• 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.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boudicca90

Muse
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
728
Location
Murrieta, CA
No obviously we can't.

This is what is making this fundamentally different from the push for Civil Rights for women, minority races, or sexual orientations.

This is the first time "support" has included "Agree with my own completely internal viewpoint."

I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.


Thread continued from here. You can quote or reply to any post in that or previous parts.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that ending sex segregation would be a significantly larger threat. And I will provisionally agree that transwomen with sufficiently low testosterone levels aren't a threat to most women's sports.

I don't agree that transwomen in general are not a threat to womens sports, especially when it comes to self-id alone being the arbiter for what constitutes a woman. We've already repeatedly seen transwomen not just break, but entirely shatter, women's records in a variety of sports. Transwomen aren't winning proportionally to their representation in those sports - they're dominating well beyond a proportional level. They're winning at rates that would be expected of a man competing against women.

I agree. A washed up male athlete has a sex change and is woman of the year. A second tier, mediocre male fighter self identifies as female and injures female fighters in a bid to be female mma champion.

Biological man claims to be female and shatters records in female track events.

Yeah, transwomen aren't taking anything away from women. :rolleyes:

Rowling is correct. You can't deny the science. Well you can but you would be wrong.
 
More and more I am coming to the realization that you can't.

Denying that we are women as much as cisgender women ultimately means there is a limit to how much you will support us. I see it time and time again, "I support trans rights, except..." There is always an "except" for so-called allies that can't accept us as we are.

If we aren't women, then we aren't deserving of the same rights and protections that women have. And anybody who has that view is not an ally, no mater how much you pretend to be.

What rights and protections are you lacking?
What rights and protections are you asking for?

Do you believe that a female biology and the lived experience of being a female in this society has nothing at all to do with gender?

If so, what attributes constitute the gender of woman, such that ciswomen and transwomen generally have them in common, but cismen and transmen lack those attributes?
 
Concussions are common for fighters (regardless of sex). Skull fractures are not common.



An amateur Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter has died after suffering a brain injury during a fight in the U.K.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/female-mma-fighter-dies-brain-injury-sustained-bout/story?id=67125913

During the controversial fight between her and Yan, Karolina suffered a terrible eye injury and cracked skull which led her straight to the hospital.

https://popularsuperstars.com/female-ufc-fighter-karolina-kowalkiewicz-has-skull-cracked-by-brutal-head-kick-from-xianon-yan-video/2/

Miesha Tate suffers broken orbital bone at UFC 183, then blown tire en route to Super Bowl 49

https://www.mmamania.com/2015/2/1/7960443/miesha-tate-suffers-broken-orbital-bone-at-ufc-183-then-blown-tire-super-bowl-49-mma

UFC star Molly McCann has undergone successful surgery to repair the orbital bone she broke in her win over Priscila Cachoeira on Saturday.

https://talksport.com/sport/mma/513279/ufc-london-molly-mccann-gruesome-injury-win/amp/

Seems common enough to me. Skulls do be crackin though.

Just for fun, a before and after pic of a woman MMA fighter.

https://talksport.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2020/03/jj1.jpeg?strip=all&quality=100&w=680

It's a brutal sport, but the fighters seem to enjoy it. I can't explain it, I'd rather not get punched.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should ask whether a trans woman who has been doing HRT for years has an inherent, insurmountable advantage.

In Fox's case, the evidence seems to point to "no".

Fox was a fairly out of shape middle aged male-bodied person, much older than female fighters in their prime, and with much lower level of conditioning. You keep saying she was a "mediocre" fighter, even though her fight record was materially better than everyone she fought, and the other females in her experience category.

So an older person with lesser conditioning and training managed to notably outperform other people in their rank who were in peak condition and prime age... and you are certain that her male physiology had nothing at all to do with that?

Let's just skip right over her exuberant joy at personally causing serious injury her competitors, and her celebration of other fighters being injured... and the entire background of her becoming interested in MMA in the first place, because she would get to fight females specifically.
 
Fox was a fairly out of shape middle aged male-bodied person, much older than female fighters in their prime, and with much lower level of conditioning. You keep saying she was a "mediocre" fighter, even though her fight record was materially better than everyone she fought, and the other females in her experience category.

So an older person with lesser conditioning and training managed to notably outperform other people in their rank who were in peak condition and prime age... and you are certain that her male physiology had nothing at all to do with that?

Let's just skip right over her exuberant joy at personally causing serious injury her competitors, and her celebration of other fighters being injured... and the entire background of her becoming interested in MMA in the first place, because she would get to fight females specifically.

Yes, yes, yes. All trans women are misogynistic men just wanting to infiltrate women's space and attack. I've read your work.

Tell you what, having permanent surgery and living as a woman for over a decade is quite the commitment to a bit. Gotta respect the scam /s
 
Last edited:
I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.

I think there are some differences. We can measure sexual attraction. The observable effects of physical arousal are fairly well documented. The claim to be attracted to people of the same sex can be observed as true by anyone at all. The argument given for homosexuality being classed as a deviancy was that it was "unnatural", not that it wasn't observable fact.

Additionally, the cultural change required to stop stigmatizing homosexuality was minimal. It required protection against discrimination in employment and services (which should be available to anyone on pretty much any attribute or belief), it required a removal of religious perspective from the definition of marriage from a legal viewpoint.

It did not require removing a definition of sexuality, or a redefinition of attraction at all. It didn't obligate other people to change their beliefs. It didn't require other people to accept an internal feeling that was in opposition to observable reality.

In contrast, gender identity cannot be measured. And the physical indicators of sex, which are measurable, must be ignored and made unimportant for gender identity to be accepted. It relies on an internal view that is undefined and cannot be explained in any objective fashion.

Transgender people should have legal protection from discrimination in employment and services. But that's not all that is being asked for.

The definition of gender adopted by trans activists requires that the definition of "woman" have no meaning. It requires enforcement of language use. It requires that everyone alter their beliefs and their understanding so that male-bodied people who present as male be accepted as "just as much of a woman" as a female-bodied person who presents as female.

Affirmation of your internal identity requires me to erase my identity as female.
 
But none of that matters to you, and you don't believe it's a big deal. Females who express those concerns... well, they're just full of hate, right? None of those things are important to "real women" who are, actually, males. It's fine if you dismiss the views of females as not being important. It's fine if you ignore their voices and cast them as "overreacting". They're just typical hysterical girls, right?

It's not important to you if females are endangered and set back... so long as male people make gains.

No, you are right. These issues you claim are issues either aren't real issues, or are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they don't matter when compared to increasing our civil rights.

It is just a few women like you who don't view us as women and delude yourselves into thinking we are taking away your rights and much like Trump supporters, have convinced yourselves that you are a "silent majority" of sorts.

Ultimately the law is increasingly on our side and that is really the only thing that maters. :)

In short, most women fully support transsexuals, but are much less supportive of self-identified transwomen. For those most part, I think most women would be supportive of Boudicca for example - she's shown herself to be a generally considerate and caring person, who doesn't want to make other people uncomfortable, and is actively in the process of truly living as a woman and undergoing treatment to alter her appearance to conform to a female phenotype as much as possible. Even if we disagree with some of her views, I think most of us support her right to express herself however she wishes and to live her life the best she can.

Just stop this right now. You have not been supportive of me one bit, so don't pretend like you support me now! You deny my existence as a woman and therefore will constantly fight against my desire to be considered equal to you. You hold womanhood up as a sacred ideal that only the chosen can achieve, and I reject that view.

Your distinction of transgender vs. transsexual tells me a lot. You are fine with "transsexuals", in other words people who transitioned decades ago and who were driven to think of themselves as never being able to truly be who they are. Transsexual is not a term that is used any more in the trans community due to the negative association with those kinds of views and old and outdated research and therapy.

The old way of treating us was to view ourselves as flawed and sick, almost like being trans is a sin we have to fight against and living as a woman is a reprieve from that. That's why the increased research over time led to the change of the condition being viewed as a physiological mismatch than a mental disorder. And a big part of that was the realization that we are the gender we feel we are, not pretending to be that gender.
 
Yes, yes, yes. All trans women are misogynistic men just wanting to infiltrate women's space and attack. I've read your work.

Tell you what, having permanent surgery and living as a woman for over a decade is quite the commitment to a bit. Gotta respect the scam /s

Oh get off your strawman. Not all transwomen are misogynists. Boudicca certainly isn't. If you'd actually read my posts, you would not be accusing me of a position I don't hold. Nor did I in any way suggest that Fox is scamming anyone.

On the other hand, you seem to be implying that it's impossible for Fox to be misogynistic at all. Additionally, you seem to be implying that Fox's male physique did NOT give her a material advantage over natal women.

It's annoying and downright childish that when you're presented with support for a male physiology conferring a meaningful advantage, you can't counter in any civil fashion, but instead fall back on insinuation and insult.
 
Boudica99.

Would you say it is fair to summarize your position as one that feels that that not mentally associating the term "woman" with a transwoman (or equivalent for a trans-male) makes it impossible to be your ally or fully support you?

Simply put I'm asking that if I don't literally see you as a woman, even if I objectively treat both with all standards of basic respect and dignity and go out of my at least try to account for all your wishes and desires (use of pronouns for instance, you are welcome in any "spaces" you wish, etc) since even if I disagree I'm not a try-hard edge-lord whose goal in life is to be the biggest jerk I can and still be "technically correct" but if asked directly in an purely intellectual space if I mentally consider you a woman I might, depending on exact circumstances, say "no" I would still be the bad guy?

//This is a 100% fair, open, and honest question with no snark, subterfuge, or ulterior motive.//
 
No, you are right. These issues you claim are issues either aren't real issues, or are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they don't matter when compared to increasing our civil rights.
They are insignificant to YOU. They are NOT insignificant to natal women! Why the hell do you think that your desires are more important than those of natal women?

Just stop this right now. You have not been supportive of me one bit, so don't pretend like you support me now! You deny my existence as a woman and therefore will constantly fight against my desire to be considered equal to you. You hold womanhood up as a sacred ideal that only the chosen can achieve, and I reject that view.

That's baloney. I support a very large amount of what you seek. I don't "deny your existence as a woman", I deny your existence as female.

On the other hand... you deny that the lived experience of females is important in any way at all. You deny that gender stereotypes are repressive to females. You deny that the biological realities of sex have anything at all to do with how females are treated. You deny the ongoing discrimination and second-class status of females in society. You've expressed that the concerns of females are "overreacting" and "not a big deal". You've shut out the voices of females.

You want to be accepted as being "just as much of a woman" as females are... while simultaneously dismissing females as unimportant and not worthy of your concern. You want to be accepted by females as an equal, while simultaneously insisting that we don't matter.

You can't even be bothered to actually list out what rights you are lacking and what you're asking for. You refuse to even provide an explanation of what the word "woman" means within your framework.

Instead, you DEMAND that females accept you as one of us, without question, without evidence... and that females bow to your DESIRES and make our own needs secondary to yours. And if we push back on your insistence that you - a male - should be allowed to get female scholarships and female recognition and all of the other things that females have been scraping out in our quest to equity in the world... you label us and attack us. And while you personally haven't done so, many, many of your "allies" feel entitled to attack females verbally, to harass them, to wish them death, and to threaten them with rape.

I don't hold womanhood as some sacred ideal. I do, however, think it has actual real-world meaning and is not some ephemeral internal feeling that defies description and must be accepted on faith alone.
 
Being classified as "other" is the first step to second class citizenship.
This is such a weird thing to say when we're talking about individuals who had all the legal rights granted by a notably patriarchal political system to members of the male sex in the first place.

What rights do trans women lack which cis men actually have?
 
Last edited:
Boudica99.

Would you say it is fair to summarize your position as one that feels that that not mentally associating the term "woman" with a transwoman (or equivalent for a trans-male) makes it impossible to be your ally or fully support you?

Simply put I'm asking that if I don't literally see you as a woman, even if I objectively treat both with all standards of basic respect and dignity and go out of my at least try to account for all your wishes and desires (use of pronouns for instance, you are welcome in any "spaces" you wish, etc) since even if I disagree I'm not a try-hard edge-lord whose goal in life is to be the biggest jerk I can and still be "technically correct" but if asked directly in an purely intellectual space if I mentally consider you a woman I might, depending on exact circumstances, say "no" I would still be the bad guy?

//This is a 100% fair, open, and honest question with no snark, subterfuge, or ulterior motive.//

I honestly do.

I didn't feel that way before, but the more this conversation goes on, the more I realize even people who we would consider strong allies always seem to have somewhere where they draw the line. When we are saying there is no line to draw.

I respect anybody who tries to respect us, but if you call us all the correct pronouns but still support segregating us in any way (and I think I have shown I am more than willing to compromise to a certain degree), then you really don't support us.

I really do think not believing we are women leads to not treating us like women, even if you don't think you are doing it.
 
…we are saying there is no line to draw.

Someone said upthread that trans women have more of an obligation to cover themselves than cis women—in the context of changing rooms in which full nudity is generally considered tolerable. Is that not drawing a line?
 
Last edited:
This is such a weird thing to say when we're talking about individuals who had all the legal rights granted by a notably patriarchal political system to members of the male sex in the first place.

What rights do trans women lack which cis men actually have?

This is an international forum. The experience of trans women in some nations that recognize their rights is not universal. Children are still regularly spirited away to barbaric countries to receive conversion "therapy", which is little more than psychological torture.
 
I would say that belief that homosexuality is real is based on agreement that people can have sexual attraction to the same sex, even though it is an internal viewpoint. If I were to be challenged on this, I wouldn't be able to conclusively prove the attraction or prove it to the satisfaction to someone who was skeptical to begin with. And that recognition that it is normal and real is something we had to fight for to be seen as valid and not some sexual deviants.

Same thing is happening here. The more you try to deny the similarities, the more you point them out further.


Thread continued from here. You can quote or reply to any post in that or previous parts.
Posted By: zooterkin


This is in line with something I wrote here the other day. I suspect that because most (hopefully all) people don't nowadays give a second thought to the concept of homosexuality being an authentic lived condition, they haven't stopped to think, to realise, that the notion of a person being sexually attracted to people of their same sex is - as you say - an entirely internalised condition. And one whose provenance is therefore impossible to prove empirically (or disprove).

Indeed, many now-outdated (thankfully) views of homosexuality - from the top down - suggested that those claiming to have sexual desires for people of the same sex were actually "normal" (heterosexual) people whose minds had for some reason developed a disorder or a deviancy which made them think they had sexual desires for the same sex - but that those feelings were not valid or authentic in & of themselves (on the basis that they were the product of this disorder or deviancy of mind....).

Which, funnily enough, is more-or-less exactly the same train of "thought" that some within this thread seem to have been following wrt transgender issues.

As you say: it's both ironic and simultaneously a) amusing & b) saddening/troubling, that in attempting to deny these sorts of similarities, certain "arguments" are in fact only serving to further demonstrate those similarities.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom