In the pantheon of quotes attributed to Mark Twain, one of my favourites is, “if you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Partly because I don’t like remembering things, but mainly because the truth is our only path to a shared reality. Even—and often especially— if it’s unpopular.
An amusing sidebar to this sentence: "The various two-spirit identities in Indigenous cultures"...
This term was (disputedly) coined by a non-indigenous fellow from San Francisco, part of the Radical Faerie movement, and has no historical basis in any indigenous culture. Despite being adopted by many (often younger) indigenous folks. Even its Ojibwe translation is translating the original American-Canadian English term, not vice versa. The designation "two-spirit" is about as culturally real as the term "Latinx"
When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you. A man with a hammer sees nails everywhere. There is often a difference in what you said and what people heard after it's passed through the filter of their own bias filters. But the idea that trans is a nessissary prefix and cis is not is something that doesn't get an honest and logical counter argument, just a block.
"When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you"
Haha, yeah, I mean Kitten quiet openly claims to know my thoughts better than I do. I come across it quite often from strangers on the internet actually😅
A lot of people, especially people who have been indoctrinated by this particular cult, have trouble differentiating their feelings from reality. And object strongly to any evidence that reveals their feelings are wrong. That's why it's so hard to talk to them. One of my favourite quotes by Thomas Sowell covers this nicely:
"The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
Imputing motive is definitely an issue - not just on the internet - between humans everywhere. Love that Sowell quote. It points to the fact that our education system is such a mess.
>"When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you."
Exactly.
I have come to believe that the misattribution of intention or motive to those we disagree with (ie: what somebody is trying to do, or why) is one of the most common cognitive distortions among humans (of many). It's incredibly easy to project whatever fits one's confirmation bias or agenda, in order to easily dismiss and demonize. Cheap shots.
Of course, sometimes we may be correct. But it's generally hard to know when that is, and easy to presume, so we need to be wary and cautious of this (usually unconscious) distortion.
I will cut Kitten one thin piece of slack: Thinking medical journals haven't covered the pseudoscience behind the trans movement (and the basic 'transwomen are women' is trans pseudoscience at its most basic). They *haven't* started covering this much at all except for the last few months, as they seem to be becoming aware that they're full of shit and the critics they've silenced were right all along. We need to call them out on their bullshit, if us laypeople knew this months or years ago, they should have too. Although the European systematic reviews may not have been accessible until more recently, not all of have been translated into English.
So Kitten may have been legitimately ignorant on *that* point, but you just pulled the wool away from her or his eyes (not sure what they are, actually).
And it's good to know that one of the Weapons of Mouth Destruction are, "Why is it so terrible to just call transwomen transwomen?"
"So Kitten may have been legitimately ignorant on *that* point, but you just pulled the wool away from her or his eyes (not sure what they are, actually)."
Oh yeah, I think people in the trans bubble are legitimately ignorant on lots of points. Child transition, the dangers of puberty blockers, the number cases of sexual assault carried out by "female penises" the fact that they go silent when I show the proof of this stuff (usually after confidently telling me it's not true) shows they probably didn't know.
So yeah, they're not (always) lying when they say ThAt NeVeR hApPeNs!!, they just close their eyes and ears the instant new and potentially challenging information comes along. That's why the word "transphobia" gets so much mileage. It's a handy shorthand to tell everybody else in the bubble, "Don't look at this, it's true and makes us look bad."
Sadly, that means nobody takes it seriously anymore when it's used to point out genuine bigotry.
You will read again and again, over and over, that post-transition regret and detransitioning are both uncommon. The activists will trot out this lie on every quarter hour, that getting body parts sliced off leads to elevated liefelong euphoria.
That's because those who end up regretful or suicidal drop out of contact with the clinics, who do nothing to maintain accurate longterm data. And why should they? It's all about enriching the shareholders. Neutering children is big business.
Yes, people ignore evidence they don't like, the woke are every bit as bad as the science cherry-picking I encountered from fundamentalist Christians back in the day. That other stuff is *illegitimately* ignorant. My point was that for the time being, many in the trans cult are legitimately ignorant now because the systematic evidence reviews out of Europe are only beginning to arrive on our shores, with the medical profession and 'scientific' magazines sloooooowly beginning to acknowledge that maybe it's not, you know, 100% accurate what they've been telling parents and everyone else.
Or even 10%.
But, I will give the tranzies about two more months to remain in their bubble, then I expect them to know this and will no longer call it 'legitimate' ignorance.
I personally believe the trans woman that want to claim the term woman are looking for validation of their identity. They are not trying to "appropriate womanhood".
This statement you make is a bit insensitive. Have you had to question your identity? I clearly had to question my identity. I lived a str8 married life for 32 years. When I actively came out as gay I knew I would lose support of most of the "friends" I had. I had the advantage of getting validation from the gay community.
As it turns out, much of the validation I got from the gay community was very self serving on the part of those who were validating me. They were really looking to hold me up as a reason why the str8 community is oppressive. For a while, that helped me justify moving to actively become gay. It wasn't long before I totally rejected that position. I no longer need validation from either the gay or str8 community. In fact, I struggle to identify with much of the gay community because they are still looking for validation from others.
The Masterpiece Baker and Christian wedding site lawsuits are examples of the gay community dysfunctionally trying to force the religious and str8 community to validate them. Its ridiculous.
That said, gender dysphoria is a very real issue for many trans people. I get that they would like have validation from the larger community of woman. They need to realize that they don't need validation from anyone. They do need legal support for basic issues like where to pee.
"As it turns out, much of the validation I got from the gay community was very self serving on the part of those who were validating me"
Of course. I think this is almost always the case. Because people who truly care about you accept you. They don't "validate" you. Finding validation is our job, not the responsibility of everyone who won't use our pronouns. As you say, you no longer need validation because, I presume, you're more happy in who you are.
As for trans women, their identity is trans woman, no? That is acceptance. As womanhood is already a thing, and as womanhood categorically does not include male human beings, yes, the claim "trans women are women" is an attempt to appropriate womanhood. To change it from what is, to something more convenient to people who want it.
Yes, gender dysphoria is a real issue. I understand that. But gender dysphoria doesn't change your biology. Regardless of women's spaces, regardless of hormones and surgeries, regardless of any of the other stupidity that has sprung up in this culture war, trans women are trans women. To deny this is a fundamental failure of acceptance.
Not really. I question my beliefs, I question my assumptions, I reflect on my values, I observe as my sexual orientation evolves, and so on. None of those are to me "my identity".
But I can just look at my ID (identification) to check my identity if I forget, that which makes me unique.
The idea of redefining "identity" to mean "which groups am I voluntarily, or involuntarily, associated with, whether I personally am typical or atypical of that group" is an odd inversion of the concept of identity. I am quite atypical of some groups of which I am nominally a member - that group membership would mislead you about who I am, rather than enlighten you. And even if I am not atypical, I share only some facet or trait with others in that group - my identity is unique, not defined by a single trait.
All that said about the word "identity", I do hear that you went through a period where you were forced to examine which group(s) you belonged to, and that this group membership question *in your mind* comprises your "identity". I'm not in charge of language, so you can do you.
Identities as I use it and as I believe it’s really used is how well a person internal views aligns with the dominant cultural norms.
I’m a cis-man - ie I’m genetically male and identify as male. That is dominant cultural norm.
I’m man that was married and had kids and now grandkids - that is the dominant cultural norm for a man.
I have never been incarcerated - that is a dominant cultural norm for being trustworthy.
I supported myself and my family my whole life. Another positive cultural norm.
I identified as “Christian” for most of my life. Definitely aligned with the cultural norm of the United States.
I’m a man sexually attracted to other men. Becoming OK but still not anywhere aligned with the cultural norm.
I got divorced. Now somewhat neutral of a cultural norm.
I’m living as a gay man now. OK but not the cultural norm. Most still feel uncomfortable knowing this.
I don’t support many of the ideas in the gay community. Not the norm in my community. We are supposed to stick together and be on board with the vocal part of the community.
Those are all major identity characteristics. Have you ever had to come to grips with an identity you felt you were that didn’t align with the dominant cultural norm!
Interesting how the only trait you specifically described as an identity was "Christian."
All the rest; man, married, father, grandfather, non-inmate, gay, divorced, these are all facts about you. Things as you say, that you ARE. Things that you can't change. You can be any of these things (except Christian) and still think, dress, and behave however you want.
Similarly then, woman is not an identity. You cannot become one, any more than you can become straight or Asian. If, one day, you decide you'd like to wear feminine clothing or inject yourself with female hormones, I think you should be free to do that. But that still wouldn't make you a woman.
“Im not sure why you moved to using the term “fact”. No trans person would deny the fact of their genetics”
You sweet summer child 😅 Yes, actually I’ve had several conversations (and seen countless more) with people who deny the most fundamental aspects of their biology. But yes, you’re right about my use of the word “facts”. Much better would have been “immutable characteristics that cannot change.”
For the overwhelming majority of people, “man” and “woman” are immutable characteristics, equivalent to being a male or female human. Just as a vixen is equivalent to being a female fox and rooster is equivalent to being a male chicken.
And just to circle back to your earlier claim. Even if I accepted that being a woman was nothing to do with your biology but whether you present as “sugar and spice” (do you not see that the nursery rhyme is the position the “woman is a feeling” side is taking?) there’s now increasing debate about whether trans women are female. Even though the only prerequisite for being a trans woman is that you are NOT female.
We are passionately agreeing on everything. I doubt you disagree that there are characteristics that culture has of a woman and man that have nothing to do with genetics.
The nursery rhyme is just an old example.
In fact, different cultures different in many of the characteristics of woman and man. Regardless, they don't believe a man can become a woman - a.l.a. Matt Walsh What is a woman. A very large majority of world doesn't believe that a man can become a woman or vice-versa. That will never change.
There are things which to me seem obviously language games, but which are often treated as serious assertions of fact.
"Trans women are women" is one of those. It's obviously not a statement of objective fact. It would not be true that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women.
I see the statement as an attempt to assert "society MUST redefine the word 'woman' to mean 'a non-trans biological human female or a trans biological human male' because some of us want that, and you are a bad person if you don't give it to us".
Changing the labels doesn't change the reality, though. As a programmer, I can change the name of a variable in my programs, without changing the complied binary or the behavior of the program. Calling a given person a "woman" doesn't change one molecule of their body.
Note that this redefinition of "women" is extremely anomalous to the English language. English picks up additional usages easily and this is organic to the language, but they are always in addition to existing definitions. Sometimes over many years one of the earlier definitions fades out, sometimes not - again, organically, based on how the broad body of speakers evolves their usage. However in this case, the redefinition is top-down prescriptive (with a morality framing), and aims to immediately ban all preceding usages. It aims to authoritatively and coercively replace the meaning. The goal of the redefinition is not to enhance communication, but to gain rhetorical advantage, so that bad faith advocates can "win by definition".
So why would that be done? Most often it's justified in order to accommodate the psychological needs of trans people, because it feels better to them - so why wouldn't everybody just comply, there's hardly any cost to being polite and caring.
I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop. Rather than negotiate about the contexts where it makes sense to treat trans women as biological males, the contexts where it makes sense to treat them as the feminine gender, and the contexts where they are neither on a case by case basis using logic and evidence - if they can redefine the word "woman", they can bypass all that and simply say "every single thing that has ever been written about 'women', in laws, policies, literature, philosophy, or any other human endeavor, now equally applies to us, fait accompli."
It's a trap.
Suppose that every self-proclaimed militia member decided to redefine "police officer" to include themselves, so that they would automatically gain every single right or privilege that police officer have (eg: making arrests and using deadly force if necessary).
Note that the only reason this ploy has some traction is that Critical Social Justice ideology is rooted in the educational, cultural, media and economic elites, not in the masses. Their influence over issues of language is near hegemonic, far beyond their demographic numbers. And language ploys are one of their favorite tools (from post modernism and critical theory).
While my style is to be polite and respectful in most cases, and I have not intentionally failed to use somebody's pronouns (for example), I am coming to understand why some people have shifted to no longer accommodate such demands. They see how a concession based on politeness gets weaponized for advantage.
Treating a trans woman as an "honorary" woman out of politeness and kindness, alas gets turned around by some activists as support for pretending that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women. "Since you agree that trans women are women, you have to agree that every time the word 'women' is used in any context, like "women's sports', it absolutely must by definition equally include us"
Nevertheless, most ordinary trans folks are not trans rights activists, and I continue to be polite and by default treat them with kindness - unless and until they, like any other human, does things which make kindness less appropriate. I make a policy of not holding all people of any class responsible for every person of that class.
But to repeat "trans women are women" kind of sticks in my throat today. I might say that many trans women should be treated as women in most contexts, and that all have the same human and civil rights that everybody has. But I'm not agreeing to go along with the redefinition ploy, because I don't believe it comes from good faith.
"so why wouldn't everybody just comply, there's hardly any cost to being polite and caring."
I think the point, which you've explored some of here, is that there's actually a fairly heavy cost to complying with this. Most simply, it's not true. Next, it makes it almost impossible to protect women in law. Third, it makes any attempt to exclude these women from places they don't belong, sport, say, easy to conflate with "hate."
The distinction needs to be clear so that we can talk about these issues honestly. So that future generations don't grow up so confused the they genuinely don't understand the difference between a male and a female (as I said recently, there are a surprising number of people who no longer understand this).
The number of times I actually need to explicitly state that a trans women is a trans women is vanishingly small. So for trans women who find hearing it offensive (which sounds like internalised transphobia to me) it's a minor issue. But the people who chant it like cultists don't do it for the sake of the trans women who hear it. They do it to signal their alignment with a reality-denying cult. And to brainwash people outside the cult into this belief.
Love this: “The goal of the redefinition is not to enhance communication, but to gain rhetorical advantage, so that bad faith advocates can "win by definition".”
And, yes, this is something the elites are trying to force the masses to swallow due to their nearly hegemonic control of our language. I had never thought about this control before; had always trusted the "smart people" to take care of these things. No more.
And your take on this is pretty much where I stand on the whole issue. Thanks for expounding.
Edit: I'm a web dev/designer by trade so I also lean on the objective universe for my vocation and am unwilling to change that.
Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate.
Was gay marriage a backdoor ploy to appropriate marriage? No!
It was two things:
A. Gays wanting validation of their “relationships” as “normal”. As it turns out most gays couples are anything but normal including my relationship with my partner. I don’t need and don’t want to normalize my relationship let alone appropriate what the term marriage means.
B. Gays getting access to all the legal rights of marriage in one fell swoop. Based on how the government works, there was no other practical way for gays to get access to those rights under the term civil union. Gays needed access to the case law that had already been settled under the term marriage. I personally believe the government should not have any laws around the concept of marriage.
Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman.
The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is.
That’s true but focusing on that doesn’t get trans people out of their legal limbo. The legal issues are very real! Saying it’s just a ploy is a very thoughtless way of framing it.
"Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman."
Nonsense. The entire jenner idennity cult is around getting atterntion. And in the end it will disappear, leaving in its wake hundreds of thousnds of mutilated bodies and damaged minds.
Because "trans" women are not women, they are men, and however many times their change their magic pronouns and magic names, they are still men.
That's realilty, and reality pretty much always prevails in the end. And when the fog dissipates, I hope to see a lot of McGender clinic execs and surgeons swinging from lampposts and a lot of former "trans"activists fearing for their lives.
For the record, do you regard people who want to see children mutilated as "good?"
If they're being "who they truly are," why do 90% of them outgrow it? And why, and I mean it, should people who are so uncomforable with who they are that they turn themselves into nightmarish freaks and destroy their health and bodies ... be respected for who they are?
I'm gay too, you know, and I came out in a city and a time when gay meant drag queens, the rest of us only there to give them an audience. None of them had jobs and every one of them lived with a succession of soon-to-be-ex-friends from whom they stole. But they were adults and of an age to make their own choices, however poor those choices were.
"Trans" is all about preying on confused, disturbed, and desperately shallow kids and pretending they're just 'being who they really are." Well, sorry (not really) but I am not joining that pretense. I look forward to the day when kids find another Korean boy band or hair style or fashion to "unify" around and this "trans" crap, yes, ceases to exist.
Ah yes. Let’s use a term that no morally respectful human being could disagree with - “child mutilation”.
Let’s talk about “child mutilation. What is that specifically?
Is abortion child mutilation? Seems like it would be the most extreme.
Is circumcision of baby boys child mutilation? Hard to say it’s not.
Is piercing a young girls ears child mutilation?
Is allowing kids to participate in sports that hurt their bodies forever (eg football gymnastics) child mutilation?
How about just allowing children to wear high heels or for that matter get a sun tan?
Is pulling wisdom teeth or taking tonsils out child mutilation? How about braces on teeth?
How about letting a child get any sort of plastic surgery to “fix” their appearance?
Seriously. Resorting to terms like “child mutilation” means you are just judging anyone who believes it’s the best known treatment today (eg the APA and doctors) as morally inferior to you!
> "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.
Oh god you are so wrong. The only thing so many gays had against SSM was tjat they knew it would take the esteem away from the promiscuity. That bathhouses didn't close in 1982 was as solid a condemnation of the immaturity of gay culture as cigarettes are for capitalism.
You sneer-quote "relationships." Wow. I've been with the same guy since the mid 90s, we went to 6the USA and got married in san Jose in 2017.
I've never been much for gay culture and my various lovers and I have known a lot of heterosexual couples. exact same issues, exact same conflicts, exact same everything.
You must have felt all special being oart of the marginal enclave culture, I never did. I only went to the clubs to find guys to fuck., and even then it was only for about a year and a half in my 40s. Later I met them online. No cigarettes.
I was married to a woman for 32 years. My marriage was nothing like the gay relationship I have today. My partner and I are planing to get married but the only reason is for tax purposes. Everything else we already have covered.
I disagree with your perspective. The old joke "Grindr is the best place to find a husband. That's where I found all of yours!" applies.
And I only got married (heterosexually) after living together for 7 years, but when I needed insurance coverage. Gay and straight marriages both vary greatly. I don't see a solid basis for characterizing them as nothing like each other, as categorically different in ways that affect the institution of marriage.
You of course are free to so characterize you own marriages that way, but having two marriages differ greatly is not unique to your situation. Chris' marriage might be more similar in substantial aspects to your marriage to a woman. Your pattern is not close to universal.
I wish you had responded with “trans women are men impersonating women.” Because that is the truth. Sex is determined when one spermatozoan wins the race and penetrates the ovum, and that sex is lifelong. It is irrespective of developmental defects, medical intervention, clothing and cosmetics, or the adoption of some preposterous jenner idennidy.
For some reason much of the western world has accepted this pseudoscientific rubbish when it is clear as can be that fewer than 1% of this cult actually suffers from gender identity disorder, and it’s activists claim that GID is optional, which means that nearly all of “trans” is, you ready?
FAKE
I laugh heartily when I read about a “trans community”; people who talk and think only about themselves, their pronouns, themselves, their gender identities, themselves, their fictitious grievances, themselves... are far too self-absorbed to work in any cooperative fashion.
They are nuisances and people are rapidly tiring of them. And their aggressive promotion of neutering children to lock them into their numbers was the going-too-far event that has energized opposition to them and disgust with their lies.
My great grandparents were machine-gunned by the Nazis in Lithuania in 1943. If I ever hear “misgendering is genocide” from someone in reach, that creature is going to wish it had never been born.
"They are nuisances and people are rapidly tiring of them. And their aggressive promotion of neutering children to lock them into their numbers was the going-too-far event that has energized opposition to them and disgust with their lies."
Yep. This is what happens when a group of people thinks there's no limit to the behaviour they're entitled to. They eventually bump up against a hard limit and a get a dose of reality. I think, in a few years, a lot of people are going to have to come up with reasons why they advocated for operating on and sterilising children.
The trans-people who want kids to have access to trans medical procedures are not being malicious. They really want to help kids with gender dysphoria.
Like many complex issues, they making it black and white turns out to be dysfunctional. The Danes have come out with a much more nuanced view.
Your response is polarizing the discussion and avoiding the real challenges trans people are trying to sort out. It’s not the high ground!
As if they need any help with that. Look at Paul Marsh, Dylan Mulvaney. Look at those freaks with the beards and eye shadow. What could I or anyone do to lessen their humanity?
And stop saying "trans." I sneer-quote it for a reason; there are transsexuals (maybe 5000 nationwide), who suffer from a real and unsummoned aflliction and who deserve sympathy and support, and then there are "transgenders" who are self-marginalizing freaks with a tragic need to "belong" to something, inventing a fictitious community too self-absorbed to toss a life preserver to one of their clan drowning. Oh, and then there are transvestites, crossdressers, all three collectively "trans" with the rest of their words as amputated as a TikTok girl's breasts, to squeeze into one dishonest word and pretend they're something new and wonderful. And numerous
People who perform "trans medical procedures" and people who persuade them to get mutilated should go into Moloch's belly.
Don't you ever wonder why a movement of such affirmation and kindness needs so many lies?
Sol was banned from PITT, I hope you're next. Yeah, "they really want to help kids with "gender dysphoria," which is to say, self-reports by mentally ill teens who do not have Gender Identity Disorder, only "gender dysphoria," which is a self-reported canon to join the cult. "All my frenz are 'trans', me too!"
Yes, helping them by slicing off healthy body parts. By your lights, Josef Mengele was the kindest man who every lived.
You're goddamn right I am polarizing the discussion and if there is any way to polarize it further, I will do it. This is a violently unhealthy movement and every single position of "gender ideology" is a lie.
Now why don't you start in with "regret and detransitioning are all but unheard of," troll.
Oooooh, "complex issues," oooh-aaah. Nothing at all complex about it. Since the "rans" activists have declared that GID (or, in their case, the insipid "gender dsysphoria") is optional, not prerequisite, then they have open declared that "𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬" 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐤𝐞. They are not transsexual
How about you learn some biology? My anger issues, such as they are, lay ouside your business.
Funny to be hit with meaninglessness by a guy who calls pediatric sterilization a kindness. And, no, leading with abusive outrage is completely orthogonal to what I had to say. Your "trans" brats seek to replace biological sex with jenner idennidy, and you're all of a sudden losing ground and we of 𝐋𝐆𝐁 𝐧𝐨 𝐓 are going to do everything we can to see you lose a lot more.
Looks like you were banned from PITT as well. That's good. Steve is very reluctant to ban, but there is always blocking.
They already have their rationales queued up. It was "kindness," they were being "affirming," "inclusive," and "supportive," enabling children to grow up to be "who they really were.." My hands are shaking as I write this.
And, of course, it was all justified by the "trans suicide plague"; never mind that 40% of them were already quite sick before they joined the cult; deny them anything they want, or even delay their gratification, and they'll hate straight for the razor blades.
The only Twitter I follow is the LGB no T movement, which has rapidly moved into self-defense territory.
The "trans" are feeling the heat. What's happening in Europe will eventually reach the USA
An amusing sidebar to this sentence: "The various two-spirit identities in Indigenous cultures"...
This term was (disputedly) coined by a non-indigenous fellow from San Francisco, part of the Radical Faerie movement, and has no historical basis in any indigenous culture. Despite being adopted by many (often younger) indigenous folks. Even its Ojibwe translation is translating the original American-Canadian English term, not vice versa. The designation "two-spirit" is about as culturally real as the term "Latinx"
Just thought you'd enjoy that fun factoid!
"The designation "two-spirit" is about as culturally real as the term "Latinx""
God, why am I not surprised?! I didn't know this so thanks for the info. Just more linguistic colonisation from the anti-colonisation crew.
When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you. A man with a hammer sees nails everywhere. There is often a difference in what you said and what people heard after it's passed through the filter of their own bias filters. But the idea that trans is a nessissary prefix and cis is not is something that doesn't get an honest and logical counter argument, just a block.
"When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you"
Haha, yeah, I mean Kitten quiet openly claims to know my thoughts better than I do. I come across it quite often from strangers on the internet actually😅
A lot of people, especially people who have been indoctrinated by this particular cult, have trouble differentiating their feelings from reality. And object strongly to any evidence that reveals their feelings are wrong. That's why it's so hard to talk to them. One of my favourite quotes by Thomas Sowell covers this nicely:
"The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
Nothing is more indicative of just what a pickle we're in than "truth" preceded by a possessive adjective.
""Your truth is not my truth."
We're SO doomed.
Imputing motive is definitely an issue - not just on the internet - between humans everywhere. Love that Sowell quote. It points to the fact that our education system is such a mess.
>"When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you."
Exactly.
I have come to believe that the misattribution of intention or motive to those we disagree with (ie: what somebody is trying to do, or why) is one of the most common cognitive distortions among humans (of many). It's incredibly easy to project whatever fits one's confirmation bias or agenda, in order to easily dismiss and demonize. Cheap shots.
Of course, sometimes we may be correct. But it's generally hard to know when that is, and easy to presume, so we need to be wary and cautious of this (usually unconscious) distortion.
💯
I will cut Kitten one thin piece of slack: Thinking medical journals haven't covered the pseudoscience behind the trans movement (and the basic 'transwomen are women' is trans pseudoscience at its most basic). They *haven't* started covering this much at all except for the last few months, as they seem to be becoming aware that they're full of shit and the critics they've silenced were right all along. We need to call them out on their bullshit, if us laypeople knew this months or years ago, they should have too. Although the European systematic reviews may not have been accessible until more recently, not all of have been translated into English.
So Kitten may have been legitimately ignorant on *that* point, but you just pulled the wool away from her or his eyes (not sure what they are, actually).
And it's good to know that one of the Weapons of Mouth Destruction are, "Why is it so terrible to just call transwomen transwomen?"
"So Kitten may have been legitimately ignorant on *that* point, but you just pulled the wool away from her or his eyes (not sure what they are, actually)."
Oh yeah, I think people in the trans bubble are legitimately ignorant on lots of points. Child transition, the dangers of puberty blockers, the number cases of sexual assault carried out by "female penises" the fact that they go silent when I show the proof of this stuff (usually after confidently telling me it's not true) shows they probably didn't know.
So yeah, they're not (always) lying when they say ThAt NeVeR hApPeNs!!, they just close their eyes and ears the instant new and potentially challenging information comes along. That's why the word "transphobia" gets so much mileage. It's a handy shorthand to tell everybody else in the bubble, "Don't look at this, it's true and makes us look bad."
Sadly, that means nobody takes it seriously anymore when it's used to point out genuine bigotry.
You will read again and again, over and over, that post-transition regret and detransitioning are both uncommon. The activists will trot out this lie on every quarter hour, that getting body parts sliced off leads to elevated liefelong euphoria.
That's because those who end up regretful or suicidal drop out of contact with the clinics, who do nothing to maintain accurate longterm data. And why should they? It's all about enriching the shareholders. Neutering children is big business.
More on why the data are so stinking lousy:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/accurate-transition-regret-and-detransition
Yes, people ignore evidence they don't like, the woke are every bit as bad as the science cherry-picking I encountered from fundamentalist Christians back in the day. That other stuff is *illegitimately* ignorant. My point was that for the time being, many in the trans cult are legitimately ignorant now because the systematic evidence reviews out of Europe are only beginning to arrive on our shores, with the medical profession and 'scientific' magazines sloooooowly beginning to acknowledge that maybe it's not, you know, 100% accurate what they've been telling parents and everyone else.
Or even 10%.
But, I will give the tranzies about two more months to remain in their bubble, then I expect them to know this and will no longer call it 'legitimate' ignorance.
Nice new handle! :-)
Branding 😁
I personally believe the trans woman that want to claim the term woman are looking for validation of their identity. They are not trying to "appropriate womanhood".
This statement you make is a bit insensitive. Have you had to question your identity? I clearly had to question my identity. I lived a str8 married life for 32 years. When I actively came out as gay I knew I would lose support of most of the "friends" I had. I had the advantage of getting validation from the gay community.
As it turns out, much of the validation I got from the gay community was very self serving on the part of those who were validating me. They were really looking to hold me up as a reason why the str8 community is oppressive. For a while, that helped me justify moving to actively become gay. It wasn't long before I totally rejected that position. I no longer need validation from either the gay or str8 community. In fact, I struggle to identify with much of the gay community because they are still looking for validation from others.
The Masterpiece Baker and Christian wedding site lawsuits are examples of the gay community dysfunctionally trying to force the religious and str8 community to validate them. Its ridiculous.
That said, gender dysphoria is a very real issue for many trans people. I get that they would like have validation from the larger community of woman. They need to realize that they don't need validation from anyone. They do need legal support for basic issues like where to pee.
"As it turns out, much of the validation I got from the gay community was very self serving on the part of those who were validating me"
Of course. I think this is almost always the case. Because people who truly care about you accept you. They don't "validate" you. Finding validation is our job, not the responsibility of everyone who won't use our pronouns. As you say, you no longer need validation because, I presume, you're more happy in who you are.
As for trans women, their identity is trans woman, no? That is acceptance. As womanhood is already a thing, and as womanhood categorically does not include male human beings, yes, the claim "trans women are women" is an attempt to appropriate womanhood. To change it from what is, to something more convenient to people who want it.
Yes, gender dysphoria is a real issue. I understand that. But gender dysphoria doesn't change your biology. Regardless of women's spaces, regardless of hormones and surgeries, regardless of any of the other stupidity that has sprung up in this culture war, trans women are trans women. To deny this is a fundamental failure of acceptance.
> "Have you had to question your identity?"
Not really. I question my beliefs, I question my assumptions, I reflect on my values, I observe as my sexual orientation evolves, and so on. None of those are to me "my identity".
But I can just look at my ID (identification) to check my identity if I forget, that which makes me unique.
The idea of redefining "identity" to mean "which groups am I voluntarily, or involuntarily, associated with, whether I personally am typical or atypical of that group" is an odd inversion of the concept of identity. I am quite atypical of some groups of which I am nominally a member - that group membership would mislead you about who I am, rather than enlighten you. And even if I am not atypical, I share only some facet or trait with others in that group - my identity is unique, not defined by a single trait.
All that said about the word "identity", I do hear that you went through a period where you were forced to examine which group(s) you belonged to, and that this group membership question *in your mind* comprises your "identity". I'm not in charge of language, so you can do you.
Identities as I use it and as I believe it’s really used is how well a person internal views aligns with the dominant cultural norms.
I’m a cis-man - ie I’m genetically male and identify as male. That is dominant cultural norm.
I’m man that was married and had kids and now grandkids - that is the dominant cultural norm for a man.
I have never been incarcerated - that is a dominant cultural norm for being trustworthy.
I supported myself and my family my whole life. Another positive cultural norm.
I identified as “Christian” for most of my life. Definitely aligned with the cultural norm of the United States.
I’m a man sexually attracted to other men. Becoming OK but still not anywhere aligned with the cultural norm.
I got divorced. Now somewhat neutral of a cultural norm.
I’m living as a gay man now. OK but not the cultural norm. Most still feel uncomfortable knowing this.
I don’t support many of the ideas in the gay community. Not the norm in my community. We are supposed to stick together and be on board with the vocal part of the community.
Those are all major identity characteristics. Have you ever had to come to grips with an identity you felt you were that didn’t align with the dominant cultural norm!
"Those are all major identity characteristics."
I disagree here.
Interesting how the only trait you specifically described as an identity was "Christian."
All the rest; man, married, father, grandfather, non-inmate, gay, divorced, these are all facts about you. Things as you say, that you ARE. Things that you can't change. You can be any of these things (except Christian) and still think, dress, and behave however you want.
Similarly then, woman is not an identity. You cannot become one, any more than you can become straight or Asian. If, one day, you decide you'd like to wear feminine clothing or inject yourself with female hormones, I think you should be free to do that. But that still wouldn't make you a woman.
I went to a conservative Lutheran Christian grade school in a conservative Christian community.
My “Christian” identity is a fact not a choice. It is the dominant identity I had to work to understand.
Yes identities can include choices - especially choices after puberty.
Im not sure why you moved to using the term “fact”. No trans person would deny the fact of their genetics. That’s not being argued.
What is being argued is how much genetics determine whether a person is a man or woman or other for that matter.
How the dominant culture perceives and man and woman in many cases has nothing to do with their genetics.
This classic nursery rhyme proves that in spades.
What are little boys made of?
What are little boys made of?
Snips, snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of
What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And all things nice
That's what little girls are made of.
“Im not sure why you moved to using the term “fact”. No trans person would deny the fact of their genetics”
You sweet summer child 😅 Yes, actually I’ve had several conversations (and seen countless more) with people who deny the most fundamental aspects of their biology. But yes, you’re right about my use of the word “facts”. Much better would have been “immutable characteristics that cannot change.”
For the overwhelming majority of people, “man” and “woman” are immutable characteristics, equivalent to being a male or female human. Just as a vixen is equivalent to being a female fox and rooster is equivalent to being a male chicken.
And just to circle back to your earlier claim. Even if I accepted that being a woman was nothing to do with your biology but whether you present as “sugar and spice” (do you not see that the nursery rhyme is the position the “woman is a feeling” side is taking?) there’s now increasing debate about whether trans women are female. Even though the only prerequisite for being a trans woman is that you are NOT female.
We are passionately agreeing on everything. I doubt you disagree that there are characteristics that culture has of a woman and man that have nothing to do with genetics.
The nursery rhyme is just an old example.
In fact, different cultures different in many of the characteristics of woman and man. Regardless, they don't believe a man can become a woman - a.l.a. Matt Walsh What is a woman. A very large majority of world doesn't believe that a man can become a woman or vice-versa. That will never change.
There are things which to me seem obviously language games, but which are often treated as serious assertions of fact.
"Trans women are women" is one of those. It's obviously not a statement of objective fact. It would not be true that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women.
I see the statement as an attempt to assert "society MUST redefine the word 'woman' to mean 'a non-trans biological human female or a trans biological human male' because some of us want that, and you are a bad person if you don't give it to us".
Changing the labels doesn't change the reality, though. As a programmer, I can change the name of a variable in my programs, without changing the complied binary or the behavior of the program. Calling a given person a "woman" doesn't change one molecule of their body.
Note that this redefinition of "women" is extremely anomalous to the English language. English picks up additional usages easily and this is organic to the language, but they are always in addition to existing definitions. Sometimes over many years one of the earlier definitions fades out, sometimes not - again, organically, based on how the broad body of speakers evolves their usage. However in this case, the redefinition is top-down prescriptive (with a morality framing), and aims to immediately ban all preceding usages. It aims to authoritatively and coercively replace the meaning. The goal of the redefinition is not to enhance communication, but to gain rhetorical advantage, so that bad faith advocates can "win by definition".
So why would that be done? Most often it's justified in order to accommodate the psychological needs of trans people, because it feels better to them - so why wouldn't everybody just comply, there's hardly any cost to being polite and caring.
I believe it's sneakier than that, a backdoor ploy to gain literally all rights that biological women have in one fell swoop. Rather than negotiate about the contexts where it makes sense to treat trans women as biological males, the contexts where it makes sense to treat them as the feminine gender, and the contexts where they are neither on a case by case basis using logic and evidence - if they can redefine the word "woman", they can bypass all that and simply say "every single thing that has ever been written about 'women', in laws, policies, literature, philosophy, or any other human endeavor, now equally applies to us, fait accompli."
It's a trap.
Suppose that every self-proclaimed militia member decided to redefine "police officer" to include themselves, so that they would automatically gain every single right or privilege that police officer have (eg: making arrests and using deadly force if necessary).
Note that the only reason this ploy has some traction is that Critical Social Justice ideology is rooted in the educational, cultural, media and economic elites, not in the masses. Their influence over issues of language is near hegemonic, far beyond their demographic numbers. And language ploys are one of their favorite tools (from post modernism and critical theory).
While my style is to be polite and respectful in most cases, and I have not intentionally failed to use somebody's pronouns (for example), I am coming to understand why some people have shifted to no longer accommodate such demands. They see how a concession based on politeness gets weaponized for advantage.
Treating a trans woman as an "honorary" woman out of politeness and kindness, alas gets turned around by some activists as support for pretending that trans women are indistinguishable from biological women. "Since you agree that trans women are women, you have to agree that every time the word 'women' is used in any context, like "women's sports', it absolutely must by definition equally include us"
Nevertheless, most ordinary trans folks are not trans rights activists, and I continue to be polite and by default treat them with kindness - unless and until they, like any other human, does things which make kindness less appropriate. I make a policy of not holding all people of any class responsible for every person of that class.
But to repeat "trans women are women" kind of sticks in my throat today. I might say that many trans women should be treated as women in most contexts, and that all have the same human and civil rights that everybody has. But I'm not agreeing to go along with the redefinition ploy, because I don't believe it comes from good faith.
"so why wouldn't everybody just comply, there's hardly any cost to being polite and caring."
I think the point, which you've explored some of here, is that there's actually a fairly heavy cost to complying with this. Most simply, it's not true. Next, it makes it almost impossible to protect women in law. Third, it makes any attempt to exclude these women from places they don't belong, sport, say, easy to conflate with "hate."
The distinction needs to be clear so that we can talk about these issues honestly. So that future generations don't grow up so confused the they genuinely don't understand the difference between a male and a female (as I said recently, there are a surprising number of people who no longer understand this).
The number of times I actually need to explicitly state that a trans women is a trans women is vanishingly small. So for trans women who find hearing it offensive (which sounds like internalised transphobia to me) it's a minor issue. But the people who chant it like cultists don't do it for the sake of the trans women who hear it. They do it to signal their alignment with a reality-denying cult. And to brainwash people outside the cult into this belief.
Coercion is fun! ;-)
Love this: “The goal of the redefinition is not to enhance communication, but to gain rhetorical advantage, so that bad faith advocates can "win by definition".”
And, yes, this is something the elites are trying to force the masses to swallow due to their nearly hegemonic control of our language. I had never thought about this control before; had always trusted the "smart people" to take care of these things. No more.
And your take on this is pretty much where I stand on the whole issue. Thanks for expounding.
Edit: I'm a web dev/designer by trade so I also lean on the objective universe for my vocation and am unwilling to change that.
Stating it’s a backdoor ploy is really inappropriate.
Was gay marriage a backdoor ploy to appropriate marriage? No!
It was two things:
A. Gays wanting validation of their “relationships” as “normal”. As it turns out most gays couples are anything but normal including my relationship with my partner. I don’t need and don’t want to normalize my relationship let alone appropriate what the term marriage means.
B. Gays getting access to all the legal rights of marriage in one fell swoop. Based on how the government works, there was no other practical way for gays to get access to those rights under the term civil union. Gays needed access to the case law that had already been settled under the term marriage. I personally believe the government should not have any laws around the concept of marriage.
Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman.
The reality is that a trans woman can’t be a woman anymore than gay marriage can be what str8 marriage is.
That’s true but focusing on that doesn’t get trans people out of their legal limbo. The legal issues are very real! Saying it’s just a ploy is a very thoughtless way of framing it.
"Trans-woman are in legal limbo on a number of key issues. The debate about trans women are women is in practicality around the legal laws and cultural traditions around the term woman."
Nonsense. The entire jenner idennity cult is around getting atterntion. And in the end it will disappear, leaving in its wake hundreds of thousnds of mutilated bodies and damaged minds.
Because "trans" women are not women, they are men, and however many times their change their magic pronouns and magic names, they are still men.
That's realilty, and reality pretty much always prevails in the end. And when the fog dissipates, I hope to see a lot of McGender clinic execs and surgeons swinging from lampposts and a lot of former "trans"activists fearing for their lives.
What is your goal with your comments?
You seem to need to “judge” trans people as more sinister.
Trans people are humans navigating through life on an issue that the cultural norm would prefer not to exist. As a gay person, I get that!
The only person who is being sinister is you. You’re trying to portray them as some evil cult. Why? Because you need someone to look down in!
Focus on being positive . I’d love to hear about living in Vietnam. Is there a trans-debate there?
For the record, do you regard people who want to see children mutilated as "good?"
If they're being "who they truly are," why do 90% of them outgrow it? And why, and I mean it, should people who are so uncomforable with who they are that they turn themselves into nightmarish freaks and destroy their health and bodies ... be respected for who they are?
I'm gay too, you know, and I came out in a city and a time when gay meant drag queens, the rest of us only there to give them an audience. None of them had jobs and every one of them lived with a succession of soon-to-be-ex-friends from whom they stole. But they were adults and of an age to make their own choices, however poor those choices were.
"Trans" is all about preying on confused, disturbed, and desperately shallow kids and pretending they're just 'being who they really are." Well, sorry (not really) but I am not joining that pretense. I look forward to the day when kids find another Korean boy band or hair style or fashion to "unify" around and this "trans" crap, yes, ceases to exist.
Ah yes. Let’s use a term that no morally respectful human being could disagree with - “child mutilation”.
Let’s talk about “child mutilation. What is that specifically?
Is abortion child mutilation? Seems like it would be the most extreme.
Is circumcision of baby boys child mutilation? Hard to say it’s not.
Is piercing a young girls ears child mutilation?
Is allowing kids to participate in sports that hurt their bodies forever (eg football gymnastics) child mutilation?
How about just allowing children to wear high heels or for that matter get a sun tan?
Is pulling wisdom teeth or taking tonsils out child mutilation? How about braces on teeth?
How about letting a child get any sort of plastic surgery to “fix” their appearance?
Seriously. Resorting to terms like “child mutilation” means you are just judging anyone who believes it’s the best known treatment today (eg the APA and doctors) as morally inferior to you!
For the life of me, I can't imagine why you would want to use a euphemism, change the subject, or throw out a stream of preposterous comparisons.
I wish I'd had my tonsils out. I wouldn' be half deaf now.
So castrating and hysterectomizing young teens is comparable to getting earlobes pierced. Yeah, you have a 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 on reality, champ.
> "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.
Oh god you are so wrong. The only thing so many gays had against SSM was tjat they knew it would take the esteem away from the promiscuity. That bathhouses didn't close in 1982 was as solid a condemnation of the immaturity of gay culture as cigarettes are for capitalism.
You sneer-quote "relationships." Wow. I've been with the same guy since the mid 90s, we went to 6the USA and got married in san Jose in 2017.
I've never been much for gay culture and my various lovers and I have known a lot of heterosexual couples. exact same issues, exact same conflicts, exact same everything.
You must have felt all special being oart of the marginal enclave culture, I never did. I only went to the clubs to find guys to fuck., and even then it was only for about a year and a half in my 40s. Later I met them online. No cigarettes.
I was married to a woman for 32 years. My marriage was nothing like the gay relationship I have today. My partner and I are planing to get married but the only reason is for tax purposes. Everything else we already have covered.
I disagree with your perspective. The old joke "Grindr is the best place to find a husband. That's where I found all of yours!" applies.
And I only got married (heterosexually) after living together for 7 years, but when I needed insurance coverage. Gay and straight marriages both vary greatly. I don't see a solid basis for characterizing them as nothing like each other, as categorically different in ways that affect the institution of marriage.
You of course are free to so characterize you own marriages that way, but having two marriages differ greatly is not unique to your situation. Chris' marriage might be more similar in substantial aspects to your marriage to a woman. Your pattern is not close to universal.
I wish you had responded with “trans women are men impersonating women.” Because that is the truth. Sex is determined when one spermatozoan wins the race and penetrates the ovum, and that sex is lifelong. It is irrespective of developmental defects, medical intervention, clothing and cosmetics, or the adoption of some preposterous jenner idennidy.
For some reason much of the western world has accepted this pseudoscientific rubbish when it is clear as can be that fewer than 1% of this cult actually suffers from gender identity disorder, and it’s activists claim that GID is optional, which means that nearly all of “trans” is, you ready?
FAKE
I laugh heartily when I read about a “trans community”; people who talk and think only about themselves, their pronouns, themselves, their gender identities, themselves, their fictitious grievances, themselves... are far too self-absorbed to work in any cooperative fashion.
They are nuisances and people are rapidly tiring of them. And their aggressive promotion of neutering children to lock them into their numbers was the going-too-far event that has energized opposition to them and disgust with their lies.
My great grandparents were machine-gunned by the Nazis in Lithuania in 1943. If I ever hear “misgendering is genocide” from someone in reach, that creature is going to wish it had never been born.
"They are nuisances and people are rapidly tiring of them. And their aggressive promotion of neutering children to lock them into their numbers was the going-too-far event that has energized opposition to them and disgust with their lies."
Yep. This is what happens when a group of people thinks there's no limit to the behaviour they're entitled to. They eventually bump up against a hard limit and a get a dose of reality. I think, in a few years, a lot of people are going to have to come up with reasons why they advocated for operating on and sterilising children.
Stop with dehumanizing trans people.
The trans-people who want kids to have access to trans medical procedures are not being malicious. They really want to help kids with gender dysphoria.
Like many complex issues, they making it black and white turns out to be dysfunctional. The Danes have come out with a much more nuanced view.
Your response is polarizing the discussion and avoiding the real challenges trans people are trying to sort out. It’s not the high ground!
"Stop with dehumanizing trans people."
As if they need any help with that. Look at Paul Marsh, Dylan Mulvaney. Look at those freaks with the beards and eye shadow. What could I or anyone do to lessen their humanity?
And stop saying "trans." I sneer-quote it for a reason; there are transsexuals (maybe 5000 nationwide), who suffer from a real and unsummoned aflliction and who deserve sympathy and support, and then there are "transgenders" who are self-marginalizing freaks with a tragic need to "belong" to something, inventing a fictitious community too self-absorbed to toss a life preserver to one of their clan drowning. Oh, and then there are transvestites, crossdressers, all three collectively "trans" with the rest of their words as amputated as a TikTok girl's breasts, to squeeze into one dishonest word and pretend they're something new and wonderful. And numerous
People who perform "trans medical procedures" and people who persuade them to get mutilated should go into Moloch's belly.
Don't you ever wonder why a movement of such affirmation and kindness needs so many lies?
You are completely fiull of shit.
Sol was banned from PITT, I hope you're next. Yeah, "they really want to help kids with "gender dysphoria," which is to say, self-reports by mentally ill teens who do not have Gender Identity Disorder, only "gender dysphoria," which is a self-reported canon to join the cult. "All my frenz are 'trans', me too!"
Yes, helping them by slicing off healthy body parts. By your lights, Josef Mengele was the kindest man who every lived.
You're goddamn right I am polarizing the discussion and if there is any way to polarize it further, I will do it. This is a violently unhealthy movement and every single position of "gender ideology" is a lie.
Now why don't you start in with "regret and detransitioning are all but unheard of," troll.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/accurate-transition-regret-and-detransition
Oooooh, "complex issues," oooh-aaah. Nothing at all complex about it. Since the "rans" activists have declared that GID (or, in their case, the insipid "gender dsysphoria") is optional, not prerequisite, then they have open declared that "𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬" 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐤𝐞. They are not transsexual
Your leading with abusive outrage makes the comment meaningless. I suggest you seek counseling on anger management.
How about you learn some biology? My anger issues, such as they are, lay ouside your business.
Funny to be hit with meaninglessness by a guy who calls pediatric sterilization a kindness. And, no, leading with abusive outrage is completely orthogonal to what I had to say. Your "trans" brats seek to replace biological sex with jenner idennidy, and you're all of a sudden losing ground and we of 𝐋𝐆𝐁 𝐧𝐨 𝐓 are going to do everything we can to see you lose a lot more.
Looks like you were banned from PITT as well. That's good. Steve is very reluctant to ban, but there is always blocking.
They already have their rationales queued up. It was "kindness," they were being "affirming," "inclusive," and "supportive," enabling children to grow up to be "who they really were.." My hands are shaking as I write this.
And, of course, it was all justified by the "trans suicide plague"; never mind that 40% of them were already quite sick before they joined the cult; deny them anything they want, or even delay their gratification, and they'll hate straight for the razor blades.
The only Twitter I follow is the LGB no T movement, which has rapidly moved into self-defense territory.
The "trans" are feeling the heat. What's happening in Europe will eventually reach the USA