WSPUS and Transgender
- This topic has 157 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
nice of you to hop back inz emma.
i’ve given references for quite a few statements already. i also have references in my essay for every statement i’ve made in this thread so far, but it’s not finished yet. but if there’s any specific statements i’ve said that you think i’m lieing about or something, please point them out so i can pull the references from my essay for you.
also, you asked me to give you my definition of a woman. i gave that yo you, along with the definition of a female. can you give everyone your definition of both, too? just so everyone sees both sides here
also, i just realized your “i guess” comment was in reference to my comment about a pedophile movement back in the 70s. this group was at the forefront, from what i understand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
if you think someone’s making something up cuz you haven’t learned about it yet, just ask for a reference. snide comments don’t lead to understanding.
I have no doubt that there actually were a pedophile “movement”, there was such “movements” in multiple European countries, though I doubt how large they actually were in real life out of the sect left or the small groups they broke from. What I took issue with is that you are trying to tie it to the “trans lobby”(whatever that actually is) while the wikipeida you link just links the organisation to homosexuality-right and gay separatist groups. That doesn’t mean that one should accuse homosexual-rights groups in general of being pedophiles, like the right-wing still often does.
definitely not accusing the entire group of being pedophiles, my bad if it came off that way, but they’ve managed to try to latch onto the trans thing, but i should be clear that it’s not like there hasn’t been pushback on that from within the trans community. i was moreso just saying that i read that their tactic was to write any dissenters off as bigots so as to shut down debate, which is exactly what the trans community has done, even though it seems pretty obvious that people who probably aren’t even trans are already abusing self-ID.
And of course none of this has anything to do with gender, but merely with sexual penchants.
“Loose thinking leads to the loose use of words, but the loose use of words also leads to loose thinking.”
Time to allow Labourites and Leninists to say they are socialists then? Why not?
Time to agree China is communist because it defines itself as such, and so does everyone else, except that sad little old-fashioned whats-its-name minority, SP-something?
The end of language. “Duh, whatever.”
Sorry I called you male, Fido.
In a sane socialist world people wouldn’t be so unhappy that they need to undergo surgery.
I find myself sympathising with Muslim and Catholic parents objecting to 4-yr olds being exposed to newspeak gender talk. And I hope i’m wrong, but I think I heard somewhere of children undergoing sex-change operations on the basis of a perceived cause of unhappiness, surgery some may rue when adulthood reveals it to have been a temporary whim, possibly due to bullying.
The mechanics of sex, too, has taken over culture and dialogue. I fell in love at age 5 for the first time and knew nothing of sex. Romance I knew, from films and stories – and a beautiful face is still my criterion for physical attraction. Again, a socialist world would be a natural one, in which children and teenagers would find their way, without being labelled.
When a schoolboy or schoolgirl experiences homosexual feelings or heterosexual feelings, who is to compartmentalise that child based upon their feelings of the moment? Labelling is an obsession, even when seeing itself as sympathetic.
As Anais Nin said, love has innumerable forms. Throughout life we are all changing and are not the same as we were years before.
Riddled with illusions, we are desperate to isolate “self” and separate ourselves from the cosmic flow of life. … But that is yet another story. …
Maybe we should withdraw the emphasis from sex and embrace again the word love. … But first, get rid of capitalism – which is hardly the priority of the sex-navel-gazers of all sorts.
Guess the verb “to engender” will also have to be redefined, and we should also stop using “gender” in the cases of dogs and cats, and also grammatically (masculine and feminine nouns).
But what the hell, fewer people will be able to read and write anyway before long!i accidentally typed “material essence” instead of “ethereal essence” at the end of this reply the first time, so i tried to edit it, but it seems like i accidentally deleted it lol so i’m commenting it again with the intended editing:
rob, you’re correct. like i said, there’s multiple layers of obfuscation and dogma to wade through, but it only works if people don’t understand how sexual development works and don’t try to clarify the first principles of both sides.
i didn’t even understand sexual development til like a year and a half ago, so while it was easy for me to see that key terms weren’t being defined in a falsifiable way by the trans community, i’d get stuck on trying to explain exactly what a female was in a scientific sense. it’s easy to say “females have vaginas, XX chromosomes, etc.” but then they’d bring up that some people I’d call women are born without them, so I’d get stumped obviously.
i thought the same thing many of them do at first, i was confused and thought that sex was the same thing as sex characteristics, but this is what most people get wrong. a person’s sex class is their body’s intended reproductive role. these reproductive roles are determined by the development of either the mullerian or wolffian ducts. i’d never even heard about these ducts before about a year and a half ago. so not only was i detaching sex characteristics from their reproductive role, but i also didn’t understand that 4 of the 5 sex characteristics evolve from a single process. these sex characteristics don’t develop at random. for example: nobody can be born with both a prostate and a uterus. why? because both of these develop from the mullerian ducts. if it regresses, it turns into a prostate. if it progresses, it turns into a uterus. it can’t do both at the same time. the idea that sex is a spectrum or in some way arbitrary only makes sense if you’re ignorant to this and think that intersex conditions are just random groupings of sex characteristics, but they’re not. all intersex people developed only one of these ducts, just like endosex people, the only difference being that intersex people had complications along the way. but their body still developed toward one intended reproductive role, regardless of any abnormalities along the way.
so this logic starts by exploiting most people’s ignorance of sexual development and framing biological sex as unreliable, which leads to completely idiotic takes like this:
as many as they like. biological sex is a right wing concept which needs to be dropped – it only causes oppression and hatred.
— Beth (@bethonyourpc) February 28, 2021
so then you advocate instead for womanhood and manhood to be based on “gender identity.” you advocate for everything that’s always been sex-segregated to instead be gender identity-segregated. you (at least unconsciously) claim that gender dysphoria is the only dysphoria that isn’t a mental illness, but that it’s actually caused by someone being born into the wrong body, their “gender” being different than that which they were “assigned at birth.” if someone points out the fact that men have a natural advantage over women in sports due to their bodies, you either claim that 1 year on estrogen gets rid of that (as if testosterone is the sole source of men’s advantage is sports) or say that there’s no such thing as a typical man’s or woman’s body anyway (as if women weren’t barred from sports for generations specifically cuz of their bodies [but many in this group would say it’s cuz they “identified as women,” whatever tf that means]). and you do all this without ever defining what “gender” or “gender identity” means in any falsifiable way, and if anybody happens to point that out, you just call them a bigot.
i’ve mentioned the fact that i’ve only gotten a few broad definitions from trans people for the words woman, man, male, and female, and the fact that none of them stand up to scrutiny, but the thing is that they *seem* like they stand up to scrutiny if you operate off of one or two first principles, being: 1) cartesian dualism — the idea that body is separate from the mind/soul and that your body isn’t the real you, but your mind/soul is, and (to some extent) 2) individualism.
saying “a woman is anyone who feels like/says they’re/identifies as a woman” makes sense if you assume that women “feel” like women cuz they have “girl souls.” assuming this, it’s understandable that some would call it cruel not to “affirm” these feelings.
saying the definition of womanhood is completely subjective or completely undefinable even subjectively makes sense if you assume the existence of a girl soul, because there’s no way to define one in any falsifiable sense in the first place.
equating “femininity” with womanhood makes sense if you assume that “feminine” behavior is the result of having a girl soul.
the “girl brain” answer just seems like a last ditch effort to validate this idea.
the thing is, i don’t even think many of them realize they’re taking this idea for granted in the first place. there’s no way in hell anybody could subscribe to this blatantly idealistic dogma while also subscribing to marxism, which, as we all know, is firmly grounded in materialism. you can’t possibly believe womanhood or manhood is some ethereal essence while also believing it’s a material reality.
Reich would define all this unhappiness with body shape as neurosis – and he defined neurosis as a symptom of contemporary society.
And they might talk about oppression, but how many among sexual minority activists are opposed to capitalism?
For instance, many fall over one another to get into the state’s armed forces, demanding the right to murder and die on behalf of capital alongside the other dupes.
Gone are the days when Quentin Crisp used his homosexuality to evade the draft!
yeah, i guess there was a ban on transgender people in the military that got lifted recently, but the reaction was split, to be fair lol many trans people saw it as a victory, but i’d say most saw it as an L. my twin was the only one of me and my brothers that went to the military and that’s the only reason he was able to dodge homelessness after high school (unlike the rest of us). obviously the military can help people who came from background like mine get on their feet faster, but at what cost?
I’m against anyone joining armed forces, but feminists will accuse me of sexism when I say the sight of women being trained is especially revolting to me.
A recent documentary on teens in the army showed a girl with grimed face doing bayonet practice, roaring on order, as a female sergeant ran alongside her shouting “KILL, KILL!”
And i’ve met lots of homeless men who are ex-soldiers, boasting about their “tours” to all passers-by and each other. And they are still homeless!
In fact, I think all of them i’ve met are ex-soldiers.Jordan, please forgive my ignorance, but have any transwomen ever given birth?
lmao no, a TIM has never and most likely will never give birth. there’s talk about uterus transplants being possible in the future, but i don’t see that ever working, because: 1) the uterus is kept functional by a woman’s entire reproductive system, not just estrogen. without the entire system, a uterus would rot, and 2) men don’t have enough space in our pelvises to hold a baby anyway. but i did see one TIM simulate a pregnancy on facebook and a shiyload of libfems were falling over themselves to call him brave for his fake gestation of a non existent baby. then he had this really weird exchange when it was over about wanting to ask to breastfeed his friend’s newborn to continue with the simulation. it was so goddamn cringe.
but a couple times a year now you’ll hear about a TIF having a baby and the media will be like “look, everybody! men can give birth, too! 😍😍😍” acting as though they’re oblivious to the fact that they’re talking about a biological woman.
one TIF wanted to be listed as the dad on their kids birth certificate, but was denied.
Good. A birth certificate is the property of the child, not a validation of the identity of a parent. Freddy McConnell gave birth, which in British law makes Freddy the mother, not the father. Language isn't there to be twisted for personal satisfaction.https://t.co/SaBcbrlRzf
— Kat 🟩⬜️🟪 #WomenMatter ♀️ 🏴🇺🇦🇮🇱 (@socksknitter) November 16, 2020
it’s just so dumb cuz all the legal fiction and “validation” in the world would never make them a man anyway, at least not in any falsifiable sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.