|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 06 2023 09:52 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:15 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:00 iFU.spx wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had.
Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them.
I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Kwark, It seems you think that trans women are women. So simple question: will you have a sex with trans women? If yes, i will respect your statements, if not - why not, isnt it a woman? There ought to be a lot more that goes into the decision of whether or not you'll have sex with person x than just "is the person cis or trans". Do you want to have sex with every cis-woman, just because they're a woman? I'd imagine you'd need to actually see and speak with a woman before concluding whether or not you'd sleep with her. Thank you for your answer. I understood it as you are okay to have a sex with trans women if x happens. By “x” i mean your “a lot morethat goes into decision”, in other words any set of parameters you think of to make it happen. Broadly speaking, yes. For me, a woman being trans is not necessarily a factor that automatically rejects them from my pool of potential sex partners (which is what I think you're asking). That being said, I'm happily married, so I'm not planning on having any other sex partners, cis or trans, lol. Thanks. That “lol” in the end tells a lot actually. It seems you are just hypothetically speaking that something is good/right without trying it, but in the end you will never try it because of many excuses you will come up with when it comes from broad to strict case. Secondly you said “for woman being a trans”, which means you think that trans woman and woman are different, right?
Holy shit, marriage as an excuse to not have sex with trans women, that is such a brain dead take I can still smell the dirt from the grave you dug it up from.
|
On July 06 2023 09:52 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:15 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:00 iFU.spx wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had.
Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them.
I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Kwark, It seems you think that trans women are women. So simple question: will you have a sex with trans women? If yes, i will respect your statements, if not - why not, isnt it a woman? There ought to be a lot more that goes into the decision of whether or not you'll have sex with person x than just "is the person cis or trans". Do you want to have sex with every cis-woman, just because they're a woman? I'd imagine you'd need to actually see and speak with a woman before concluding whether or not you'd sleep with her. Thank you for your answer. I understood it as you are okay to have a sex with trans women if x happens. By “x” i mean your “a lot morethat goes into decision”, in other words any set of parameters you think of to make it happen. Broadly speaking, yes. For me, a woman being trans is not necessarily a factor that automatically rejects them from my pool of potential sex partners (which is what I think you're asking). That being said, I'm happily married, so I'm not planning on having any other sex partners, cis or trans, lol. Thanks. That “lol” in the end tells a lot actually. It seems you are just hypothetically speaking that something is good/right without trying it, but in the end you will never try it because of many excuses you will come up with when it comes from broad to strict case. Secondly you said “for woman being a trans”, which means you think that trans woman and woman are different, right?
Everyone is engaging in hypotheticals. (Have you tried having sex with a trans woman yet? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, right?) Even if I were single right now, that doesn't mean you'd automatically believe or not believe me. One day I might become single (divorced or widowed) and I might end up in a situation that we're talking about. I hope that you take me at my word that being a trans woman is not a disqualifying factor for me, but ultimately I can't make you trust me.
And I consider trans women to be women, but I don't have time right now to repeat my elaboration on that issue.
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right?
woman = x
black = y
trans = z
x(y) = x
x(z) != x (not equal)
Kwark stated that x(z) = x
Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please
|
On July 06 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2023 09:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2023 08:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 08:42 WombaT wrote:
I mean personally I think trans people should be happy that they’re not being actively exterminated and merely restricted from care, at the forefront of the ‘culture war’ and a key piece of the ‘bathroom debate’, seemingly simultaneously the most important issue facing humanity and the least resolvable
/s tag, although if you required it I’m disappointed Unfortunately, I could imagine that many Americans might think "hey, just be happy we're letting you out of the closet" is sufficient, and that the trans community asking for anything more right now is flying too close to the sun. It's a majority of people in the US that basically feel that way including over 1/3 of Democrats if you count the "been about right" cohort from Drone's link. That's very disappointing, although based on the vague wording of the poll question, there could be different interpretations of the data. For example, if I live in a bubble and am under the impression that the trans community is pretty happy with the progress they've made, then I might put "Been about right". If I live in a second bubble and only hear about a super-rare-fringe anecdote about an imaginary trans person wanting to surgically change the sex of babies and that the Demon-rat-ic party is okay with that happening, then I might worry that society may accept that and conclude that we've all gone too far. In other words, that poll would need to consider which echo chambers we all live in, as well as what issues the trans community actually, generally values. I definitely can't say the data is optimistic though lol. It's mediocre data in itself but the whole "you want too much of your rights and dignity too soon, be happy we're not helping the other guys strip more of them away even faster (more often than we are)" is bread and butter Democrat politics. Whether it's indigenous people, Black people, women, disabled people, etc... we're all patiently waiting/proactively working and are all still getting the standard hold music from the Democratic party and beratement if/when we aren't grateful for what we've gotten and dare to expect more. I agree. Which politicians (if any) do you think do an admirable job of perpetuating the push for more rights for these demographics? Any role models?
No politicians come to mind.
Generally I like the perspective of orgs like TGI Justice Project and Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement. I can't say I'm especially familiar with her, but Jennicet Gutierrez seems to be doing good work.
|
On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please
Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really.
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 10:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:52 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:15 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:00 iFU.spx wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces.
[quote]
Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter?
Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Kwark, It seems you think that trans women are women. So simple question: will you have a sex with trans women? If yes, i will respect your statements, if not - why not, isnt it a woman? There ought to be a lot more that goes into the decision of whether or not you'll have sex with person x than just "is the person cis or trans". Do you want to have sex with every cis-woman, just because they're a woman? I'd imagine you'd need to actually see and speak with a woman before concluding whether or not you'd sleep with her. Thank you for your answer. I understood it as you are okay to have a sex with trans women if x happens. By “x” i mean your “a lot morethat goes into decision”, in other words any set of parameters you think of to make it happen. Broadly speaking, yes. For me, a woman being trans is not necessarily a factor that automatically rejects them from my pool of potential sex partners (which is what I think you're asking). That being said, I'm happily married, so I'm not planning on having any other sex partners, cis or trans, lol. Thanks. That “lol” in the end tells a lot actually. It seems you are just hypothetically speaking that something is good/right without trying it, but in the end you will never try it because of many excuses you will come up with when it comes from broad to strict case. Secondly you said “for woman being a trans”, which means you think that trans woman and woman are different, right? Everyone is engaging in hypotheticals. (Have you tried having sex with a trans woman yet? Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, right?) Even if I were single right now, that doesn't mean you'd automatically believe or not believe me. One day I might become single (divorced or widowed) and I might end up in a situation that we're talking about. I hope that you take me at my word that being a trans woman is not a disqualifying factor for me, but ultimately I can't make you trust me. And I consider trans women to be women, but I don't have time right now to repeat my elaboration on that issue.
Fair enough. I didn’t look for elaboration on that topic. Just opinion on specific case. You answered as “yes you will have a sex with trans women because you think it is a woman”. Thanks
|
On July 06 2023 10:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2023 09:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 09:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 06 2023 08:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 06 2023 08:42 WombaT wrote:
I mean personally I think trans people should be happy that they’re not being actively exterminated and merely restricted from care, at the forefront of the ‘culture war’ and a key piece of the ‘bathroom debate’, seemingly simultaneously the most important issue facing humanity and the least resolvable
/s tag, although if you required it I’m disappointed Unfortunately, I could imagine that many Americans might think "hey, just be happy we're letting you out of the closet" is sufficient, and that the trans community asking for anything more right now is flying too close to the sun. It's a majority of people in the US that basically feel that way including over 1/3 of Democrats if you count the "been about right" cohort from Drone's link. That's very disappointing, although based on the vague wording of the poll question, there could be different interpretations of the data. For example, if I live in a bubble and am under the impression that the trans community is pretty happy with the progress they've made, then I might put "Been about right". If I live in a second bubble and only hear about a super-rare-fringe anecdote about an imaginary trans person wanting to surgically change the sex of babies and that the Demon-rat-ic party is okay with that happening, then I might worry that society may accept that and conclude that we've all gone too far. In other words, that poll would need to consider which echo chambers we all live in, as well as what issues the trans community actually, generally values. I definitely can't say the data is optimistic though lol. It's mediocre data in itself but the whole "you want too much of your rights and dignity too soon, be happy we're not helping the other guys strip more of them away even faster (more often than we are)" is bread and butter Democrat politics. Whether it's indigenous people, Black people, women, disabled people, etc... we're all patiently waiting/proactively working and are all still getting the standard hold music from the Democratic party and beratement if/when we aren't grateful for what we've gotten and dare to expect more. I agree. Which politicians (if any) do you think do an admirable job of perpetuating the push for more rights for these demographics? Any role models? No politicians come to mind. Generally I like the perspective of orgs like TGI Justice Project and Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement. I can't say I'm especially familiar with her, but Jennicet Gutierrez seems to be doing good work.
Thanks for the recommendations!
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really.
You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways?
|
On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways?
Just to clarify, I said that a woman who is trans is fine with me, in the same way that a woman being black or short or 35 years old is fine with me. My mention of "trans" as a specific adjective and sub-category of women was only chosen because cis vs. trans was the specific division already being talked about. If there was a conversation about black women vs. non-black women, you might see someone mention "black" as a particular adjective and sub-category for clarity, not because black women (or trans women) aren't truly women in their opinion.
|
On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways?
Because we are currently talking about trans women. If we were talking about black women we would say "black women" instead of just "women". If we were talking about tall women we would say "tall women" instead of just "women". This is the dumbest gotcha so far and that's saying something because Taelshin tried very hard to make a point in this thread just a few pages ago
|
United States24631 Posts
This all started with a question about how if trans women are truly women, would a certain person be willing to have sex with trans women since after all, they're women, and that person is believed to appreciate sex with women. It's a dumb question that doesn't make any sense in context, so the conversation that followed was unlikely to be fruitful.
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 10:34 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways? Because we are currently talking about trans women. If we were talking about black women we would say "black women" instead of just "women". If we were talking about tall women we would say "tall women" instead of just "women". This is the dumbest gotcha so far and that's saying something because Taelshin tried very hard to make a point in this thread just a few pages ago
Because someone say that transwoman are woman. If its a woman why would you need to add “trans”. What do you mean by it exactly? When you say black woman i understand, that this is a woman with black skin. But i am confused what do u mean by transwoman, can you elaborate?
|
On July 06 2023 10:45 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:34 StasisField wrote:On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways? Because we are currently talking about trans women. If we were talking about black women we would say "black women" instead of just "women". If we were talking about tall women we would say "tall women" instead of just "women". This is the dumbest gotcha so far and that's saying something because Taelshin tried very hard to make a point in this thread just a few pages ago Because someone say that transwoman are woman. If its a woman why would you need to add “trans”. What do you mean by it exactly? When you say black woman i understand, that this is a woman with black skin. But i am confused what do u mean by transwoman, can you elaborate?
A trans woman is a woman who identifies with the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth. Trans is a descriptor just like black, tall, or old are descriptors. This isn't a hard concept.
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 10:53 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:45 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:34 StasisField wrote:On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways? Because we are currently talking about trans women. If we were talking about black women we would say "black women" instead of just "women". If we were talking about tall women we would say "tall women" instead of just "women". This is the dumbest gotcha so far and that's saying something because Taelshin tried very hard to make a point in this thread just a few pages ago Because someone say that transwoman are woman. If its a woman why would you need to add “trans”. What do you mean by it exactly? When you say black woman i understand, that this is a woman with black skin. But i am confused what do u mean by transwoman, can you elaborate? A trans woman is a woman who identifies with the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth. Trans is a descriptor just like black, tall, or old are descriptors. This isn't a hard concept.
woman assigned at birth as a man, then identified as opposite - woman = transwoman?
Woman assigned at birth as woman, then identified as opposite - man = transwoman?
Correct?
|
Assigned man at birth, identifies as woman is trans woman
Assigned woman at birth, identifies as man is trans man
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
On July 06 2023 11:12 StasisField wrote:
Assigned man at birth, identifies as woman is trans woman
Assigned woman at birth, identifies as man is trans man
so transwoman is a human who at birth identified as man, then identified as woman.
Correct?
|
On July 06 2023 11:05 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 10:53 StasisField wrote:On July 06 2023 10:45 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:34 StasisField wrote:On July 06 2023 10:28 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 10:15 NewSunshine wrote:On July 06 2023 10:10 iFU.spx wrote:On July 06 2023 09:57 NewSunshine wrote:
How is saying "black woman" different from saying woman. They're the same thing, right? woman = x black = y trans = z x(y) = x x(z) != x (not equal) Kwark stated that x(z) = x Dont use whataboutism with x(y) here please Don't abuse math to make a loaded point then. I say trans women and black women are both women. Therefore, why would I use either descriptor if "woman" would suffice? Basic question, really. You got my point. Thats what im talking about. Why do we use decriptor “trans” if its a woman anyways? Because we are currently talking about trans women. If we were talking about black women we would say "black women" instead of just "women". If we were talking about tall women we would say "tall women" instead of just "women". This is the dumbest gotcha so far and that's saying something because Taelshin tried very hard to make a point in this thread just a few pages ago Because someone say that transwoman are woman. If its a woman why would you need to add “trans”. What do you mean by it exactly? When you say black woman i understand, that this is a woman with black skin. But i am confused what do u mean by transwoman, can you elaborate? A trans woman is a woman who identifies with the gender opposite to the one they were assigned at birth. Trans is a descriptor just like black, tall, or old are descriptors. This isn't a hard concept. woman assigned at birth as a man, then identified as opposite - woman = transwoman? Correct?
Basically yes. I think there's a language barrier that makes this harder to immediately realize what we meant.
A baby is born. Doctor sees a penis and says "Congratulations on your beautiful baby boy", and puts "Boy/Male" in the records. Fast forward through the years, where the baby is growing up and matures. Eventually, the person realizes that Boy/Male doesn't really fit with their personal identity. If Girl/Female fits better, then we're speaking about a transwoman. Generally speaking.
|
On July 06 2023 11:17 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2023 11:12 StasisField wrote:
Assigned man at birth, identifies as woman is trans woman
Assigned woman at birth, identifies as man is trans man so transwoman is a human who at birth identified as man, then identified as woman. Correct?
Assigned male at birth by doctor/parents, not necessarily personally identifying as male when younger. There are some words you're using that aren't perfectly accurate, semantically speaking. Not trying to be pedantic.
|
Russian Federation366 Posts
So you basically allow self identification for gender and accepting and follow new identity made by another person? This sounds crazy. Whats the point?
|
United States42252 Posts
On July 06 2023 09:00 iFU.spx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Kwark, It seems you think that trans women are women. So simple question: will you have a sex with trans women? If yes, i will respect your statements, if not - why not, isnt it a woman?
Would and have.
Wouldn't you first need to check that I identify as straight though? Otherwise that's not going to work as a test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
