> "Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate."
LOL. "Inappropriate"? Just honestly say you disagree and why, rather than trying to shame me as if having a reasoned opinion (which differs from yours) is a moral failing. That's a good example of the word games I was talking about.
I fully support same sex marriage - and it was ext…
> "Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate."
LOL. "Inappropriate"? Just honestly say you disagree and why, rather than trying to shame me as if having a reasoned opinion (which differs from yours) is a moral failing. That's a good example of the word games I was talking about.
I fully support same sex marriage - and it was extensively debated *as such* for many years. I see that as direct and straightforward, not a "back door" ploy in the least. There was nothing remotely similar to "could you politely pretend we are married just to spare our feelings?" followed by "since you agree we are married, now you must give us all the rights thereof!" ploy.
That "trans people are in a legal limbo" is exactly correct and proper at this time in history, because the issues are indeed in flux. It's very clear that the democratic electorate has mixed feelings, and accepts some demands better than others. Rather than deal with each issue separately (eg: bathroom present different issues than sports), the "redefinition ploy" seeks to bypass the individual reasoning and evidence about each issue, and produce a "fait acompli" victory on all issues at once, without openly admitting that. So sure, I can understand how an activist would love to transform a "legal limbo" into "complete victory for our every demand", but I don't agree that it's an honest or transparent strategy.
> "The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is."
Could you explain that one more? How do you feel that trans women are unlike women, and how do you feel that gay marriage is unlike straight marriage?
"Backdoor ploy" has negative connotations with no facts backing the judgement up. You said "I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop". That could have been directly said as "I believe that they are trying to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop." There was no need for the "it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy". To quote you, "Just say what your view is rather than trying to shame trans-woman saying they are woman".
I don't understand how your comments on same-sex marriage apply to my comment. You'll need to expound.
I don't feel anything on the phrase "trans women are unlike women". I look for clearly observable facts. The facts are that someone born genetically male (or a man) can never be someone born genetically female (a woman). If using the terms man and woman to refer to something other than genetics, that's a different discussion. From a cultural perspective is easy for a "man" to pass as a "woman" in many places in society. In fact, many trans-people say they feel more comfortable being trans in a small town in Iowa than in San Fran. That's because those in the small town in Iowa don't even consider that the person may be trans.
From my perspective both technically and culturally its obvious that gay marriage can be what a str8 marriage is. In a legal sense, they can be close. Many str8 marriages involve kids that are a product of the couple having what is "normal" sex. That can't happen in a gay marriage. In fact, much of the traditional marriage definition was intended to clarify what the legal state of children was in a relationship. That is not as much the case today. But the laws around marriage started there.
So you agree that "trans women are women" is intended to gain ALL rights of women in one stroke (vs reasoning case by case), but characterizing that as a "back door ploy" seems too harsh?
You appear to equate characterizing that strategy as a "back door ploy" is the same as "shaming trans women". No, it's just disagreement with some activist demands; it's a critique of certain political framings used by activists which I find manipulative, not "shaming" people for feeling trans. And I try my best to be discerning rather than judgmental of people. Do I need to describe the difference?
I already explained the difference between "winning by redefining words" versus "winning by honest campaigning", so I won't repeat it. But the former tactic is what I characterized as a "back door ploy" and I stand by that characterization. If that hurts the feelings of some trans activists, so it goes; I am generally empathetic to people around me, but on the internet I do not substitute sympathy for reason; some things need to be said even if a fraction of the population will feel offended, or "being offended" becomes a weapon to bypass evidence and reason, with emotion.
I am not against all "trans rights", but I do not think that trans women are the simply "the same as biological women", so I think that each issue needs to be negotiated separately; the best solution for sports will likely differ from the best solution for prisons.
I'm guessing the first sentence of your last paragraph meant to say "gay marriage canNOT be what str8 marriage is", right? I do take your point that a major component of the social & legal institution of marriage has been and to a lesser degree still is about protecting children. But only a component. By today, it's clear that childless marriages are extremely mainstream, not an aberration. A good half of my (straight) married friends have never had children (and will not). Or are in a marriage which is not producing children.
Meanwhile a number of gay or bi friends do have children. So I don't see "conceiving, birthing and raising children" as supporting a categorical statement that "gay marriage cannot be what str8 marriage is".
I'm largely in agreement with most of your positions on "trans rights" and where the emphasis of the discussion ideally should be happening.
I'm not supportive the embellishing views with phrases that are judgements The "backdoor" judgement is exactly that. Here's a definition of "backdoor": "use backdoor to describe an action or process if you disapprove of it because you think it has been done in a secret, indirect, or dishonest way." There is nothing secret, indirect or dishonest in the vocal trans-peoples views that trans-woman are woman. They just believe that. There is some implication that you are being "manipulative" as you say by using that phrase. As the biblical saying goes, judge not lest you be judged.
As for marriage, I do agree that the concept of marriage is no longer really meaningful in many cases any more. Why is anyone getting married "legally" except for the following reasons:
1. To gain the tax advantages
2. To gain visiting rights in hospitals.
3. For those with biological children from couple sex in the marriage - i.e. str8s people - clarify legal standing on children in the marriage. Adoptions, surrogates, etc that gay and some str8 people use to have "children" has a legal definition beyond marriage that has to be established. Marriage is not necessary or even sufficient for those cases.
Everyone would be better off creating their own definition of what the marriage is than trying to use the default one defined by the state and federal government. Doing the default is just pure laziness and in many cases leads to problems later in the marriage.
I hear that you consider describing the words "back door ploy" as too judgements. And you are free to so consider it.
To be clear, I do mean that implication that using "trans women are women" as a way to gain blanket approval of all trans activists demands is indirect and dishonest.
Many people are pushed (or even compelled) to speak that slogan, which is emotionally sold as just being kind and accepting of the feelings of trans women; not endorsing that equation is considered causing harm. So TWaW is pushed as an emotional mixture of politeness, empathy, and solidarity.
But then, if TWaW, that implies that women's prisons, women's sports, women's shelters, women's changing rooms, and everything else that women have separate rights to - must be fully open to "trans women", however the latter is currently defined (eg: by self ID). This bypasses or obviates any rational discussion of each issue, based on the specific pros and cons and the effects on all parties (eg: women prisoners housed with intact male sex offendes self-indentifying as women). Or any evaluation of systemic differences in men's and women's sports performance and what factors affect it.
So it substitutes an emotional argument in one domain ("shall we help them feel better about themselves by saying they ARE women?") for many separate rational discussions in other areas (sports, prisons, etc). And I believe that is, for some activist organizations, a deliberate tactic.
If "TWaW" was sold as something one should endorse ONLY IF one agrees that subjective gender identity should trump biological sex in all circumstances, then it would be honest and not a back-door ploy. But it's sold as one thing (being nice to vulnerable people because you have empathy for them), then used as justification for several other things (agreeing with whatever trans activists demand because you have conceded their main point already).
So I'm going to stick with my characterization of that tactic as a "back door ploy", with the implications thereof. It's a critique of a tactic i perceive as being used by SOME people (trans or cis); it is NOT shaming everyone who happens to be trans. As such, it's my attempt to discern and deconstruct a political tactic, not an attempt to be personally judgmental of trans folk in general, based on an immutable characteristic. You are welcome to your own differing opinion, I am not trying to convince you, but just to leave a more accurate concept of my point in the minds of any readers.
> "Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate."
LOL. "Inappropriate"? Just honestly say you disagree and why, rather than trying to shame me as if having a reasoned opinion (which differs from yours) is a moral failing. That's a good example of the word games I was talking about.
I fully support same sex marriage - and it was extensively debated *as such* for many years. I see that as direct and straightforward, not a "back door" ploy in the least. There was nothing remotely similar to "could you politely pretend we are married just to spare our feelings?" followed by "since you agree we are married, now you must give us all the rights thereof!" ploy.
That "trans people are in a legal limbo" is exactly correct and proper at this time in history, because the issues are indeed in flux. It's very clear that the democratic electorate has mixed feelings, and accepts some demands better than others. Rather than deal with each issue separately (eg: bathroom present different issues than sports), the "redefinition ploy" seeks to bypass the individual reasoning and evidence about each issue, and produce a "fait acompli" victory on all issues at once, without openly admitting that. So sure, I can understand how an activist would love to transform a "legal limbo" into "complete victory for our every demand", but I don't agree that it's an honest or transparent strategy.
> "The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is."
Could you explain that one more? How do you feel that trans women are unlike women, and how do you feel that gay marriage is unlike straight marriage?
"Backdoor ploy" has negative connotations with no facts backing the judgement up. You said "I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop". That could have been directly said as "I believe that they are trying to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop." There was no need for the "it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy". To quote you, "Just say what your view is rather than trying to shame trans-woman saying they are woman".
I don't understand how your comments on same-sex marriage apply to my comment. You'll need to expound.
I don't feel anything on the phrase "trans women are unlike women". I look for clearly observable facts. The facts are that someone born genetically male (or a man) can never be someone born genetically female (a woman). If using the terms man and woman to refer to something other than genetics, that's a different discussion. From a cultural perspective is easy for a "man" to pass as a "woman" in many places in society. In fact, many trans-people say they feel more comfortable being trans in a small town in Iowa than in San Fran. That's because those in the small town in Iowa don't even consider that the person may be trans.
From my perspective both technically and culturally its obvious that gay marriage can be what a str8 marriage is. In a legal sense, they can be close. Many str8 marriages involve kids that are a product of the couple having what is "normal" sex. That can't happen in a gay marriage. In fact, much of the traditional marriage definition was intended to clarify what the legal state of children was in a relationship. That is not as much the case today. But the laws around marriage started there.
So you agree that "trans women are women" is intended to gain ALL rights of women in one stroke (vs reasoning case by case), but characterizing that as a "back door ploy" seems too harsh?
You appear to equate characterizing that strategy as a "back door ploy" is the same as "shaming trans women". No, it's just disagreement with some activist demands; it's a critique of certain political framings used by activists which I find manipulative, not "shaming" people for feeling trans. And I try my best to be discerning rather than judgmental of people. Do I need to describe the difference?
I already explained the difference between "winning by redefining words" versus "winning by honest campaigning", so I won't repeat it. But the former tactic is what I characterized as a "back door ploy" and I stand by that characterization. If that hurts the feelings of some trans activists, so it goes; I am generally empathetic to people around me, but on the internet I do not substitute sympathy for reason; some things need to be said even if a fraction of the population will feel offended, or "being offended" becomes a weapon to bypass evidence and reason, with emotion.
I am not against all "trans rights", but I do not think that trans women are the simply "the same as biological women", so I think that each issue needs to be negotiated separately; the best solution for sports will likely differ from the best solution for prisons.
I'm guessing the first sentence of your last paragraph meant to say "gay marriage canNOT be what str8 marriage is", right? I do take your point that a major component of the social & legal institution of marriage has been and to a lesser degree still is about protecting children. But only a component. By today, it's clear that childless marriages are extremely mainstream, not an aberration. A good half of my (straight) married friends have never had children (and will not). Or are in a marriage which is not producing children.
Meanwhile a number of gay or bi friends do have children. So I don't see "conceiving, birthing and raising children" as supporting a categorical statement that "gay marriage cannot be what str8 marriage is".
I'm largely in agreement with most of your positions on "trans rights" and where the emphasis of the discussion ideally should be happening.
I'm not supportive the embellishing views with phrases that are judgements The "backdoor" judgement is exactly that. Here's a definition of "backdoor": "use backdoor to describe an action or process if you disapprove of it because you think it has been done in a secret, indirect, or dishonest way." There is nothing secret, indirect or dishonest in the vocal trans-peoples views that trans-woman are woman. They just believe that. There is some implication that you are being "manipulative" as you say by using that phrase. As the biblical saying goes, judge not lest you be judged.
As for marriage, I do agree that the concept of marriage is no longer really meaningful in many cases any more. Why is anyone getting married "legally" except for the following reasons:
1. To gain the tax advantages
2. To gain visiting rights in hospitals.
3. For those with biological children from couple sex in the marriage - i.e. str8s people - clarify legal standing on children in the marriage. Adoptions, surrogates, etc that gay and some str8 people use to have "children" has a legal definition beyond marriage that has to be established. Marriage is not necessary or even sufficient for those cases.
Everyone would be better off creating their own definition of what the marriage is than trying to use the default one defined by the state and federal government. Doing the default is just pure laziness and in many cases leads to problems later in the marriage.
I hear that you consider describing the words "back door ploy" as too judgements. And you are free to so consider it.
To be clear, I do mean that implication that using "trans women are women" as a way to gain blanket approval of all trans activists demands is indirect and dishonest.
Many people are pushed (or even compelled) to speak that slogan, which is emotionally sold as just being kind and accepting of the feelings of trans women; not endorsing that equation is considered causing harm. So TWaW is pushed as an emotional mixture of politeness, empathy, and solidarity.
But then, if TWaW, that implies that women's prisons, women's sports, women's shelters, women's changing rooms, and everything else that women have separate rights to - must be fully open to "trans women", however the latter is currently defined (eg: by self ID). This bypasses or obviates any rational discussion of each issue, based on the specific pros and cons and the effects on all parties (eg: women prisoners housed with intact male sex offendes self-indentifying as women). Or any evaluation of systemic differences in men's and women's sports performance and what factors affect it.
So it substitutes an emotional argument in one domain ("shall we help them feel better about themselves by saying they ARE women?") for many separate rational discussions in other areas (sports, prisons, etc). And I believe that is, for some activist organizations, a deliberate tactic.
If "TWaW" was sold as something one should endorse ONLY IF one agrees that subjective gender identity should trump biological sex in all circumstances, then it would be honest and not a back-door ploy. But it's sold as one thing (being nice to vulnerable people because you have empathy for them), then used as justification for several other things (agreeing with whatever trans activists demand because you have conceded their main point already).
So I'm going to stick with my characterization of that tactic as a "back door ploy", with the implications thereof. It's a critique of a tactic i perceive as being used by SOME people (trans or cis); it is NOT shaming everyone who happens to be trans. As such, it's my attempt to discern and deconstruct a political tactic, not an attempt to be personally judgmental of trans folk in general, based on an immutable characteristic. You are welcome to your own differing opinion, I am not trying to convince you, but just to leave a more accurate concept of my point in the minds of any readers.