Transgender rights discussion

NotThatSoph said:
You're the best thing that can happen to the trans cause. Please keep posting. Get national attention and even professor Blackstock will change her mind.
Click to expand...

You're the best thing at ducking questions because you wish to avoid scrutiny of your answers. But hey, let me know when/if you've stopped dodging and diving and have answered the 3 questions I posed.
 
nimic said:
Of course you could. Besides, your post isn't even true. They're simply called midwives because that meant someone who is with a woman. That's all there is to it. Traditionally those were primarily women, and that remains today. But the majority of police officers and firefighters are also still men, and yet we've largely moved on from policeman and fireman as official terms. And I've no doubt that when these changes were proposed a few decades ago, people like you wrote into the Daily Mail ranting about extremists and "feminist ideology", and making slippery slope arguments about what comes next. Just like people even today talk about gay marriage, and the gay agenda, and say next people are going to want to marry dogs, or children, or their computer.

You're now those people, you just don't realize it.
Click to expand...

Your one of those people who impute the worst of motives and character to anyone who disagrees with you - hence I'm now a supposed rabidly right-wing reactionary.

You mention feminism and gay marriage, yet it apparently escaped your notice that a few posts back I was defending a lesbian feminist who was targeted by trans-ideology absolutists for daring to express concerns about aspects of that absolutism.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Your one of those people who impute the worst of motives and character to anyone who disagrees with you - hence I'm now a supposed rabidly right-wing reactionary.

You mention feminism and gay marriage, yet it apparently escaped your notice that a few posts back I was defending a lesbian feminist who was targeted by trans-ideology absolutists for daring to express concerns about aspects of that absolutism.
Click to expand...

Aren't you making the mistake of amplifying a minority view and speaking about it as if it's a mainstream one? Most of the things you're talking about aren't widely held views as far as I'm aware and nobody in here seems to be espousing them. You're sounding a bit like Glinner to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Withnail said:
Aren't you making the mistake of amplifying a minority view and speaking about it as if it's a mainstream one? The things you're talking about aren't widely held views as far as I'm aware and nobody in here seems to be espousing them. You're sounding a bit like Glinner to be honest.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned with trying to discern between true and false than I am with whether a view is held by a minority or majority.

But in this case it's hardly a minority view: I think the vast majority of the public have concerns about aspects of the absolutist form of trans-ideology, and that a small minority of aggressive trans-activists are trying to shut down all debate by throwing out accusations of hate-speech like confetti, trying to get people sacked from their job for daring to raise concerns, and in some cases taking threatening actions like publishing private addresses and encouraging activists to go there.

Such aggressive trans-activists apparently believe they can bulldoze society into believing that that biological gender is merely a social construct with little or nothing to do with genetics and physiology.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm more concerned with trying to discern between true and false than I am with whether a view is held by a minority or majority.

But in this case it's hardly a minority view: I think the vast majority of the public have concerns about aspects of the absolutist form of trans-ideology, and that a small minority of aggressive trans-activists are trying to shut down all debate by throwing out accusations of hate-speech like confetti, trying to get people sacked from their job for daring to raise concerns, and in some cases taking threatening actions like publishing private addresses and encouraging activists to go there.

Such aggressive trans-activists apparently believe they can bulldoze society into believing that that biological gender is merely a social construct with little or nothing to do with genetics and physiology.
Click to expand...

The minority view I was referring to was the small minority of aggressive activists you just mentioned.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm more concerned with trying to discern between true and false than I am with whether a view is held by a minority or majority.

But in this case it's hardly a minority view: I think the vast majority of the public have concerns about aspects of the absolutist form of trans-ideology, and that a small minority of aggressive trans-activists are trying to shut down all debate by throwing out accusations of hate-speech like confetti, trying to get people sacked from their job for daring to raise concerns, and in some cases taking threatening actions like publishing private addresses and encouraging activists to go there.

Such aggressive trans-activists apparently believe they can bulldoze society into believing that that biological gender is merely a social construct with little or nothing to do with genetics and physiology.
Click to expand...
I mean, this is just a fact? I think you’re making the very common mistake of assuming sex and gender are the same thing, which as somebody who studied physical anthropology to degree level I can tell you absolutely isn’t true.
 
phelans shorts said:
I mean, this is just a fact? I think you’re making the very common mistake of assuming sex and gender are the same thing, which as somebody who studied physical anthropology to degree level I can tell you absolutely isn’t true.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about biological gender, as recorded at birth based on physical appearance. If someone later self-identifies - emotionally/psychologically/behaviourally - as being a different gender, that doesn't (and can't) change their genetic make-up.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm talking about biological gender, as recorded at birth based on physical appearance. If someone later self-identifies - emotionally/psychologically/behaviourally - as being a different gender that doesn't (and can't) change their genetic make-up.
Click to expand...
So you are talking about sex and not gender.

Two totally different things.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm talking about biological gender, as recorded at birth based on physical appearance. If someone later self-identifies - emotionally/psychologically/behaviourally - as being a different gender, that doesn't (and can't) change their genetic make-up.
Click to expand...
I don't think I've ever seen someone use the term "biological gender". Ain't that just 'sex'?
 
Withnail said:
The minority view I was referring to was the small minority of aggressive activists you just mentioned.
Click to expand...

OK, but this small minority has been remarkably successful in making fashionable - a signal of "virtue" in "progressive" circles - their absolutist views.

How else do you explain the storm of criticism that descended on one of the current Green Party co-leaders for daring to say that women are commonly defined as “... typified by two XX chromosomes” ?
 
GlastonSpur said:
No, sex and biological gender are the same thing. Self-identified gender is something else.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm just an observer (not trying to pile on) but your government (I'm assuming you are British)says this;

Sex and gender are different concepts that are often used interchangeably. The UK government refers to sex as being biologically defined, and gender as a social construct that is an internal sense of self, whether an individual sees themselves as a man or a woman, or another gender identity.

So are Sex and Gender really the same thing?
 
RacingClub said:
Ok I'm just an observer but your government (I'm assuming you are British)says this;

Sex and gender are different concepts that are often used interchangeably. The UK government refers to sex as being biologically defined, and gender as a social construct that is an internal sense of self, whether an individual sees themselves as a man or a woman, or another gender identity.

So are Sex and Gender really the same thing?
Click to expand...
Yup you’re correct. Here’s the WHO’s take on the matter too

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.
Click to expand...

https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
 
The concept of gender, in the modern sense, is a recent invention in human history. The ancient world had no basis of understanding gender as it has been understood in the humanities and social sciences for the past few decades. The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s.
 
GlastonSpur said:
And as I've said, you are woefully out of touch with the reality.

You're of course entitled to your belief that "Trans women are literally women", but of course they aren't literally women. Instead they self-identify as female and pursue that desire/belief to varying degrees, none of which can erase their male genetics or (for the most part) their male physiology, or their lived experience - from birth to transition-date - as being seen as the male gender as recorded at their birth.

It is just ideological magical thinking to believe that trans women are literally women, and it's just perceived political correctness to go around saying it. The vast, vast majority of people do not believe that trans women are literally women and no amount of word-twisting will convince them otherwise, though most will not venture public opinions on the subject - especially if they work in the public sector - for fear of being potentially persecuted by ideological fanatics.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm very in touch with reality, what with being LGBQTIA+ and all. I think I have a pretty good handle on what the general mood is within the community.

You, on the other hand, continue with the willful conflation of sex and gender and the misrepresentation of arguments that is so common among your ilk. Instead of actually addressing the other sides arguments, you make up new, ridiculous ones and ascribe them to your opponents, then proceed to attack those instead.
GlastonSpur said:
It's come to quite a pass when lesbians, gays and bisexuals - many of whom will have experienced hostility and hatred because of their sexual preferences - are now being branded as a "hate group" because they dare to express concerns or criticism about any aspect of trans-ideology.

It's a symptom of just how absolutist trans-ideology has become.

If this is your preferred direction for society's evolution then count me out.
Click to expand...
Yes, my preferred direction for society is one were bigots are branded as such. The LGB Alliance does in no way have the interests of any of those groups at heart, and have more often spoken out against them than they have in favour of them. Their raison d'etre is to deny trans people rights, and if they have to sacrifice the rights of LGB people and women to do so, they're more than happy to.

Anyway, you continue to be the clearest example of Dunning-Kruger on these forums, and any attempt at debating you is pointless, because you have neither the will nor the capability to re-evaluate your views.
 
so the LGB Alliance are a tory minded group. so they only care about rich gay people, and having enough poor gay people to serve their masters? fook em.
 
Halftrack said:
Anyway, you continue to be the clearest example of Dunning-Kruger on these forums, and any attempt at debating you is pointless, because you have neither the will nor the capability to re-evaluate your views.
Click to expand...

It's wild to me that people so acutely aware of Glaston's whole Spurs thing, to the point that it's one of the Caf's most established and well-known jokes, think it's possible to have a discussion on serious topics. It's not like these things are unrelated; the rigidity, fervour and lack of contact with reality is always there.

Not saying that he should necessarily be ignored, talking at people for the benefit of readers can be effective and at times the Glaston routine can be great entertainment, but sheesh, it's like engaging seriously with Fearless on the topic of Israel. Just why?
 
GlastonSpur said:
OK, but this small minority has been remarkably successful in making fashionable - a signal of "virtue" in "progressive" circles - their absolutist views.

How else do you explain the storm of criticism that descended on one of the current Green Party co-leaders for daring to say that women are commonly defined as “... typified by two XX chromosomes” ?
Click to expand...

Well, opposition to that wouldn't be a minority view at all. It's already been explained by others but this sums it up well.

In July last year, Ali shared a statement to Twitter titled “What is Woman"

"A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes,” he wrote. “These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party” infuriated some members.”

The statement is consistent with common gender critical views, that state a person can only be considered a woman if they are born biologically female. It attracted criticism that the message was anti-trans.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...s-over-trans-rights-row-sian-berry-leadership
 
Superden said:
so the LGB Alliance are a tory minded group. so they only care about rich gay people, and having enough poor gay people to serve their masters? fook em.
Click to expand...
I don't really know that much about them other than every several months they pop up in the media with some new offensive shit about a gay disease or predatory gay teachers etc. that pisses off prominent gay rights activists. I hadn't realised the anti-trans stuff was their main play. Though I guess I should have figured it from the name.

 
phelans shorts said:
Biological gender isn’t a thing at all. It’s an attempt to muddy the water around an issue by changing the meaning of a word.

Gender is a social construct, sex is biological.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, it's trans-ideology absolutists who try to muddy the water by confusing or changing the meaning of words (including muddying the distinction between sexual preference and gender identity).

For example, saying:

* Sex is "assigned" at birth (rather than recorded) ... as if it was a somewhat arbitrary decision reached by majority vote from a panel of judges.

* Everything is constructed from language, with no prior categories - including sex - except linguistic ones.

Thus gender has been entirely abstracted from biological sex, and then read back into the latter as if the former were more important. And there is now a large and ever-expanding list of apparent gender identities (more than 100 at the last count), with so many associated pronouns that not even an excellent memory could keep track of them all, let alone remember to use them.
 
NotThatSoph said:
It's wild to me that people so acutely aware of Glaston's whole Spurs thing, to the point that it's one of the Caf's most established and well-known jokes, think it's possible to have a discussion on serious topics. It's not like these things are unrelated; the rigidity, fervour and lack of contact with reality is always there.

Not saying that he should necessarily be ignored, talking at people for the benefit of readers can be effective and at times the Glaston routine can be great entertainment, but sheesh, it's like engaging seriously with Fearless on the topic of Israel. Just why?
Click to expand...
Glaston's gonna Glaston. I'll push back against the propaganda he's parroting, but I have no illusions about being able to have a good faith debate with the guy.
 
GlastonSpur said:
On the contrary, it's trans-ideology absolutists who try to muddy the water by confusing or changing the meaning of words (including muddying the distinction between sexual preference and gender identity).

For example, saying:

* Sex is "assigned" at birth (rather than recorded) ... as if it was a somewhat arbitrary decision reached by majority vote from a panel of judges.

* Everything is constructed from language, with no prior categories - including sex - except linguistic ones.

Thus gender has been entirely abstracted from biological sex, and then read back into the latter as if the former were more important. And there is now a large and ever-expanding list of apparent gender identities (more than 100 at the last count), with so many associated pronouns that not even an excellent memory could keep track of them all, let alone remember to use them.
Click to expand...
The use for the term assigned is a result of intersex people existing. It’s just a biological fact.

But you know that, don’t you. You’re well aware that you’re talking absolute nonsense. Sex remains biological, gender remains societal.
 
Withnail said:
Well, opposition to that wouldn't be a minority view at all. It's already been explained by others but this sums it up well.

In July last year, Ali shared a statement to Twitter titled “What is Woman"

"A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes,” he wrote. “These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party” infuriated some members.”

The statement is consistent with common gender critical views, that state a person can only be considered a woman if they are born biologically female. It attracted criticism that the message was anti-trans.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/a...s-over-trans-rights-row-sian-berry-leadership
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if you think that the vast majority of people don't agree with the Twitter statement cited, then I can only assume that you live in a fairly closed circle of social reality.

It's really come to something when statements of basic scientific fact - as per the tweet concerned - are dismissed as hate speech and magical thinking is triumphantly substituted.
 
GlastonSpur said:
I'm sorry, but if you think that the vast majority of people don't agree with the Twitter statement cited, then I can only assume that you live in a fairly closed circle of social reality.

It's really come to something when statements of basic scientific fact - as per the tweet concerned - are dismissed as hate speech and magical thinking is triumphantly substituted.
Click to expand...

So you think that Trans women can't be called women?
 
NotThatSoph said:
It's wild to me that people so acutely aware of Glaston's whole Spurs thing, to the point that it's one of the Caf's most established and well-known jokes, think it's possible to have a discussion on serious topics. It's not like these things are unrelated; the rigidity, fervour and lack of contact with reality is always there.

Not saying that he should necessarily be ignored, talking at people for the benefit of readers can be effective and at times the Glaston routine can be great entertainment, but sheesh, it's like engaging seriously with Fearless on the topic of Israel. Just why?
Click to expand...

Let us all know when you stop ducking my three questions. We won't hold our breath meanwhile, because clearly you prefer attempts at distraction rather than risk your answers being scrutinised.
 
Last edited:
Withnail said:
So you think that Trans women can't be called women?
Click to expand...

Of course they can be called women. I've no problems with calling anyone anything that they wish to be called. That's just a matter of common courtesy.
 
phelans shorts said:
The use for the term assigned is a result of intersex people existing. It’s just a biological fact.

But you know that, don’t you. You’re well aware that you’re talking absolute nonsense. Sex remains biological, gender remains societal.
Click to expand...

That's an incredibly tiny number of people - so small that the ONS don't even produce a number on it for fear of making it possible for individual records to be identified.

So that's not reason for using "assigned" rather than "recorded". The former is used to muddy the waters, as I said.

But good luck with a society that contains (almost exclusively) two sexes, but apparently 100+ genders and an even larger number of personal pronouns.
 
GlastonSpur said:
That's an incredibly tiny number of people - so small that the ONS don't even produce a number on it for fear of making it possible for individual records to be identified.

So that's not reason for using "assigned" rather than "recorded". The former is used to muddy the waters, as I said.

But good luck with a society that contains (almost exclusively) two sexes, but apparently 100+ genders and an even larger number of personal pronouns.
Click to expand...
So because you personally don’t think it’s enough people (roughly 11 million alive right now from some beer mat maths) then it can’t possibly be a reason?

You’ve really shown your colours here. If you were to dig any more you’d be in Canberra.
 
NotThatSoph said:
talking at people for the benefit of readers can be effective
Click to expand...
I gotta say I've learned a lot about this topic just be reading others discuss it, so I think it's worth it to engage. To a certain point of course.
 
hobbers said:
I don't know if roles can be self-assigned if it's 100% socially constructed. If gender is self-determined then other aspects of your 'self' must be influencing it, including your sex.

To be fair this is blindingly obvious. Clearly your sex and the physiology and hormones that come from it will affect how your identity evolves, as well all the outside influences.

Same as any nature vs nurture argument really, the answer is it's both.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with that. I think the social construct stuff is more about how you express that gender. Behaving in a way that would be more traditionally seen as masculine or feminine.

This is the root of a lot of the disagreements between some feminists and trans activists. And a paradox at the heart of progressive ideas around sex and gender. The notion that biological males and females would think/behave absolutely identically if it wasn’t for gender roles that society forces on them. Which means that gender should be a redundant concept. All that matters is biological sex. I would disagree with them, for what it’s worth. I think a lot of the difference in behaviours between sexes are hardwired that way.
 
GlastonSpur said:
The picture shows someone who has been called a "terf" deciding for whatever reason to claim the term - not that she invented it. For my part I neither know nor care who Posie Parker is and hold no brief to defend her.

And yes, the "terf" is a dehumanizing term made up by trans absolutists to to try and shut down discussion.

Your earlier post said I was not engaging with specifics, so here's some specific questions for you:

1) Is a lesbian being hateful and transphobic if she says that she doesn't want to have a sexual relationship with a physiologically male transwoman?

2) If someone self-identifies as being a different gender to that recorded at their birth, do they have the right to insist that everyone else around them - society at large - should be obliged to share in their self-identification? (Note that this question has nothing to do with treating trans-people with respect and decency, which of course should happen.)

3) Are - as trans-absolutists insist is true - all transwomen literally women in every single way that non-transwomen are women? And ditto for transmen in relation to those recorded at birth as being male?
Click to expand...

I feel dirty for biting, but here goes…
  1. Not in isolation, but if they’re part of a group that doesn’t recognise or acknowledge the rights of trans people, then yes they become hateful.
  2. Yes, society does, if they want to treat a person with respect and decency, as you appear to preach! Otherwise you are pushing your views on to them which is both discriminatory and narcissistic.
  3. As has been perfectly explained there is the biological woman who’s sex (the genetic composition) is female, and then there is the legal definition of woman by which we mean those with the female gender (the construct).
I won’t be replying to any further gibberish you want to espouse, but I couldn’t hold back any longer seeing your binary, absolutist views.
 
Halftrack said:
You mean persecuting, stirring up hatred, spreading conspiracy theories and taking away rights?
Click to expand...
Or the "left" take of sending death threats and rape threats to women online, insisting on biological males in women sports, putting biological males in women's prisons (including male sex offenders), insisting on biological males right to use women's communal changing rooms, allowing biological males to appropriate the term lesbian and labelling same-sex attracted lesbians "transphobic," "terfs" and "genital fetishists" if they don't want to sleep with biological males. Did we miss the women's march in Manchester the other week where trans activists showed up in balaclavas to intimidate women in public?

Below is a little insight into the life of a "terf" online. Death threats, racist insults, encouraging suicide, misogyny, threats of sexual assault.

 
Dominos said:
Below is a little insight into the life of a "terf" online. Death threats, racist insults, encouraging suicide, misogyny, threats of sexual assault.
Click to expand...

This new tactic of yours is pretty strange. While vile, you know that this kind of abuse is also received by trans people online, both from terfs and anti-trans people who aren't radical feminists. Yet, if I were to post a tweet like this, "highlighting the life of a trans person online" (maybe a TIM, which is the flavour of the month term in terf circles it seems), you would object heavily if I implied that this said something general about your fellow travelers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.