Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[mumblethrax]

There's nothing wrong with coining a new sense of a word.

There IS something wrong with trying to retroactively apply that newly-coined meaning onto prior uses.

I have no idea what this is in reference to. Obviously people cannot have meant gender in this sense prior to the coinage. I am deeply unconcerned with what exactly gender meant in 1894 for the purposes of this discussion, and I'm not making any argument that rests on such sleight of hand in any way.

I didn't even know that the euphemistic sense was older than the one in the scientific literature, so how could I?

 

[theprestige]

The most obvious parallel you didn't mention was the generally poorer mental health of gay population in societies in which being gay was intensely stigmatized.




No argument there, the continued tolerance of outright bigotry on this forum is a continued source of embarrassment. Luckily the "skeptic's movement" is so irrelevant these days it's largely a moot point.

Nobody worries too much about the unrelenting hostility directed at people suffering from pedophilia, even though it's a serious mental health condition that calls for our compassion and ethical support.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nothing quite like the emotional high of just assuming you're righteously justified in your hatred toward those you've deemed to be sinners.

Personal satisfaction aside, seems quite obvious to me there's quite a bit of practical utility in not mincing words about these reactionary freaks and bigots.

The backlash against reactionaries, specifically because of the Roe reversal, is arguably why there wasn't a red wave last midterm. It would be a mistake for the opposition to these right wing freaks to temper their language when what they are opposing is so obviously vile and unpopular. Righteous anger is a useful social force.

Call a spade a spade and a bigot a bigot, seems like a winning approach to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not using someone's preferred pronouns is about as hostile as demanding that someone use pronouns they don't believe in. But nobody worries too much about me not being allowed to use pronouns that match a person's biological sex. Nobody worries too much about being hostile to me if I say my preference.

Nobody seems too worried about the fact that I (and many other females) find it deeply insulting and offensive to be called "cis" and treated as if we're a subset of our own sex class. Nobody seems all that bothered that MANY females are hurt and demeaned by being called "menstruators" or "bleeders" or "cervix havers" or "non-men".

Nope. We're essentially told to stop being so hysterical, stop overreacting, and to know our place.

Many people have been unrelentingly hostile in this thread, but the mods steadfastly decline to sanction anyone here for inciting suicide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, that would be incredibly myopic. And I don't think that's the case anywhere.

Washington and California

 

[Emily's Cat]

If it was allowable in even a single USA state, almost every single man would hold up their hand and say "I'm trans, please take me to the womens prison".

Kind of like the several hundred that raised their hands and said "Hey, I've just discovered I'm a woman" when CA passed a law giving prisoners the *right* to be housed based on their self-professed gender identity, even if they hadn't gone through the 10-minute process of filing out a form to legally change their sex markers?

 

[Samson]

Do you think that, on our current course, such laws are unlikely to pass?

I suppose only time will tell.

My brother wanted these surgical interventions but couldn't afford them.
I am perfectly entitled to imagine a world where such interventions simply do not exist, and consider an actual case. It is far from obvious to me he lived a better life dreaming of a physically harmful/brutal procedure than one where the healthy extant body is the hand dealt and no redeal.
It is not clear engaging this thought experiment makes me a vicious transphobe which is your favored expression.
In a referendum I would allow self mutilating operations by the way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, the requests might have been reviewed. But they were still approved on the basis of just a claim to being trans. Such cases have been mentioned multiple times upthread.

Or you know, where Scotland decided that prisoners would always be housed on the basis of their professed self-declared gender identity, regardless of any legal status... then had to walk that back and add in a disclaimer that this wouldn't necessarily apply to a male who had committed rape against females when the public almost lost it's collective minds because the courts assigned a male-looking, male-presenting, male-bodied multiple rapist to a female prison because that male declared themself to be "a woman" after being arrested?


Or you know, when the 26 year old rapist of a 10 year old female got assigned to a female juvenile detention center, on the basis of the gender identity that the male rapist only discovered during arraignment?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think that, on our current course, such laws are unlikely to pass?

Yes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well I'm not going to look for that needle in a haystack, and I very much doubt it's true.

Don't argue from incredulity.

This is one of those things we were told would never happen, until it happened. Then we were told that it's just an outlier, not a big deal, until it became more common and more frequent. Then we were told that transgender identified males were absolutely no threat to females, so it's nothing to worry our poor little heads about, until several females were raped and assaulted by those transwomen.

Then we were told that we're bigots.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of '98 requires insurance plans that cover mastectomies to also pay for cosmetic breast reconstruction, which is not necessary to combat any disease or condition.

The entire justification of the law is a repudiation that all cosmetic surgeries are not medically necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_and_Cancer_Rights_Act

Because cancer and back injury aren't considered diseases and conditions?

 

[mumblethrax]

Nobody worries too much about the unrelenting hostility directed at people suffering from pedophilia, even though it's a serious mental health condition that calls for our compassion and ethical support.

Lots of people do. Including Ray Blanchard, I think. We've gone way off the rails with that, to the detriment of all.

In particular, unrelenting hostility towards people who have never acted upon pedophiliac attraction is absurd.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why would there be a physical condition?


How should I know? It's either indicated or it isn't.

So you're arguing an unknown, from a position of ignorance, but you're very firm in your view?

 

[mumblethrax]

Don't argue from incredulity.

How is asking for evidence 'arguing from incredulity'? Christ, the knots people will tie themselves into.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't even know what a 'scientific immutable fact' is supposed to mean. This is mostly gibberish, but if you mean the fact itself is immutable, you are taking a non-scientific worldview.

There are only two sexes in humans; humans cannot change sex.

That is immutable scientific fact.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Because cancer and back injury aren't considered diseases and conditions?

Don't play dumb. The law is about requiring insurance to cover breast implants which the insurance company argued was not medically necessary. Your thoughts on whether or not this elective surgery should be covered?

 

[mumblethrax]

So you're arguing an unknown, from a position of ignorance, but you're very firm in your view?

No? You asked how it could be necessary, I told you. When it's medically indicated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Personal satisfaction aside, seems quite obvious to me there's quite a bit of practical utility in not mincing words about these reactionary freaks and bigots.

The backlash against reactionaries, specifically because of the Roe reversal, is arguably why there wasn't a red wave last midterm. It would be a mistake for the opposition to these right wing freaks to temper their language when what they are opposing is so obviously vile and unpopular. Righteous anger is a useful social force.

Call a spade a spade and a bigot a bigot, seems like a winning approach to me.

Seems like rationalization that allows you to be as hostile, as bullying, and as hateful as you want to be.

 

[mumblethrax]

There are only two sexes in humans; humans cannot change sex.

That is immutable scientific fact.

There is no such thing as an immutable scientific fact, and saying as much reveals a dogmatic, rather than scientific worldview.

 

[Trausti]

Because cancer and back injury aren't considered diseases and conditions?

The medical necessity of a trans-identified man to get a euphoria boner is the same if not more important than a woman's need for reconstructive surgery after cancer.