Continuation Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don´t know but I think if you identify yourself as chimpgender and you look serious enough while you do it many would consider it under the trans umbrella, which seems to cover practically anyone who wants to be included.

It reduces to the availability of abstract thought and transmission.

[Rolfe]

“It Was Obvious That’s a Man” : CNN Guest Rejects Colorado Shooter’s Non-Binary Claim

This would be hilarious if the subject wasn't so tragic. Loads of trans luvvies lining up to mock someone's claim to be non-binary on the basis of his appearance - his "presentation".

Non-binary identities are valid and we should always take someone's word for their gender identity because they know themselves better than anyone else. Nobody has to adopt a particular appearance for their authentic sense of self to be recognised as valid.

Until they just committed mass murder, apparently. Then, appearance is everything.

The article makes some interesting comparisons. In other cases we're exhorted not to misgender trans rapists, child molesters and even murderers (of women, obviously). Even recent trans identification is supposed to be respected. Doesn't matter what they did, if you don't respect their trans identity, even if it has only just been announced, you're a transphobe who wants every trans person dead. What's different about this one? I suspect because the premises that were bombed were a "LGBTQ+++" alphabet soup venue, and initial loud speculation was that this was a transphobic attack. Anti-trans people were being blamed as a group, look at what your hatred has incited. Joanne Rowling was even blamed explicitly. Sort of spoils the narrative if the bomber is non-binary.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don´t think I have a gender identity, am I transgender? Agender? who has the authority to say one is transgender or not? If I say I am, that makes it right?

Are you an expert, like the people LJ always talks about?

[Elaedith]

It was announced today that Susie Green resigned as CEO of Mermaids (actually it just says she left). What could be the reason for this, I wonder?

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Abooga

I don´t think I have a gender identity, am I transgender? Agender? who has the authority to say one is transgender or not? If I say I am, that makes it right?

Not accepting gender as an identity would solve so many issues.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

It was announced today that Susie Green resigned as CEO of Mermaids (actually it just says she left). What could be the reason for this, I wonder?

I can't imagine. Surely it was all going so well...

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't. For one thing, he's lying about gender experts saying gender is a spectrum. For another, his appeal to linguistic essentialism is a red herring.

For another thing, so what if gender is a spectrum? I'm all for it, actually. From tomboy to femboy, from bulldyke to drag queen, from effeminate to macho to all the points in between. Hack the gender. Queer it up!

Sure. All I was saying was that gender as a spectrum was one of things I agree with LJ about.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Because none of that actually matters to public policy or human rights. It still comes down to transcending sex. And transsexuality is still binary, not because trans is binary, but because sex is binary.

One can discuss whether gender is a spectrum without regard to policy issues. To my way of thinking, I'd rather be clear about foundational concepts, like what words mean, whether gender is a spectrum (it is), whether sex is a spectrum (it isn't), etc., and *then* get to the policy decisions because look how screwed up the policy discussions go when there isn't agreement on those foundational concepts.

[Rolfe]

I don't think gender even matters, if it weren't the case that men are using the concept to gain entry into women's protected spaces and categories. I literally don't care a button what gender anyone is or thinks they are, so long as people with male bodies stay out of our intimate spaces and the protected categories that have been instituted to compensate for the disadvantages women face due to our smaller and weaker bodies and having to operate in a society generally designed for men.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

There was some sort of scandal at that event. Apparently 80% of the questions asked by delegates were 'transphobic' and caused the speaker to have a meltdown (probably because they had never been challenged before).

Given that 'transphobia' typically refers to questioning claims in a manner that should be part of normal academic and scientific debate, it might be a good sign.

ETA. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is 'appalled' by what happened, even though they haven't yet looked into what happened.

P.S. It appears from the slide title at the top they were meant to be discussing 'gender indentity'. Is that some new thing where your gender becomes indented?

Somebody has posted more slides (with video clips) from the training event.

This is the thread reader version which is easier to read if you don't want to play the clips.

What we can see, unsurprisingly, is the usual activist nonsense about sex being a socially contrived concept, a spectrum (or bimodal distribution depending on which graph you are looking at), demands to ban conversion therapy for gender identity (where conversion therapy is taken to be anything other than unconditional affirmation, such as exploring alternative explanations for distress), along with a lot of muddled incoherence about sex versus gender, misleading statistics about 'intersex' etc.

This is where the problem originates. An activist is sent in to 'train' psychiatrists (or students, not clear who the audience was) in 'equality, diversity and inclusion'. The training is used to push ideological claptrap and pseudoscience, not as ideas that can be discussed and debated to test their validity, but as information that must be accepted without question in order to be employable. People who challenge it have their careers threatened; when people shut up and go along it becomes 'the medical profession now agree'.

At the end, there is the usual mantra about debate being hate, questioning what I say is denying my existence etc. Apparently, this is no longer working the way it used to, so instead the presenter took photographs of self-harming behaviour triggered by the 'transphobic questions' and posted them to social media. The College then shamefully took the side of the presenter without providing any evidence of investigation.

What we need is legislation requiring that anything marketed as EDI training consists solely of neutral, factual information about current equality law and how to abide by it and avoid illegal discrimination. Anything beyond that should only be allowed on the understanding that it is opinion that is up for debate and can be freely criticized and challenged in the same way as any other claim, without any fear of repercussions.

[Manger Douse]

Guess we know who London John's medical expert is now

[Rolfe]

I'd dearly love to know what the "45 transphobic questions" were, that got the poor snowflake in such a tizz.

[Manger Douse]

The same questions the trans rights activists on this thread have avoided over the years:

"what do adult human females and trans women have in common with each other they don't have with males and trans men?"

"Define woman"

"Define trans"

"Which medical experts?"

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

What we can see, unsurprisingly, is the usual activist nonsense about sex being a socially contrived concept, a spectrum (or bimodal distribution depending on which graph you are looking at), demands to ban conversion therapy for gender identity (where conversion therapy is taken to be anything other than unconditional affirmation, such as exploring alternative explanations for distress), along with a lot of muddled incoherence about sex versus gender, misleading statistics about 'intersex' etc.

We can also see a large number of spelling mistakes and typos, which, for someone supposedly educating professionals, is embarrassing to say the least.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

“It Was Obvious That’s a Man” : CNN Guest Rejects Colorado Shooter’s Non-Binary Claim

This would be hilarious if the subject wasn't so tragic. Loads of trans luvvies lining up to mock someone's claim to be non-binary on the basis of his appearance - his "presentation".

Non-binary identities are valid and we should always take someone's word for their gender identity because they know themselves better than anyone else. Nobody has to adopt a particular appearance for their authentic sense of self to be recognised as valid.

Until they just committed mass murder, apparently. Then, appearance is everything.

The article makes some interesting comparisons. In other cases we're exhorted not to misgender trans rapists, child molesters and even murderers (of women, obviously). Even recent trans identification is supposed to be respected. Doesn't matter what they did, if you don't respect their trans identity, even if it has only just been announced, you're a transphobe who wants every trans person dead. What's different about this one? I suspect because the premises that were bombed were a "LGBTQ+++" alphabet soup venue, and initial loud speculation was that this was a transphobic attack. Anti-trans people were being blamed as a group, look at what your hatred has incited. Joanne Rowling was even blamed explicitly. Sort of spoils the narrative if the bomber is non-binary.

Quote:

Reduxx is a newly-launched independent source of pro-woman, pro-child safeguarding news and commentary. We’re 100% reader-funded! Support our mission by joining our Patreon, or consider making a one-time donation.

I only looked for the above info after getting the feel that this was an anti-trans article. I also noted that every suggested article in the right margin appears to be heavily anti-trans. Maybe I'm wrong though?

Full list:

ICELAND: Prominent Trans Activist, LGBT Educator Being Investigated For Allegedly Sexually Abusing a Cognitively Impaired Person

Drag Show for Youth Aged 14+ Set to Tour United Kingdom in January

Women’s Rights Campaigner Threatened With Arrest Over “Hate Crime” Investigation

AUS: Serial Pedophile Who Identifies as Transgender Told to “Self-Manage Risk of Offending”

First Trans Representative in New Hampshire Arrested After Stalking Woman, Violating Restraining Order

Interesting totally unbiased source. The anger and hate flow freely from these articles and your recent posts. I don't like some of this stuff either but geez.

ETA:
Here are all their news stories. Common theme? It's even worse than I thought gawddam

https://reduxx.info/category/news/

**** like this makes me want to defend them even more than I normally might just because these people are such dickheads.

*cool, ******* is censored but dickhead is not! Must be a conspiracy.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Manger Douse

The same questions the trans rights activists on this thread have avoided over the years:

"what do adult human females and trans women have in common with each other they don't have with males and trans men?"

"Define woman"

"Define trans"

"Which medical experts?"

Sex and gender aren't the same thing. Assuming that then the question makes no sense.
Transmen are pretty much all adult human females, and transwomen are pretty much all adult human males.
That's reality, we can't morph our genetics just by wishing it.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I only looked for the above info after getting the feel that this was an anti-trans article. I also noted that every suggested article in the right margin appears to be heavily anti-trans. Maybe I'm wrong though?

Full list:

ICELAND: Prominent Trans Activist, LGBT Educator Being Investigated For Allegedly Sexually Abusing a Cognitively Impaired Person

Drag Show for Youth Aged 14+ Set to Tour United Kingdom in January

Women’s Rights Campaigner Threatened With Arrest Over “Hate Crime” Investigation

AUS: Serial Pedophile Who Identifies as Transgender Told to “Self-Manage Risk of Offending”

First Trans Representative in New Hampshire Arrested After Stalking Woman, Violating Restraining Order

Interesting totally unbiased source. The anger and hate flow freely from these articles and your recent posts. I don't like some of this stuff either but geez.

ETA:
Here are all their news stories. Common theme? It's even worse than I thought gawddam

https://reduxx.info/category/news/

**** like this makes me want to defend them even more than I normally might just because these people are such dickheads.

*cool, ******* is censored but dickhead is not! Must be a conspiracy.

Man defaults to sympathising with men, with no care for women's safety or comfort.

Colour me surprised. Not.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I mean, you’re entirely free to consider the APA - which is the de facto world authority on what is or is not a mental health disorder - to be “clowns”...

Moi?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=307914

[IsThisTheLife]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

... the APA - which is the de facto world authority on what is or is not a mental health disorder ...

The American Psychiatric Association is privately run and non-academic, akin to a professional union, the majority of practising American mental health professionals aren't even members. It confers no authority.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife

The American Psychiatric Association is privately run and non-academic, akin to a professional union, the majority of practising American mental health professionals aren't even members. It confers no authority.

Not even clear if LJ is talking about the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association, but presumably the former since it publishes the DSM-5. However, what you stated applies to both as the latter APA is a corporation.

The Association for Psychological Science split off from the latter APA due to concerns about its lack of scientific credibility.

'APS was founded in 1988 by a group of researchers and scientifically-oriented practitioners who were interested in advancing scientific psychology and its representation at the national and international level. This group felt that the American Psychological Association (APA) was not adequately supporting scientific research because it focused on the practitioner/clinician side of psychology, and had effectively "become a guild".[3] Tensions between the scientists and the practitioners escalated. The two groups had contrasting beliefs about such divisive issues as scientific versus human values, determinism versus indeterminism, objectivism versus intuitionism, laboratory investigations versus field studies, nomothetic versus idiographic explanations, and elementism versus holism (Simonton, 2000).[4] The founding of the APS was only the most recent instance of long-standing intra-disciplinary tensions that have characterized the field since APA's inception in 1892.'

[Rolfe]

Comment on the whole "this is just like racism" thing from an actual black woman.

https://twitter.com/Tr4nswomenRMen/s...23278680592385

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Comment on the whole "this is just like racism" thing from an actual black woman.

https://twitter.com/Tr4nswomenRMen/s...23278680592385

How can you tell what colour a person on Twitter is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rolfe]

Who knows. I could be a tabby cat. You're always free to assume anyone on Twitter is making the whole thing up. This especially applies to anything you find interferes with your world-view.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Who knows. I could be a tabby cat. You're always free to assume anyone on Twitter is making the whole thing up. This especially applies to anything you find interferes with your world-view.

I actually think you are just here for the **** and giggles,

you don't bother to check whether what you post is correct or not,

you just move on and post another,

and it just cycles and cycles and cycles.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Who knows. I could be a tabby cat. You're always free to assume anyone on Twitter is making the whole thing up. This especially applies to anything you find interferes with your world-view.

It’s probably wiser to apply it to anything that conforms with your world-view.

[Rolfe]

I actually posted the link because I thought the person made a good argument. However, as usual here, it's a case of argumentum ad hominem. Never mind the points being made, let's find some way to discredit or cast doubt on the person making the argument so we don't have to address the actual point.

It's easy with Twitter. How do you know that person is who he or she says he is? You don't. It's what is said that matters, not who said it.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Man defaults to sympathising with men, with no care for women's safety or comfort.

Colour me surprised. Not.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

........... It's what is said that matters, not who said it.

Uh-huh

[Rolfe]

You can't see the difference between those two statements?

[IsThisTheLife]

well, well;

Quote:

A non-binary drag queen who had been working in a nuclear waste job in President Joe Biden's Department of Energy has been charged with felony theft after they allegedly stole a bag from the baggage claim at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Sam Brinton, whose full title was as the DOE's Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition, is accused of taking the bag in September. They are currently on a leave of absence from their DOE job.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Minnesota.html

Figures. If "imagining themselves as women" is sexually exciting then getting hold of a woman's clothes would be considerably more attractive to them than just 'womens' clothes'.

[d4m10n]

That doesn't remotely follow.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Sex and gender aren't the same thing. Assuming that then the question makes no sense.
Transmen are pretty much all adult human females, and transwomen are pretty much all adult human males.
That's reality, we can't morph our genetics just by wishing it.

Do I infer correctly that your answer is "transwomen have nothing in common with human females that they do not also have in common with human males and transmen"?

Because the question is specifically aimed at the catechism that "TRANSWWOMEN ARE WOMEN!!!1111!!11eleventyone!"

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Comment on the whole "this is just like racism" thing from an actual black woman.

https://twitter.com/Tr4nswomenRMen/s...23278680592385

I know a LOT of black females that are extremely opposed to transgender identifying males having access to female spaces. A very large number of black females aren't merely gender critical, but quite unabashedly anti transgender.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I know a LOT of black females that are extremely opposed to transgender identifying males having access to female spaces. A very large number of black females aren't merely gender critical, but quite unabashedly anti transgender.

I think the point is that if black people, as a group, were begging for black-only toilet (and other) facilities to protect them from harrassment by aggressive white people, they might be listened to. They almost certainly wouldn't be called bigots and haters.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think the point is that if black people, as a group, were begging for black-only toilet (and other) facilities to protect them from harrassment by aggressive white people, they might be listened to. They almost certainly wouldn't be called bigots and haters.

Very true.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

However, the mistakes and misjudgements that have been made and will continue to be made (albeit hopefully in ever-diminishing numbers) are categorically not a valid reason to stop offering transgender services to this age group.

And exactly the same argument applies to using an 'affirmative treatment' model.

[Elaedith]

This is an interesting account of another gender critical discrimination case. Social Work England (SWE) brought a fitness to practice hearing against a social worker, Rachel Meade, over complaints made about posts on her private Facebook page. In the wake of the Forstater ruling they concluded last month that there was no case to answer and discontinued, but only after seeing the submissions on behalf of Meade. The case is still going to an employment tribunal next year.

The position taken by SWE is quite incredible. They ignored that fact that the complaint came from another social worker who engaged in hostile and abusive behaviour towards those with different philosophical views about sex and gender, including potentially defamatory statements. They also appear to have endorsed the position that gender critical beliefs are inherently bigoted, and that social workers are required to believe that trans people have literally changed sex: '...those who hold or espouse gender critical beliefs, generally speaking, are unlikely to accept that transgender people who have socially and/or medically transitioned from one sex to another, are as matter of fact, biology and reality members of their chosen sex'. This is contrary to current law as well as science.

It is of course legitimate to conduct fitness to practice hearings is there are valid grounds to think that somebody would actually discriminate against people with a protected characteristic. The tactics used by activists/cancel mobs is to frame disagreement with ideological, philosophical and political positions as hatred of people. This is no different from, for example, trying to destroy the career of an atheist on the grounds that somebody who rejects and criticizes religion is bound to discriminate against religious people, even when they have never done so.

The irony is that the complainant against Meade is the one who is not just stating their beliefs, but actually trying to foster illegal discrimination on the basis of protected belief yet apparently faces no consequences.

[Emily's Cat]

I was pondering some of the self-id and current inclusiveness tactics, and trying to zero-in on what exactly irritates me so much. I don't actually care whether any given person is feminine or masculine in presentation, what they wish to wear (assuming appropriateness for setting), what they do with their hair, jewelry, make up, etc. I don't care if a female person goes by a male name, or vice versa. I strongly believe that people should not be denied access to general housing, employment, or appropriate necessary medical care due to how they present themselves. I strongly oppose any person being discriminated against in law and policy on the basis of their appearance.

And yet, the entire fundamental concept of "transwomen are women" drives me up the wall. Because transwomen are obviously, blatantly, categorically NOT women.

I think I've finally pinned it down. It's because the individual holding this belief presumes they are entitled to force the perceptions of other people to alter.

The core concept underlying this ideology is that transwomen ARE LITERALLY indistinguishable from a female human. It's not that they are males who wish to do their best to pass as a female - passing is not required, and it's an affront to expect it. It's not that they in some way feel a strong affinity for females - there is no expectation that have any shared experience or even empathy for the experience of a female. It's not even that they want to dress in traditionally feminine clothing..

It's that they demand that other people perceive them as female.

Failure to genuinely perceive them as female is a deep insult to them, and they frame that as being intentional harm done to them.

It's very Orwellian. It is a clear parallel to brainwashing someone to say that they see five lights, rather than four... by dismantling what numbers are, what the word 'four' represents, and by disabling the mind from being able to separate reality from fiction.

[theprestige]

Yep. Same thing with pronouns. They're really about how people perceive others.

I call a transwoman "he" because he still codes as male to me, what he hears is, "that person thinks of me as male". And then he tries to run Orwellian brainwashing techniques on me, telling me I have to speak as if I think of him as female.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Yep. Same thing with pronouns. They're really about how people perceive others.

I call a transwoman "he" because he still codes as male to me, what he hears is, "that person thinks of me as male". And then he tries to run Orwellian brainwashing techniques on me, telling me I have to speak as if I think of him as female.

This is what has been driving me nuts about the debate. We've seen a situation where we're only allowed to talk about the issues if we use "preferred pronouns". It's framed as an issue of civility, and we all want to be civil, don't we?

In reality, enforcing the use of preferred pronouns is handing victory to the trans side before we've even got started. That is no way to achieve a productive discussion.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is what has been driving me nuts about the debate. We've seen a situation where we're only allowed to talk about the issues if we use "preferred pronouns". It's framed as an issue of civility, and we all want to be civil, don't we?

In reality, enforcing the use of preferred pronouns is handing victory to the trans side before we've even got started. That is no way to achieve a productive discussion.

It was the account of that man whose idea of validating his gender identity depended on his wife invalidating hers that turned the corner for me on pronouns.

Somehow, the two things now seem to me to be part of the same whole. Is that weird?

[Rolfe]

For me it has been there a long time. My friend Ashley transitioned many years ago and didn't change his name. I knew him as a man for years. I saw him cosplaying female characters and still knew him as a man. He always coded male to me and the idea of calling him "she" never sat well with me. I don't think I ever did it. I was prepared to accept Ashley and be nice to him and massage his ego, because I thought it was a distressing affliction, but sorry, he's still male to me. (Fortunately when I actually saw Ashley, it was sufficient to call him "you"!)

It was working through this in the present situation that made me realise why I felt like that. Even as I was telling Ashley how I supported him and sympathised and so on, and this was perfectly sincere and I like Ashley and wish nothing but the best for him, my deepest instincts were saying, but this is play-acting for Ashley's benefit. Nobody can actually change sex, that's nuts.

Pronouns have now become a matter of coercive control. They are part of the battle and if women concede to "be kind" it's the first wave of the flag of surrender.