A few days ago, Richard Dawkins posted the following observation on Twitter: “Sex is not the same as gender.” But it’s not your gender that gives you the physique to tower over woman athletes & break their swimming records. It’s your sex. It’s not your undressed gender that upsets women in changing rooms. It’s your sex.
“Transphobe” (n). 1. “A person who does not reflexively submit to every word I utter.” 2. “A person who asks questions.” 3. “A person who has the chutzpah to think for oneself.”
"A person who does not reflexively submit to every word I utter."
This! The arrogance is astonishing. To be fair, it's the same arrogance all identitarians exhibit. If you're a member of a particular identity group, so the logic goes, you simply cannot be wrong or misinformed or ignorant about it. Logic, reason, data, all of these are meaningless before the might of your "lived experience."
Truly liberal, pluralist polities seem utterly contrary to human nature. It is amazing that they have existed at all.
They are exceedingly rare. John Locke and Jacques Rousseau are historical anomalies. In the case of the United States, true liberal pluralism for all has existed for less than a lifetime (since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Immigration Act). In the UK about the same (even in the 50s homosexuality was criminalized there).
And already liberal pluralism is on a steep retreat in favor of identitarian (i.e., tribal) ideology on both the Right and Left. I consider myself very lucky as a person born in the 1950s to have lived the vast majority of my life within this narrow window of liberalism.
The irony is that the tolerance inherent in liberal pluralism created the conditions of its own demise. Liberal pluralists will tolerate intolerant identitarians, but not so the other way around.
In their zeal to shout down any and all criticism of anything trans they have allowed one of the worse possible people to become their guidon. It is amazing that they don't seem to see what a huge problem that is for them
"It is amazing that they don't seem to see what a huge problem that is for them"
Yep, it's an especially big problem seeing as the category of "trans" is getting broader and weirder by the second.
Male rapists in female prisons, "trans age" men "identifying" as 5-year-old girls, the tiniest degrees of gender non-conformity in children being medicalised, you'd think trans people would be far more eager than anybody else to distance their community from this stuff. But I've not seen a single trans activist speak up against this. I have, however, seen plenty try to defend it.
And they wonder why the right accuses them of 'grooming' and 'pedophilia'. It's because we know from a long established history that the left can't say no to anyone, including pedophiles, and this is how they're grooming fuzzy-headed progressives to accept pedophilia - yes, the old man 'identifying' as a 5-year-old is the next level. That is also an established male sexual fetish, 'adult babies'.
"That is also an established male sexual fetish, 'adult babies'."
It pains me slightly, but I want to make a distinction here. If somebody gets off by dressing up as a baby, I probably won't invite them to any dinner parties, but I support their right to do so in the privacy of their home. As long as there's no confusion about whether this actually *makes* them a baby, I can be pretty "live and let live" on adult babies.
The same goes, of course, for trans women. I'm regularly amazed that the TRAs haven't realised that until they started demanding to be literally considered women, until they insisted that *any* boundaries women might assert were oppression, hardly anybody had an issue with trans inclusion. It's only since people started to believe that a change of pronouns actually *makes* a man into a woman that things started going wrong.
“It's hard to believe anyone would decry the fake authenticity of one influencer when it's literally the job description for all of them and I find it much more likely that you wanted publicity by going after an acceptable trans target and do not have the writing skills necessary to at least pretend it's not an attack on trans people in general convincingly.”
This made me laugh out loud. Who in this picture lacks writing skills? It certainly isn’t Steve.
I really don’t see how anywho believes that “trans women are women” should have any right to be taken seriously, or why such a view should not be grounds for institutionalization.
A “trans woman” is a man impersonating a woman. This is a fact, to claim otherwise is doctrinaire to the point of madness.
Yet Kitty sees this indisputable biological fact as “hate.”
Allow yourself to see the sickness.
Oh, and Kitty shout use a dictionary. Easyness? Vapidness? Not even words.
"or why such a view should not be grounds for institutionalization"
Haha, it's a really fascinating example of Orwell's doublethink. Very similar to the "black people can't be racist, because racism is prejudice plus power" mindset.
When you ask some people whether black people can be racist, they genuinely believe the answer is "no." They haven't thought about how this implies that black people are inherently powerless, they don't acknowledge the the word "racist" already has a definition that is different to this, the dogma must be accepted completely and uncritically.
Same for "trans women are women."
They haven't really thought about what a woman is or what a trans woman is or what it means to equate them, the dogma must be treated as a fact in and of itself.
What makes it glaringly clear that transwomen aren't 'the most marginalized people ever' is that marginalized people are *powerless*, or at least far less powerful than other groups. Transactivists have an outsized power to shut down speech, deplatform, and get people fired if they don't tow the trans party line. If they were truly 'the most marginalized people ever' they wouldn't have this power.
Rather than "vocal" I'd use the word "extreme" here. And the good news is that the majority of people aren't on the extreme left or right. The bad news is that this majority is all too often silent. Because they're afraid of being called mean names by the extremists. Any progress, in my opinion, rests on mobilising this silent majority.
I transitioned to "vocal" when I was on medium because "extreme" would trigger a "micro-agression". I seem to still have gotten enough "complaints" kick me off of Medium.
This is why you can't really talk to these people. They're so as mired in their own righteousness and 100% truth as the far right. It's like trying to convince a Trumper they shouldn't support a thrice-indicted candidate.
She's the kind of woman TAs love because she's so easily gaslit and indoctrinated. I will blame two generations (Y & Z) of coddled, permissive progressive parenting for this. While I do appreciate liberal parents' desire to not limit their children the way many conservative parents do (it's troubling how little support gay kids in conservative families get), they have taken it too far, have never been able to say No often enough, and have bought into all this queer theory nonsense. I saw it with my highly liberal progressive friend whose daughter first decided she was bisexual, then a lesbian, then....non-binary. And I was like, "What?" Well, she was getting this crap in high school, and later in college, and my friend bought into all of it and just listened instead of ever challenging. Fortunately, the daughter found a nice transwoman to marry and they have a child; they seem to be a pretty functional happy family so good for them, it can be done. But I wonder how that works for kids born to more psychologically dysfunctional families like this.
I keep trying to understand what it is about female psychology that makes so many women like Kitten vulnerable to manipulative misogynists in this movement.
“Transphobe” (n). 1. “A person who does not reflexively submit to every word I utter.” 2. “A person who asks questions.” 3. “A person who has the chutzpah to think for oneself.”
"A person who does not reflexively submit to every word I utter."
This! The arrogance is astonishing. To be fair, it's the same arrogance all identitarians exhibit. If you're a member of a particular identity group, so the logic goes, you simply cannot be wrong or misinformed or ignorant about it. Logic, reason, data, all of these are meaningless before the might of your "lived experience."
Truly liberal, pluralist polities seem utterly contrary to human nature. It is amazing that they have existed at all.
They are exceedingly rare. John Locke and Jacques Rousseau are historical anomalies. In the case of the United States, true liberal pluralism for all has existed for less than a lifetime (since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Immigration Act). In the UK about the same (even in the 50s homosexuality was criminalized there).
And already liberal pluralism is on a steep retreat in favor of identitarian (i.e., tribal) ideology on both the Right and Left. I consider myself very lucky as a person born in the 1950s to have lived the vast majority of my life within this narrow window of liberalism.
The irony is that the tolerance inherent in liberal pluralism created the conditions of its own demise. Liberal pluralists will tolerate intolerant identitarians, but not so the other way around.
I've still never read a satisfactory explanation of the distinction between 'experience' and 'lived experience.'
"𝘚𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵, 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘶𝘭𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥."
In their zeal to shout down any and all criticism of anything trans they have allowed one of the worse possible people to become their guidon. It is amazing that they don't seem to see what a huge problem that is for them
"It is amazing that they don't seem to see what a huge problem that is for them"
Yep, it's an especially big problem seeing as the category of "trans" is getting broader and weirder by the second.
Male rapists in female prisons, "trans age" men "identifying" as 5-year-old girls, the tiniest degrees of gender non-conformity in children being medicalised, you'd think trans people would be far more eager than anybody else to distance their community from this stuff. But I've not seen a single trans activist speak up against this. I have, however, seen plenty try to defend it.
And they wonder why the right accuses them of 'grooming' and 'pedophilia'. It's because we know from a long established history that the left can't say no to anyone, including pedophiles, and this is how they're grooming fuzzy-headed progressives to accept pedophilia - yes, the old man 'identifying' as a 5-year-old is the next level. That is also an established male sexual fetish, 'adult babies'.
"That is also an established male sexual fetish, 'adult babies'."
It pains me slightly, but I want to make a distinction here. If somebody gets off by dressing up as a baby, I probably won't invite them to any dinner parties, but I support their right to do so in the privacy of their home. As long as there's no confusion about whether this actually *makes* them a baby, I can be pretty "live and let live" on adult babies.
The same goes, of course, for trans women. I'm regularly amazed that the TRAs haven't realised that until they started demanding to be literally considered women, until they insisted that *any* boundaries women might assert were oppression, hardly anybody had an issue with trans inclusion. It's only since people started to believe that a change of pronouns actually *makes* a man into a woman that things started going wrong.
“It's hard to believe anyone would decry the fake authenticity of one influencer when it's literally the job description for all of them and I find it much more likely that you wanted publicity by going after an acceptable trans target and do not have the writing skills necessary to at least pretend it's not an attack on trans people in general convincingly.”
This made me laugh out loud. Who in this picture lacks writing skills? It certainly isn’t Steve.
"This made me laugh out loud"
😄 I was deeply wounded by this attack on my writing abilities. My ego may never recover.
I really don’t see how anywho believes that “trans women are women” should have any right to be taken seriously, or why such a view should not be grounds for institutionalization.
A “trans woman” is a man impersonating a woman. This is a fact, to claim otherwise is doctrinaire to the point of madness.
Yet Kitty sees this indisputable biological fact as “hate.”
Allow yourself to see the sickness.
Oh, and Kitty shout use a dictionary. Easyness? Vapidness? Not even words.
"or why such a view should not be grounds for institutionalization"
Haha, it's a really fascinating example of Orwell's doublethink. Very similar to the "black people can't be racist, because racism is prejudice plus power" mindset.
When you ask some people whether black people can be racist, they genuinely believe the answer is "no." They haven't thought about how this implies that black people are inherently powerless, they don't acknowledge the the word "racist" already has a definition that is different to this, the dogma must be accepted completely and uncritically.
Same for "trans women are women."
They haven't really thought about what a woman is or what a trans woman is or what it means to equate them, the dogma must be treated as a fact in and of itself.
What makes it glaringly clear that transwomen aren't 'the most marginalized people ever' is that marginalized people are *powerless*, or at least far less powerful than other groups. Transactivists have an outsized power to shut down speech, deplatform, and get people fired if they don't tow the trans party line. If they were truly 'the most marginalized people ever' they wouldn't have this power.
Another example why the country will never unite. Politics is everything for the vocal left and right.
It’s not possible to have agreement at the federal government anymore.
States can separate into vocal left and vocal right. Where does that leave independents?
Rather than "vocal" I'd use the word "extreme" here. And the good news is that the majority of people aren't on the extreme left or right. The bad news is that this majority is all too often silent. Because they're afraid of being called mean names by the extremists. Any progress, in my opinion, rests on mobilising this silent majority.
I transitioned to "vocal" when I was on medium because "extreme" would trigger a "micro-agression". I seem to still have gotten enough "complaints" kick me off of Medium.
This is why you can't really talk to these people. They're so as mired in their own righteousness and 100% truth as the far right. It's like trying to convince a Trumper they shouldn't support a thrice-indicted candidate.
She's the kind of woman TAs love because she's so easily gaslit and indoctrinated. I will blame two generations (Y & Z) of coddled, permissive progressive parenting for this. While I do appreciate liberal parents' desire to not limit their children the way many conservative parents do (it's troubling how little support gay kids in conservative families get), they have taken it too far, have never been able to say No often enough, and have bought into all this queer theory nonsense. I saw it with my highly liberal progressive friend whose daughter first decided she was bisexual, then a lesbian, then....non-binary. And I was like, "What?" Well, she was getting this crap in high school, and later in college, and my friend bought into all of it and just listened instead of ever challenging. Fortunately, the daughter found a nice transwoman to marry and they have a child; they seem to be a pretty functional happy family so good for them, it can be done. But I wonder how that works for kids born to more psychologically dysfunctional families like this.
I keep trying to understand what it is about female psychology that makes so many women like Kitten vulnerable to manipulative misogynists in this movement.