Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Nitpicking, but it affects the first group as well. It affects all of us decent males, if only because it reflects badly on us, but it also puts our loved ones in danger and abuses their human rights, and it further erodes the plummeting standards of critical thinking and objectivity in society, damages human flourishing generally, puts children in danger of being "identified" as needing sterilisation by the insane gender cult...

Indeed. It is a source of endless fascination to me that a large proportion of Liberals, who normally have a rational and logical approach to science, have this massive blind spot when it comes to the biology of sex. For example, they are far more likey to be pro-vaccination, pro renewable energy, pro environmentalism and understanding that climate change is both real and human caused, and are far less likely to be religionists, flat earthers or moon landing deniers. Yet when it comes to biology, their Liberal mindset kicks in, and they become full-on science deniers.

 

[p0lka]

This is from a post made by someone on this board just yesterday:

I guess the reason why they put it in coughbrackets was that they knew they were talking nonsense?
The whole quote is interesting as you've got an accusation of the right loving simplicity/binary, whilst the accuser is being simplistic and binary themselves.

 

[smartcooky]

The casual implication that a male would be justified in physically beating a female to the point of hospitalization over a perceived insult is really quite something.

You should spend some time contemplating your relationship with violence. It isn't healthy.

He's saying trans identifying males have a casual relationship to violence, and are likely to put a woman in the hospital if she looks at them funny.

Which, you know, is a lot more transphobic than anything Emily's Cat has said about risk management.

Indeed, but it is likely a natural consequence of being allied with TRAs.

What about The Atheist, when he remarked that one of his fa'faine friends would knock anyone's teeth out if they referred to him as a man. And he seemed to think this was quite reasonable.

Violence is a hallmark of the behaviour of those on the TRA side of this issue. Its pretty much only those on transgender ideology side of this debate who think beating gender critical people into submission is an acceptable form of persuasion.

Yeah, I misspoke.

Meant to say that most of the ridicule here in this thread is performed to silence those who promote rather than question gender ideology, but in fairness I've seen the tactic used both ways.

Some of the ridicule might go both ways, but the advocation for and use of violence is definitely only one way.

 

[Pixel42]

I guess the reason why they put it in coughbrackets was that they knew they were talking nonsense?

The reason they put it in coughbrackets was that they were referring to a topic that the moderators have ruled must only be discussed in this thread.

 

[p0lka]

Honestly, why even bother?

p0lka's been through this exchange before. It's obvious their views haven't changed at all since the last time. It's obvious they have no new arguments to bring to the table, no new food for thought. Just the same prescription that's already been rejected with a complete explanation. Just because they cannot comprehend that explanation, or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean they're entitled to have it explained to them again every time they decide to fringe reset. Just let the fringe dangle, is what I say.

re highlited: Yeah no, there was no complete explanation.
From my point of view I just gave up trying to get through the indoctrination. Now I'm trying again.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it does. If that Orwellian turn of the screw forces them to argue that they have changed their sex rather than the wishywashyness of gender then they haven't got a leg to stand on.

They already don't have a leg to stand on. Your mistake is thinking they need one. They don't. Have you not paid attention to their general inability to define "woman"? Yet that never stopped them. If they can't stand on a leg, they'll just stand on their lady dicks.

 

[p0lka]

Nope, YOU are wrong.

You may be marginally right about justification/argument for one side - the side that wants to keep men out of women's spaces, but it won't make any difference to the side that wants to give transgender identified males free reign to invade women's only spaces. You could have a sign that says "Biological Females Only" with a Ghostbusters syle sign showing "No Penises" and they will go in anyway. If you try to tell them no, or point out the sign, they will tell you to ◊◊◊◊-off just the same.

Changing signs from "women" to "biological females" would be a hugely expensive non-solution!

The moment you separate gender from sex is the moment that you can make laws about pretending to be the opposite sex. People can take on whatever indoctrinated gender roles they want, or refuse to and pick a different indoctrinated gender role, they can go into any private space that's labelled by gender, but they can't pretend and go into private spaces that are label by sex

 

[p0lka]

This forum is weird, everything gets out of order.

 

[p0lka]

They already don't have a leg to stand on. Your mistake is thinking they need one. They don't. Have you not paid attention to their general inability to define "woman"? Yet that never stopped them. If they can't stand on a leg, they'll just stand on their lady dicks.

This is my point, woman is hard to define yet female is trivially easy to define. Why is everyone banging on about 'women' when it's really about females? Society is in a muddle, Separate gender from sex and the problem is solved

 

[theprestige]

I think it does. If that Orwellian turn of the screw forces them to argue that they have changed their sex rather than the wishywashyness of gender then they haven't got a leg to stand on.
EDIT: ah ◊◊◊◊ I forgot to get photos of our 'scraping the floor' toilets etc, I'll do it tuesday.

We've already been over this. Repeatedly. Your prediction has been falsified by observations. Why do you insist on fringe reset, rather than internalizing the new information you have been given over and over?

 

[theprestige]

re highlited: Yeah no, there was no complete explanation.
From my point of view I just gave up trying to get through the indoctrination. Now I'm trying again.

No. You're just attempting a fringe reset, after having been shown again and again that your prescription fails in the real world.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is my point, woman is hard to define

No. It's easy to define. The problem is that they don't like the definition, because it conflicts with their goals.

Change the label to female, and female will conflict with their goals, and they will propose alternative definitions for that too.

This has never, ever actually been about definitions. It has always been about goals. Get that through your head.

 

[Louden Wilde]

The reason they put it in coughbrackets was that they were referring to a topic that the moderators have ruled must only be discussed in this thread.

I would think the the female-male definition thread (in the STEM section) would be even more appropriate, given that one should be able to define the thing that they are calling a spectrum. Is it worth a shot trying to get people to engage in that thread (i.e. who won't engage here)?

I attempted to argue the binary in a reddit thread. As usual, the evidence presented (for the spectrum) was variation in secondary sex characteristics in a variety of organisms, without offering a definition. I took another tack when the moderator (who - likely not coincidentally - had a trans flag in their icon) claimed that male and female development were not incompatible. I provided some recent reviews with quoted sentences pointing out that female vs male development is antagonistic in both the duct systems (Müllerian vs Wolffian) and differentiation of the gonads (i.e. into ovaries vs testes). That got me banned from the group. Why is this (sex as a spectrum, no clear female/male definitions) so important (emotionally or for their arguments) to trans advocates? It arguably erases the need for transition.

 

[d4m10n]

That got me banned from the group.

Reddit mods generally make this place look like a free-for-all, substantively rather than stylistically speaking. Here you can get into trouble for swearing or image formatting but at least you're allowed to argue that sex is real and binary.

Why is this (sex as a spectrum, no clear female/male definitions) so important...to trans advocates?

I'd say probably because it's an opening gambit or key premise along the path from sex is muddled to your sex is whatever you think you are, which is the core tenet of their ideology.

 

[smartcooky]

The moment you separate gender from sex is the moment that you can make laws about pretending to be the opposite sex.

The UK Supreme Court did exactly that in April last year...

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf

The Court concludes that the provisions of the EA 2010 discussed above are provisions to​

which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and​

“woman” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the​

EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate. Therefore, a person with a GRC in the​

female gender does not come within the definition of a “woman” under the EA 2010 and the​

statutory guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers is incorrect.​

The problem so far is that gender ideology-captured organizations have been deliberately dragging their feet, claiming they are waiting for the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) to issue guidance. The EHRC has actually issued TWO pieces of guidance which are currently before the UK's Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson

1. regarding single-sex spaces for public bodies and businesses
2. regarding schools on gender-questioning children

Unfortunately, Bridget Phillipson is one of THE most ideologically captured ministers in the UK Labour party. This is a woman who once, when asked, could not say or define what a woman is. She once stated that 'a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) should use female toilets'

Phillipson is blocking the publication of the guidance that sets out the legal requirement to protect women-only spaces because, firstly, she is ideologically opposed to the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidance, and secondly, she is terrified of the political backlash from activists and being pilloried by the radical left back-benchers in her own party if she allows the guidance to go forwards.

 

[smartcooky]

I would think the the female-male definition thread (in the STEM section) would be even more appropriate, given that one should be able to define the thing that they are calling a spectrum. Is it worth a shot trying to get people to engage in that thread (i.e. who won't engage here)?

Intellectual cowards never engage when they know that objective, observable scientific reality is not on their side.

When confronted with the obvious conflict between what they are desperate to believe (or what their ideologically captured echo chambers tell them to believe), and what they internally KNOW to be the objective scientific truth, they go radio silent.

If, or when, they are goaded into breaking their silence, it usually involves a spittle-filled hate rage of vile invective directed at those who dare question their beliefs... for example... (and for self-preservation's sake I have redacted the poster's name here)

I think you know that I'm fully supportive of science, but in this particular specific case I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the science. I happen to think it largely agrees with me, but that's irrelevant because whether a human being has the right to exist as a person is not a matter of science. It is a matter of conscience, society, and basic human dignity. The right for a person to exist as their authentic self is greater than all arguments. If your response to this is "but wait, what about..." know that you have already lost. Personhood is not up for argument.

If you do not fully and 100% support a trans woman's right to be a woman in all functional ways in society, then I cannot respect your arguments, regardless of what they are. You and I cannot be friends. I will engage with you with basic politeness in other threads - most of you - but know that this is a courtesy. I don't like you and I believe that your views on this matter should be marginalised. You should not be engaged. You should be ostracised. And that is why I will not participate any further in this thread.

Trans women are women. The end.

The other one was far worse, with hatred and insults directed at me personally. This was (only) sent to AAH - so I'm not quoting any of it here because I know for a fact what will happen if I do.

 

[d4m10n]

I think you know that I'm fully supportive of science, but in this particular specific case I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the science. I happen to think it largely agrees with me, but that's irrelevant because whether a human being has the right to exist as a person is not a matter of science. It is a matter of conscience, society, and basic human dignity. The right for a person to exist as their authentic self is greater than all arguments. If your response to this is "but wait, what about..." know that you have already lost. Personhood is not up for argument.

It is perfectly possible to enjoy personhood without also having the right to enter spaces reserved for the opposite sex, or reserved for people who qualify as featherweight, or reserved for people who made the varsity football squad, or reserved for people who passed an audition process to make it into the choir or band, or reserved for people who called ahead to book a room for a private party.

If you pay attention to the world around you, it will become clear that people exclude other people all the time without denying their personhood.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is perfectly possible to enjoy personhood without also having the right to enter spaces reserved for the opposite sex

Not according to the TRA's. They have redefined "personhood" just like they redefined "woman".

 

[smartcooky]

It is perfectly possible to enjoy personhood without also having the right to enter spaces reserved for the opposite sex

Indeed. I am a man - I have personhood - but I don't have the right to enter spaces reserved for women. Nor would I want to.

My personhood is not being denied if they won't let me play on the Under 20's team or the below 85kg team, or deny me the right to walk into the cockpit of an A320 full of passengers and fly it to Auckland.