Continuation Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Man, it must really cause you great distress that most parts of the civilized world are seeing growing trans acceptance and that the TERFs are increasingly fighting a losing battle.

How long do you really think is left before the transphobes are fully repudiated within liberal circles? A decade? 50 years? Surely not much longer.

Seems to me that transphobes will soon have no political home outside the reactionary right. They'll probably have to dump the feminism if they want to be accepted by their new friends though.

That's an eye-opening post.

Yep, you're right. Females are being pushed out by the left, and the only place left that gives a **** about female rights is... the right. Which of course, does mean that females would have to give up on feminism.

So the solution seems to be... "Back to the kitchen!".

And you wonder why so many females oppose this approach?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How about a pyrofox?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

That was dark.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "transphobia" and "You're magical special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't"

Those of us with critical thinking skills aren't accepting a lack of gray area at all.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Progress is putting males into female leadership spots and silencing any females that disagree! Yay progress!

Seriously, though. How is it that you both seem so at ease with reducing the number of females being represented? If you really want to increase diversity and inclusiveness, why don't you give up male seats to transpeople? Why is it okay to take them away from females, who are already under-represented?

Would you support allowing biologically white transracial people to take seats allocated to minorities who are under-represented?

If you take the view, as I do, that trans women are women then there is no loss of women's representation.

I suppose inclusion of previously excluded groups does dilute the power of those who are already in the club. Yes, allowing blacks into baseball meant there were less white players.

Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint. Every role filled by a transwoman is one that might have been filled with a ciswoman had the exclusion remained in effect.

Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That was dark.

Oh, Cyanide & Happiness can get darker. Much darker.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I legit think this one is art.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.

Not only does this assume a definition of "woman" that is not universally accepted, it also assumes what the goal of the quotas actually is. For many supporters of such quotas, no, that doesn't still meet their goals. You were correct when you said, "Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint." But then you simply dismissed any alternative viewpoint to your own. That isn't persuasive.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Progress is putting males into female leadership spots and silencing any females that disagree!

A little wrinkle you may have missed; the Tory party is of course the one that has had 2 female leaders, and the Labour party while having women only shortlists for MPs has not yet had a female leader.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.

That article is ********, and shame on Scientific American for publishing it. Sex is NOT a spectrum. It is binary. It's binary in all mammals, and most other creatures too. It is literally a case of "large immobile gamete" versus "small mobile gamete". There is not third gamete. None at all.

This person should have their Biology degree revoked for saying things like this:

Quote:

The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.
...
Simply put, the idea of a sexual binary isn’t scientifically useful, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the brain.
...
Transgender humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution and nature itself. That is a fact.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Boudica's mind is stuck at "I'm a woman, therefore I go in woman space" and nothing will shift her from that.

Emily's is at "I don't want penises in my women only space, whether they are attached to men or women."

Round peg, square hole, someone make them fit.

I don't care. I have zero horses in this race. I only care about making other people feel safe and happy and accepted. Give me a solution everyone even 75% accepts and I'll hump it like sex doll.

I can't choose between transphobe and rape enabler.

Then get out of the discussion. You say you have no horse in this race... but you keep insisting on coming in here and telling us all how much you don't care. Oh, and how unfair it is to you to not know what the rules are.

And FFS, casting me as a transphobe and Boudicca as a rape enabler is infantile and incredibly insulting to us both. That represents neither of our views, and is just ******* rude.

So if you truly don't care... then please stop telling us how much you don't care.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Aber

It comes from a male lawyer who has made up his mind; at some point discussions move from exploring the underlying issue, to simply winning the argument.

Idiocy isn't the way to win. My opinion, of course

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Overall, this was a really good post, AGG. It's nice to see you lay out your perspective in more detail.


I'm curious if you have any references for this? I haven't seen this expressed within the context of transgender topics ever.

("this", above, referred to the belief that gender doesn't exist.)

I have certainly heard that view expressed in right wing sources.

Even on this thread, there is no one who says "it doesn't exist", but a lot of people have expressed doubt about its existence as a neurological phenomenon that is immutable and truly a part of a person's existence or experience.

I, myself, have no idea what "gender" actually is. I totally understand the idea of gender dysphoria, but I'm not sure of what gender actually is when describing a person. If someone says that a person is "really" female, despite having male anatomy, because their gender is female, I honestly don't know whether to call that a real aspect of their identity, or a delusion, or a desire, or just a set of behaviors.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That article is ********, and shame on Scientific American for publishing it. Sex is NOT a spectrum. It is binary.

The argument that it is seems to be based on a conflation between sex itself (binary) and sexual characteristics, which can in some cases be a spectrum. But that's a bad argument to make.

[Dismember]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Boudica's mind is stuck at "I'm a woman, therefore I go in woman space" and nothing will shift her from that.

Emily's is at "I don't want penises in my women only space, whether they are attached to men or women."

IIRC E’s Cat *is* fine with transwomen in her space if they are making at least *some* attempt at “passing” as female. The idea is that if they’re putting in at least some effort, they’re generally far less likely to be an opportunistic predator.

The trans”women” EC was concerned about were the ordinary bearded “cis men” who were making zero changes but simply self-identifying as a woman and demanding that natal females accept that solely on the “transwoman”’s say-so. Incidentally, Boudicca actually agreed that someone of that description shouldn’t be using a ladies room, but when EC continued to the crux of the matter — namely, if we agree they shouldn’t be there, as long as they “identify as” a woman on what grounds do we exclude them? — Boudicca had no answer. Just right back to self-identifying being all that’s necessary and that transwomen are entitled to every last bit of private spaces that natal females set aside for themselves.

Quote:

I can't choose between transphobe and rape enabler.

I agree. I don’t think it’s fair or realistic to act as if it’s this strict dichotomy when there are plenty of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “TERF” or “bigot” but still want to have *some* biological-sex-based protections left for natal females. I don’t understand why that is considered unreasonable or why TRAs pretend this middle ground doesn’t exist.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I find this brief letter in Scientific American says it better than I ever could.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-transphobia/

The whole thing is pretty short and worth a read, but the concluding paragraph is below for brevity:



The "facts don't care about your feelings" crowd is doing a lot more non-scientific judgement than they like to let on.

That article has some good things in it, but fundamentally is using a straw man definition of biological sex. When you define biological sex as the type of gamete the organism produces - fewer and bigger, versus more and smaller - things are nearly completely binary, and is and has been extremely useful and even crucial for biology. I'm not a biologist, but Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True is one, and that's where I read about this.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

If you take the view, as I do, that trans women are women then there is no loss of women's representation.

I suppose inclusion of previously excluded groups does dilute the power of those who are already in the club. Yes, allowing blacks into baseball meant there were less white players.

Whether or not this inclusion is something to mourn depends on your viewpoint. Every role filled by a transwoman is one that might have been filled with a ciswoman had the exclusion remained in effect.

Seeing how transwomen are women, the goal of such a quota is still met.

You persistently present women as being equivalent to white males. Do you truly view females as the oppressor in society?

Yes, i get that you view transwomen as women. That's abundantly clear. I, on the other hand, view the vast majority of transwomen as males. It's not about their gender identity. It's about their childhood conditioning and their lived experience, and their ability to represent the views of a class of people in politics.

I don't think that a person born male, raised male, and conditioned male can effectively and appropriately represent the views and needs of females. Especially because a rather large amount of discrimination against women is rooted in reproductive capacity, and a large amount of the barriers we face socially and politically are a result of our biology. Those are views that a male-born person, even if they transitioned in childhood, cannot represent or experience.

Females are discriminated against in the workplace. We still don't make as much as males do. Some of that is deeply held social views that females are primarily supposed to fill the role of mother and caregiver, not provider. Some of that is also due to the assumption that a female *might* miss some work to have a baby. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are discriminated against in leadership and politics. We are still underrepresented. Some of that is the deeply held social view that females aren't suited for making "tough calls" because we're evolutionarily wired to be conciliatory peacemakers and carers. Some of it is because there's an assumption that we'll get bent out of shape during "that time of the month" and be completely unable to work with. Neither of those are barriers to males, and they aren't barriers to transwomen either.

Females are disproportionately subjected to sexual violence by males. We are physically weaker and smaller, and can be physically dominated and overpowered by most males. We are also at risk of unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape. Our claims to sexual and domestic abuse are frequently dismissed on the assumption that we must have done something to encourage it or to deserve it. Most domestic abuse and sexual assaults are not even investigated, and are depressingly underreported. While males can be raped, they are nearly always raped by other males. And even then, the likelihood of being physically overpowered is significantly lower for a male than for a female. A raped male doesn't face the additional risk of pregnancy. And although most male victims of rape do not speak out (thanks stupid gender roles and forced masculine stereotypes), when they do they are taken seriously and are rarely assumed to be lying or conniving or vengeful. This is a constellation of barriers that females face, that are significantly less of an issue for males, even transwomen.

You can adopt the slogan that transwomen are women, and support the view that society should treat their gender expression and presentation as valid. I have no objection to that view, and I support it as well.

But at the end of the day, transwomen are a subset of males, and cannot represent the views and needs of females effecetively.

Replacinng female seats in leadership and politics with transwomen does NOT address the continuing discrimination that females face. A transwoman, no matter how well intentioned, simply cannot speak for females.

That's been repeatedly shown in this thread. Boudicca, as well as you, AGG, and LJ, have repeatedly dismissed physical sex as "unimportant". Despite several females in this thread explaining the ways in which sex is NOT trivial to us, and is actually a very large element of continuing discrimination against females, you continue to view it as "not a big deal". I can only conclude that because you are male, sex is not a big deal to you, and the fact that it is a big deal to females is of no account in your perspective.

For time out of mind, females have been told that their concerns, their needs, their dignity, and their safety is "no big deal", and that we're overreacting and getting hysterical about nothing important. Not because it isn't important - but because it's not important to males.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So we're just accepting that there is no grey area between "transphobia" and "You're magical special girl-penis doesn't get to go places that a normal male penis doesn't"

Like we stopped seeing any difference between homophobia and the belief that marriage is just between a man and a woman.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Even on this thread, there is no one who says "it doesn't exist", but a lot of people have expressed doubt about its existence as a neurological phenomenon that is immutable and truly a part of a person's existence or experience.

Got it there is no one declaring it does not exist they are merely asking questions about if it really exists or not. Like no one denies the holocaust they are just asking questions about the common narrative.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, Cyanide & Happiness can get darker. Much darker.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I legit think this one is art.

Wow. Yes, art. The metaphorical treatment of sex work is surprisingly powerful for a stick-figure-ish cartoon.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Dismember

I agree. I don’t think it’s fair or realistic to act as if it’s this strict dichotomy when there are plenty of people who don’t fit any reasonable definition of “TERF” or “bigot” but still want to have *some* biological-sex-based protections left for natal females. I don’t understand why that is considered unreasonable or why TRAs pretend this middle ground doesn’t exist.

One of the problems is that activism now tends to attract the most toxic members of basically any group. Not all activists are toxic people, but the proportion of toxic people among activists of any stripe are going to be much higher than for the population as a whole. And that's because, unfortunately, activism can actually reward people for toxic behavior. So we see demands being made that can in many cases exceed what the community they supposedly represent actually want.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Paul2

That article has some good things in it, but fundamentally is using a straw man definition of biological sex. When you define biological sex as the type of gamete the organism produces - fewer and bigger, versus more and smaller - things are nearly completely binary, and is and has been extremely useful and even crucial for biology. I'm not a biologist, but Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True is one, and that's where I read about this.

Of course if they are not producing gamete's they have no biological sex and people find the idea that at menopause women stop being biologically female while accurate somewhat questionable and distasteful. Tying sex to fertility is rather a non starter for most people when taken seriously.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

For time out of mind, females have been told that their concerns, their needs, their dignity, and their safety is "no big deal", and that we're overreacting and getting hysterical about nothing important. Not because it isn't important - but because it's not important to males.

A bigger problem that the TERFs are having is that their concerns are increasingly not that important to other women. As much as you try to paint this as some dastardly plot by males to invade female spaces, plenty of cis-women resent this white-knighting by their bigoted sisters.

When the TERFs finally get shown the door, there will be plenty of cis-women slamming it shut behind them. Feminist women have always been the tip of the spear in opposing the TERFs.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Aber

A little wrinkle you may have missed; the Tory party is of course the one that has had 2 female leaders, and the Labour party while having women only shortlists for MPs has not yet had a female leader.

I confess that I haven't kept close tabs on all of the party seats in the UK But I've heard a similar notion from other British and Scottish women, that the conservative party is now far more pro-woman than the liberal side is.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dismember

IIRC E’s Cat *is* fine with transwomen in her space if they are making at least *some* attempt at “passing” as female. The idea is that if they’re putting in at least some effort, they’re generally far less likely to be an opportunistic predator.

The trans”women” EC was concerned about were the ordinary bearded “cis men” who were making zero changes but simply self-identifying as a woman and demanding that natal females accept that solely on the “transwoman”’s say-so. Incidentally, Boudicca actually agreed that someone of that description shouldn’t be using a ladies room, but when EC continued to the crux of the matter — namely, if we agree they shouldn’t be there, as long as they “identify as” a woman on what grounds do we exclude them? — Boudicca had no answer. Just right back to self-identifying being all that’s necessary and that transwomen are entitled to every last bit of private spaces that natal females set aside for themselves.

For the most part, yes. There are a few areas where I'm less willing to share, particularly prisons. I think it's downright reckless endangerment to put people with penises into a female prison, no matter how sincerely they identify as women, and no matter how effectively passing they are.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Of course if they are not producing gamete's they have no biological sex and people find the idea that at menopause women stop being biologically female while accurate somewhat questionable and distasteful. Tying sex to fertility is rather a non starter for most people when taken seriously.

Please. You can't imagine that you can modify the definition of biological sex to account for the fact that an organism might or will stop producing gametes? That the fact that organisms stop producing gametes at some point is some type of logical defeater? Especially since an organism stops producing gametes doesn't mean that they could have produced the other type of gamete at some point.

Also, please don't bring up the tiny proportion of organisms that never produce any gametes at all until you imagine what a rejoinder, similar to the one I've offered above, might be.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I confess that I haven't kept close tabs on all of the party seats in the UK But I've heard a similar notion from other British and Scottish women, that the conservative party is now far more pro-woman than the liberal side is.

As a matter of interest, this is the current breakdown in the UK, with total vs. women MPs, showing that the Labour party has a far higher %age of women MPs than the Cons


Con 365 87
Lab 202 104
SNP 49 16
Lib 11 7

[Ron Obvious]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Boudicca, I know it hurts your fragile heart to hear it, but you ARE biologically male. There isn't any gray area in this one at all, not in actual reality. You can no more change your biological sex than you can change the hair follicles created by your scalp, or change the color of your irises, or change your foot size. It's a part of you - your body IS you, and you are your body. Your brain is a part (an important one, definitely) of your body. But the things your brain thinks about your body don't actually change your body.

The sad thing about the unscientific times we're living through in is that while, what you've said is obviously and self-evidently true, you could nevertheless be up for hatespeech for it or be sacked for saying it.

Think of that when you look back through history and wonder why people got sucked into e.g. McCarthyism or the Satanic panic of the 1980's. We're living through a similar moral panic today brought to you by the oh, so liberal Woke anti-bigotry people. After all, if you disagree with them, you must a bigot, right?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Paul2

That article has some good things in it, but fundamentally is using a straw man definition of biological sex. When you define biological sex as the type of gamete the organism produces - fewer and bigger, versus more and smaller - things are nearly completely binary, and is and has been extremely useful and even crucial for biology. I'm not a biologist, but Jerry Coyne at Why Evolution Is True is one, and that's where I read about this.

Not "nearly completely". They ARE completely binary. There is no third gamete, there are only two. There are vanishingly rare cases where an intersex condition or chimerism could result in both types of gametes being present, but it is still not a spectrum in any way.

Binary number systems are just that - binary. Sure, it's possible for someone using and old-school analog typewriter to end up tying a 0 and a 1 in the same spot. And it's entirely possible for a 1 and a 0 to get interchanged or mis-copied, even digitally. But at no point is it possible for a 2 to show up in binary code. Same thing applies to gametes. All mammals (and most other species on the planet) have binary sexual reproduction.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I confess that I haven't kept close tabs on all of the party seats in the UK But I've heard a similar notion from other British and Scottish women, that the conservative party is now far more pro-woman than the liberal side is.

This kind of thing can also easily snowball into a preference cascade. If more women switch over to the conservative party, it is likely to become even more receptive to their opinions.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

A bigger problem that the TERFs are having is that their concerns are increasingly not that important to other women. As much as you try to paint this as some dastardly plot by males to invade female spaces, plenty of cis-women resent this white-knighting by their bigoted sisters.

When the TERFs finally get shown the door, there will be plenty of cis-women slamming it shut behind them. Feminist women have always been the tip of the spear in opposing the TERFs.

Wow. You cut out the entire meat of my post so that you could trot out dogmatic rhetoric instead.

Do you really have nothing at all to say about the points I made? Have you decided, in your entirely male view, that females no longer care about equality? And you've just assumed that a whole lot of ciswomen don't care about political representation and equal access to opportunities and social liberty?

Is it really your view that males are fully capable of deciding what's best for females?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by GlennB

As a matter of interest, this is the current breakdown in the UK, with total vs. women MPs, showing that the Labour party has a far higher %age of women MPs than the Cons


Con 365 87
Lab 202 104
SNP 49 16
Lib 11 7

Thanks

For clarity, how many of those 104 are natal females?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Wow. You cut out the entire meat of my post so that you could trot out dogmatic rhetoric instead.

Do you really have nothing at all to say about the points I made? Have you decided, in your entirely male view, that females no longer care about equality? And you've just assumed that a whole lot of ciswomen don't care about political representation and equal access to opportunities and social liberty?

Is it really your view that males are fully capable of deciding what's best for females?

I am of the opinion that women can decide for themselves, and many have decided that trans inclusiveness is not a threat to their own rights.

It seems women are deciding more and more that TERFs don't speak for them. They don't see trans inclusion as giving up on equality.

How do you explain the failure of TERFs to convince sufficient numbers of their fellow women to adopt their ideology? Why is it that TERF viewpoints are more popular with men than they are with women?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Is it really your view that males are fully capable of deciding what's best for females?

Don't take it personally. He may think he's capable of deciding what's best for everyone.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Thanks

For clarity, how many of those 104 are natal females?

'

Google doesn't find any trans MPs, though Lily Madigan has aspirations: Meet the woman who wants to be Labour's first transgender MP

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Not "nearly completely". They ARE completely binary. There is no third gamete, there are only two. There are vanishingly rare cases where an intersex condition or chimerism could result in both types of gametes being present, but it is still not a spectrum in any way.

Binary number systems are just that - binary. Sure, it's possible for someone using and old-school analog typewriter to end up tying a 0 and a 1 in the same spot. And it's entirely possible for a 1 and a 0 to get interchanged or mis-copied, even digitally. But at no point is it possible for a 2 to show up in binary code. Same thing applies to gametes. All mammals (and most other species on the planet) have binary sexual reproduction.

I only meant to account for at least the one exception that I'm aware of, the case in which an organism never produces any gametes. I'm not a biologist, so I was just being careful.

And, it doesn't change the point anyway. We don't have to have a perfect binary to assert the binary. Acknowledging how a binary might not be perfect doesn't mean we let in anything that mutes that binary. As always, let's acknowledge the reality we have.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Please. You can't imagine that you can modify the definition of biological sex to account for the fact that an organism might or will stop producing gametes? That the fact that organisms stop producing gametes at some point is some type of logical defeater? Especially since an organism stops producing gametes doesn't mean that they could have produced the other type of gamete at some point.

Also, please don't bring up the tiny proportion of organisms that never produce any gametes at all until you imagine what a rejoinder, similar to the one I've offered above, might be.

Ah the old no one sees any distinction between a steer and a bull argument why they don't even have different words for them.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah the old no one sees any distinction between a steer and a bull argument why they don't even have different words for them.

Seriously? Explain how this defeats the usefulness in biology of understanding that there are two types of gametes, and we call that difference sex, because I don't see the connection.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah the old no one sees any distinction between a steer and a bull argument why they don't even have different words for them.

They don't have different words to describe the sex of steers and bulls. It's the same word for both of them. Can you guess what that word is?

Male.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Seriously? Explain how this defeats the usefulness in biology of understanding that there are two types of gametes, and we call that difference sex, because I don't see the connection.

Because people who actually know biology know how limiting that is. Like species, it seems all nice and cut and dried but the closer you actually look at it the harder it can be to say if two animals are the same species or not. Are there clear examples that are not the same species sure, but there are a lot of cases where people will say they are either the same species or different ones that can interbreed or not depending.

So there always needs to be a third sterile category. And why shouldn't all sterile individuals be in it? This is about classification after all there is no shame or scorn associated with any classification, why are you getting so upset about simple and accurate classification?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I am of the opinion that women can decide for themselves, and many have decided that trans inclusiveness is not a threat to their own rights.

It seems women are deciding more and more that TERFs don't speak for them. They don't see trans inclusion as giving up on equality.

How do you explain the failure of TERFs to convince sufficient numbers of their fellow women to adopt their ideology? Why is it that TERF viewpoints are more popular with men than they are with women?

Ignoring your wibbly-wobbly and fluid definition of TERF for the nonce...

You keep making this claim that more and more ciswomen are flocking to the side of transwomen and supporting them. Do you have any support for that claim?

My impression is the opposite. Third wave feminism is hemorrhaging female supporters, because they've gotten tired of seeing the interests of every other non-female group get centered above the interests of females, on the idiotic trickle-down theory that if we address everyone else's problems first, then the problems that females face will just magically disappear.

It wasn't those "all inclusive" ciswomen who got the self-id section removed from the GRA amendment, and got Tavistock investigated.

If you're taking your impression from Twitter, though, I can see how you may have errantly assumed this as the case. What you seem to be missing is that TRA choke-hold on twitter that gets opposing female voices silenced and banned at the drop of a hat, but continues to allow self-identified transwomen to make violent threats against females on a regular basis. Not really a representative sample of the views of females.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Ah the old no one sees any distinction between a steer and a bull argument why they don't even have different words for them.

I can only giggle.

Sure, there's a difference between a steer and a bull in terms of ability to sire offspring. At no point, however, is a steer mistaken for a cow.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.