d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Pretty sure I'd noticed that specific difference by then (also the 70s) but then my parents were hippies.
Sent from my Cromulentator 2600 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Cromulentator 2600 using Tapatalk
More than just "sad" - a crime of the century, a "medical scandal happening in plain sight" on par with Mengele wrapped up with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a Satanic Panic in spades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic
But "never actually be a boy" is part and parcel of the whole problem as a large percentage of the hoi polloi seem to "think" that changing one's genitalia is, ipso facto, changing one's sex. Lots of blame for that sad state of affairs to go around, but those peddling "sex is a spectrum" or even those peddling the "past-present-future functionality" schlock are in line for a substantial portion of it.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I mean, it's obviously a perfectly cromulent answer, but IIRC genitalia and so forth weren't really part of polite conversation for second graders.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Wait, did you just (Steers)mansplain "satanic panic" to us?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Exactly what someone raised by non-hippies would say.
I must say this hearing has been great entertainment so far.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Have you been hearing the hearing? I'd like to listen in as well.
No, I've actually just been following it on Tribunal Tweets. I did think of listening in but things are getting busy at work and I don't want to distract myself too much. You can apply to the court for permission to listen in on Zoom.
I found today's expert witness who only barely skimmed the Cass Report and isn't actually an expert on anything except 'lived reality' entertaining.
Or would be if we weren't talking about sterilizing children.
Just thought it might have been an analogy that you'd have ready comprehension of ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
But - speaking of analogies, and to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone - you might have some interest in an Atlantic article on BDD from some 20 years ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I understood the analogy. Didn't need it, but did understand it. Was just amused at the idea that this audience would need to be told what the satanic panic was.
And now I'm amused at the idea that this audience would need to be told what an analogy is.
I promise I've given analogies, their nature and application, far more thought than you have. To the point where I'm pretty sure everyone else here is already sick of my rants on the subject.
Not really, but speaking of analogies, my view is we are usually much better off discussing the thing itself in its own terms.
Your "correction" is an oxymoron. Eunuchs by definition are men. Historically, many of them (depending on the anatomical details of how they became eunuchs) were fully capable of performing the traditionally and conformationally male role in penetrative sexual intercourse.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
...but at least the sultan didn't have to wonder if the harem's offspring were fathered by their guards.
Rolfe
Adult human female
On a related point, I sometimes see people assuming that the 18th century opreatic castrati sang female roles; that they were the equivalent of getting boys to act female characters on the Elizabethan stage because women weren't allowed to appear on stage.
Not so. There were plenty women singers on stage in these operas, singing the female parts. The castrati were men and took male parts, generally the ultra-heroic male parts. The somewhat superhuman voice was seen as an advantage for this. Lots of love duets written for soprano and castrato.
Since castration of boys to become singers was banned, at first women took the parts, and although some were and are extremely good (Frederika von Stade, Kate Lindsay and the like) there tends to be a bit of a disconnect there. I find Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck) particularly difficult because regardless of how well the mezzo looks and acts you're still conscious that this is a woman mourning the love of "his" life, and doing it as a lesbian relationship doesn't cut it either (usually).
Enter the countertenor, normal men who have cultivated the falsetto range in their voices. The first time I saw Jochen Kowalski as Orfeo it was such a relief, the relationship and the grief made sense, and one could get a flavour of how it was when a castrato took the role.
Because the castrati were men, were percieved as men and were treated as men.
Not so. There were plenty women singers on stage in these operas, singing the female parts. The castrati were men and took male parts, generally the ultra-heroic male parts. The somewhat superhuman voice was seen as an advantage for this. Lots of love duets written for soprano and castrato.
Since castration of boys to become singers was banned, at first women took the parts, and although some were and are extremely good (Frederika von Stade, Kate Lindsay and the like) there tends to be a bit of a disconnect there. I find Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck) particularly difficult because regardless of how well the mezzo looks and acts you're still conscious that this is a woman mourning the love of "his" life, and doing it as a lesbian relationship doesn't cut it either (usually).
Enter the countertenor, normal men who have cultivated the falsetto range in their voices. The first time I saw Jochen Kowalski as Orfeo it was such a relief, the relationship and the grief made sense, and one could get a flavour of how it was when a castrato took the role.
Because the castrati were men, were percieved as men and were treated as men.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh God we've contaminated the trans thread again.
May I say that I was also following Tribunal Tweets today and absolutely literally LOLing. The guy was clueless. At one point he conceded that the LGBA may well be acting in complete good faith as far as they themselves believed, but this was a false belief.
No, me neither.
May I say that I was also following Tribunal Tweets today and absolutely literally LOLing. The guy was clueless. At one point he conceded that the LGBA may well be acting in complete good faith as far as they themselves believed, but this was a false belief.
No, me neither.
Can't very well be a man if "man" means - as it does - "adult human male" and if "male" means - as it does - "produces sperm". Unless you can maybe explain how a "man" with "his" nuts cut off can do so? ...
The definition of "eunuch" specifies "man" as a necessary condition. If you don't mean a eunuch then you should use a different word. If you do mean a eunuch, then you necessarily mean a man. Which makes a "sexless eunuch" a sexless man.
If you use the word "eunuch," I start with the definition of "eunuch," which invariably specifies a man.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 20,983
Fortunately mainstream medicine and most progressive governments know better than you.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Actually I think mainstream medicine and progressive governments have failed in their ethical duty when it comes to extreme body modification surgery. And to transgender-affirming care.
But please, tell me the medical distinction between believing you have the wrong sex and believing you have the wrong number of legs.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,251
Ah, there's another one I brought up on about page 2 of the very first thread.
There hasn't been an answer to it yet, and I know why. They are exactly the same thing.
"I hate my penis" = "I hate my left leg"
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,751
Can't very well be a man if "man" means - as it does - "adult human male" and if "male" means - as it does - "produces sperm". Unless you can maybe explain how a "man" with "his" nuts cut off can do so? ...
You have to start with the primary definitions, the ones at the bottom of the totem pole, not the ones at the top.
“Male” does not mean “produces sperm”. That isn’t the traditional definition, and it’s not a technical definition from biology. Male is the sex associated with sperm production, but males are males before they produce sperm, and they are still males even if something interferes with or prevents sperm production. Eunuchs are absolutely male, and your attempt to use a definition that isn’t actually relevant won’t win you the argument.
Reformed Offlian
Master Poster
Let's give people with Cotard's syndrome death benefit payouts based on affirmation!
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
So long as we don't give them organ transplants.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, which means they didn’t necessarily start the assault." ibid
Seven out of 97 assaults in women's prisons were transgender women, one acting in presumed self defence.
Bearing in mind sex crimes are predicated on the Victorian view that only men have 'sexuality' the crime of unwanted touching that applies to men may just be be ignored when a female does the same.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Oh dear. Doesn't the headline, 'are we letting our kids go too far' signal to you that the NZ Herald is little better than the SUN or the DAILY MAIL? Full of hate-mongering and fear-stirring.
Yes, no surprise you will avoid proper evidence.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
There are some excellent quotes in that piece, such as this paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia for Philosophy:
And this bit from the WHO:
These approaches contrast sharply with the new one from the ACLU:
tl;dr - Second wave feminism taught us to separate sex and gender so as to help liberate women who were oppressed on account of sex, third wave intersectionalism teaches us to reintegrate sex and gender, with gender identity as the primary factor.
Last edited:
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
This thread is not for contentious discussion of strict biological definitions of male/female. I have moved such posts to AAH. If you wish to start a new thread on that subject, feel free to do so. Just keep such discussion out of here.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: xjx388
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,273
Last edited by a moderator:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 20,983
Gender. Not sex. You don't have the right to impose your own definitions of terms.
And as for your question, perhaps you'd be better off directing it towards the actual experts in the relevant medical fields, who have by now determined that 1) transgender identity is a valid condition, while 2) believing one has the wrong number of legs is a psychiatric disorder.
Do you really never pause for thought, and wonder to yourself why the World's most expert clinicians and scientists - who have vastly more collective knowledge, experience and exposure to transgender people than you or I or anyone in this weird little thread - have reached conclusions that are so radically different from yours? Do you really believe that you know better than them?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Is this true even in the absence of clinically significant emotional distress associated with that belief?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's not about my right, it's about my desire to communicate clearly.
ETA: But okay, sure. Gender, whatever.
Other than claiming to identify as a woman, what objective qualities does a transwoman have in common with women, that she does not also have in common with men?
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Which brings me back to...
What now? Are you arguing that male and female do not exist?
You seem to be asserting that there is something other than male and female in the human species, or that male and female aren't distinct categories in some way.
To which I say: Absolute ********.
'Believing you have the wrong gender' is nonsensical to anyone who has engaged in any critical thinking on the matter. If gender is socially constructed and assigned on the basis of sex, then a person who doesn't identify with gender constructs stereotypically associated with their sex is simply a gender-nonconforming person. You do not need to change your sex characteristics because you reject sex stereotypes. That is like saying that a person with a sexual orientation that doesn't match the orientation expected on the basis of their sex needs to transition their sex characteristics. The only reason to change your sex characteristics is that you are unhappy with your sex. This was always understood prior to clinical research and treatment on gender dysphoria being corrupted by ideology.
On the other hand, if somebody does not have dysphoria and does not want to change their sex characteristics, declaring them to be transgender because they are gender non-conforming is purely ideological and reflects the influence of postmodern gender theory and language changes imposed by this, which have nothing to do with science.
This is laughable from somebody who has repeatedly asserted that he knows better than professionals.
I mean, look at this gem in response to my linking to this tweet from Dr Cantor where he states 'In science, validity is determined by the objective evidence, not essays like “What gender dysphoria means to me':
Here you are explicitly implying that you know more about the identification and diagnosis of mental health conditions than a prominent clinical psychologist with expertise in diagnosing and treating gender dysphoria and an extensive publication record.
Last edited:
Body Integrity Disorder is not a diagnosis in the DSM. It is in the ICD-11.
You can see that distress and dysfunction are part of the definition.
Rest assured that transabled activists are working on being able to self-identify as disabled.
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,251
That's the wrong way to look at it.
They have nothing in common with women at all. They have the wrong chromosomes, no female organs, internal or external (the simulacrums of vaginas and breasts they acquire are not female), their brains, physical development; everything is male.
Trans women don't have things in common with men, they are men.
They are also most welcome to claim to be women and take hormones that will give them the appearance of women. They're also most welcome to have equality with other genders and be protected from discrimination.
They're just not welcome to tell women what to do, share changing rooms, bathrooms, saunas or prisons with women.
I've been saying since the start - we built facilities for disabled people decades ago, now build some for the differently-gendered. Problem solved, and I'm dismissing their desire to be considered women to the extent that a beauty technician is called transphobic for not wanting to wax some bloke in a dress' dick.
Beautifully put!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm trying desperately to establish some sort of baseline agreement, while avoiding obvious risks like "they have arms and legs like women do lol".
ETA: The whole case for trans access hinges on the un-evidenced, largely un-argued claim that transwomen share some essential property with women. Several years into this, we still have no idea what that property is supposed to be.
Last edited:
So you're saying then that sex is different from gender? How so?
But if that's the case then how come those with gender recognition certificates are apparently using them to claim rights that are supposedly allocated only for those of a particular sex?
Looks to be some bait-and-switch happening there. A classic motte and bailey operation: sneaky "suggestion" that, for example, "female" as a gender and as a sex are the same kettle of fish and then when challenged say, "Oh no, of course sex and gender are entirely different":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Outright frauds ...
"male" and "female" as genders are pretty much meaningless - no there there.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
But we do know it rhymes with "bender bidentity."
Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Got mixed up with the name here as I was tired when I wrote it. It's actually now called Body Integrity Dysphoria, not body integrity disorder. Formerly body identity integrity disorder.
Activists have already got the name changed to remove the word 'disorder' and replace it with dysphoria, as they did with gender dysphoria (this doesn't mean it's been 'declassified as a disorder', of course).
And yes, since dysphoria is required for diagnosis, believing that you have the wrong number of legs would not be classified as a disorder if not accompanied by dysphoria. Therefore, believing that one has the wrong number of legs, without dysphoria, would be a 'valid lived condition' according to LJ's 'logic', Apparently, this means one does have the wrong number of legs (since LJ's 'logic' appears to assert that a strong inner sense about one's identity, if not a disorder or product of a disorder, cannot be false or subject to alternative interpretations).
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,751
They have made no such determination, because "valid condition" doesn't mean anything. That's your own definition. You have also conflated transgender identity with gender dysphoria. Plenty of transgender people don't want surgical modification of their bodies. But those who do, well, how exactly is that different than people who want to surgically remove a limb? No answer has been forthcoming.
First off, you have consistently misrepresented the opinions of experts. You portray the issue as if there's a consensus when there really isn't. Second, some of the experts you have appealed to have demonstrated that they are not reliable or honest (for example, that whole mess with the AAP and their claim that puberty blockers are reversible). And lastly, there's a history of supposed experts in this field committing unspeakable horrors, driven by a radical ideology about sex that they tried to paint a scientific veneer over but which never actually had the rigor they pretended. Some "experts" today clearly suffer from the same biases, even if they don't perform such extreme experiments.
- Status