blinded by your not-very-well-disguised attitude towards transgender identity, and you've apparently totally lost the ability to see when a crime such as this one has absolutely nothing to do with your warped anti-fantasy about malevolent & mendacious cisboys masquerading as transgirls then going into the girls' bathroom with the prior intent of offending against cisgirls in the bathroom. No surprise for me there, though...)
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is there evidence for this?

All indications was that the boy liked to dress androgynously and met up his girlfriend for secret liaisons in the toilets.

Is there any evidence he was actually presenting himself as a girl or openly using the women's room?

I've yet to see anything to suggest there was ever permission for him to be there rather than just sneaking in, which is something any unambiguously masculine boy hoping to get laid might do.
Click to expand...


Exactly. This boy was (very clearly) not using transgender identity as some sort of "cloak" to enter the girls' bathroom with the intention of carrying out lewd & lascivious acts.

The thing is though: when one has fully bought in to the "Reefer Madness" stuff about cisboys masquerading as transgirls in order to be permitted to enter the girls' bathroom in order to offend..... it appears to be laughably easy for one to reflexively see everything from that viewpoint.

It's Maslow's Hammer in action: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Yes, the "Trans boogieman" of the gaps argument once again.

Sounds to me like the admin didn't really know the facts of the incident very well. This doesn't reflect well on their concern for a sex crime happening under their supervision, but I'm not sure what other facts I'm supposed to glean from this.
Click to expand...

Let me try it like this.

Other than those times when he was having a rendezvous with his sex partner, which bathroom did he use?


Do you have any evidence to support your answer?
 
Meadmaker said:
Let me try it like this.

Other than those times when he was having a rendezvous with his sex partner, which bathroom did he use?


Do you have any evidence to support your answer?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I see no reason to assume someone who identified as a boy was using the women's restroom.

Your comment is an excellent illustration of the boogieman of the gaps approach to this.

Sure, just about everything said by this uninformed, braying mob about this case was wrong, but maybe, just maybe, they were right about this one thing we don't know.
 
Yeah that’s a Look but not exactly a trans slam dunk. I had friends that identified as hot guys who didn’t follow no rules that had similar looks even way back in the 90’s.

ETA also (with apologies to any exceptions) no actual female-identifying person has ever worn a choker that said ‘kitten’ on it unironically without financial incentives.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
Yeah that’s a Look but not exactly a trans slam dunk. I had friends that identified as hot guys who didn’t follow no rules that had similar looks even way back in the 90’s.

ETA also (with apologies to any exceptions) no actual female-identifying person has ever worn a choker that said ‘kitten’ on it unironically without financial incentives.
Click to expand...

I think what's obvious is that it's a deliberately feminine gender expression. I can think of a few reasons someone might do that.

1. Pretending to be trans
2. Actually trans
3. Trolling the transphobes.

Any of those are also compatible with using a girls' bathroom, and we have no data to use to be certain whether or not he was doing that. I have expressed why I inferred that he was doing that, but I readily admit it is an inference based on incomplete, and possibly inaccurate, data. It is not confirmed. Perhaps we will learn more if a civil suit goes to trial.

4. This kid is one seriously messed up in the head kid, and doesn't really know what his own motive is. That is compatible with lots of different behaviors, and with the psychological profile summary described by the judge at the sentencing hearing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom