|
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 |
So now people are really arguing transgender people should tell people ahead of a date that they're transgender, I see.
Meanwhile transgender people have a much bigger problem: for them every date with someone who in some capacity discriminates against transgender people is a failed date. That's a really large percentage of dates when it comes to cis people.
Do people really think transgender people aren't thinking about this issue as much and probably a lot more than we do? Maybe let them figure it out? Are you really so worried that one date with one transgender person (who might turn out to be a really fun person anyway. You might have the best chat of the year with someone) is going to ruin one of your days so much? It's not like that's going to happen to you every week.
Again, this argument stems from a complete overestimate of a very rare event, and the impact on your life is really miniscule compared to other misfortunes. So it's rare, it hardly matters, and transgender people are a lot more eager to find solutions to the problem than we are - and here we are arguing about it like it's a pressing issue.
|
To be honest I wasn't arguing it's a pressing issue - it was just an interesting topic.
If there's a rule "discuss only pressing issues" - sorry, I didn't know about this rule and will stop my participation in the discussion.
I don't even have any opinions on how it should be, because I personally don't care, I'm not in a dating pool now and almost never was in my life. It's just thinking out loud, I didn't want to make it look like I have a strong opinion about this.
|
I mean I don't want to police the thread, we can debate transgender things. It's fine. I just think that it's tiring and also weird that the focus is so heavily on solutions being required for cis people regarding transgender related issues, when the issues transgender people are facing are in great need of discussion. I'd love to see debates about how we could make their lives better. Then maybe they'd also like to chime in, right?
|
On July 10 2023 06:04 Magic Powers wrote:
weird that the focus is so heavily on solutions being required for cis people Probably because of who's leading the discussion.
I'd be happy to hear trans-folks opinions but we don't seem to have them here, unfortunately (unless I missed something).
|
On July 10 2023 06:10 ZeroByte13 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 06:04 Magic Powers wrote:
weird that the focus is so heavily on solutions being required for cis people Probably because of who's leading the discussion. I'd be happy to hear trans-folks opinions but we don't seem to have them here, unfortunately (unless I missed something).
We had at least one, we drove them out.
|
Oh, too bad. 
|
On July 09 2023 19:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 09:07 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 08:19 Acrofales wrote:On July 09 2023 05:12 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 20:43 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On July 08 2023 19:54 Acrofales wrote:On July 08 2023 19:42 ZeroByte13 wrote:On July 08 2023 19:27 Acrofales wrote:
Do you agree that someone who says they're a protestant is a protestant? And someone who says they're a muslim is a muslim? It's very probable but not necessarily true. I might say I'm a protestant if this makes something more convenient for next 2 hours, for example. Does this make me one though? I can say all sort of things, doesn't mean any of them are true. Sure, and lying is still bad. What's your point here? In my example you invented a XXX chromosome woman with a total hysterectomy and a double mastectomy just to try to show how my definition wouldn't fit. For yours I don't need to invent anyone and I can just disprove it by using myself and saying "I am a woman." By your definition you have to believe me to be a woman and yet everyone in this thread would know that's not the case. When my definition needs an extreme genetic anomaly to disprove and yours can be undone by anyone with a voice I'd say I'm closer to the truth. Except that at the end of the day, the only external difference between an XX chromosome person with a uterus and 2 breasts and an XXX chromosome person with s histerectomy and a double mastectomy (and plastic surgery), is what they might say if you ask them. So unless you're asking women to submit their medical records, you're just going to have to take their word for it in almost all cases. As for lying, you're right. I might be bamboozled into accepting someone as being a woman who actually is a man and lying. My response to that is (1) so what, and (2) so can you. Nope. The crucial difference here is that a liar may be able to bamboozle me into believing they are a woman when they are not. To you, the liar still is a literal woman just because they’ve said so. How is there a difference there? You are not privy to any objective truth about that person's womanhood, insofar as such an objetive truth exists for a sociopsychologial construct. All you know is that that person said they are a woman. You were lied to, that person doesn't actually think of themselves as a woman. We both erroneously believe they are, because they said they were. We were both bamboozled and it had the exact same consequence in both cases (whatever it was). You seem to think that womanhood can be measured in some way. It cannot. There is no magic femalometer for you to measure how womany someone is. As was pointed out, someone can have all the biological characteristics of a female, yet not feel like one on the inside. And someone can be missing most or even all of the biological characteristics of a female, yet feel like one on the inside. On July 09 2023 05:56 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 08 2023 18:51 BlackJack wrote:
Right so your definitions are
A man is anyone that says they are a man
A woman is anyone that says they are a woman
It doesn't really tell us what they are saying they are though, does it? I think this inadvertently touches on something Drone raised which is: Do we need a gendered society? What does the pro-con list look like for a gendered vs non-gendered society? Sure seems that way. I mean consider the modern woke definition of woman that I think Acrofales correctly states. A woman is anyone that says they are a woman. That means it takes literally 3 seconds to become a woman. Doesn't this cheapen the whole idea of gender identity in the first place? If anyone can do it in no time flat it really seems to take away a lot of what it means to be a woman. It seems most of the money and effort to becoming a woman is not the part where you become a woman, it takes nothing to declare yourself a woman, but to go out and buy the dresses and makeup and lipstick and heels to conform to the stereotypes of a typical woman. So following this reasoning, it should be possible to change genders, it should just be expensive? Why? The difference is there is an objective truth, regardless if I’m privy to it. For you there is no objective truth and womanhood is entirely subjective I.e the only thing that makes someone a woman is saying they are a woman. Is your definition actually “a woman is anyone that says they are a woman as long as they really mean it.”? Do you get to decide who really means it or not? Seems to me you’d have to accept the liars just as much as anyone else or the whole exercise falls apart. Also no, I’m not saying it should be expensive to become a woman. I’m saying you just can’t become a woman. You can become a transgender woman though and I think that should be just as easy as declaring yourself one. I think I see our problem here. You see, I think women is a large group with subgroups of cis women, trans women and probably some other groups of people who don't fit neatly into either the trans or cis box. You think there are two different groups: women, and trans women. And trans women are not women? You see, I thought you were all about a bi-gendered society, but it turns out you prefer more genders being recognised. I'm fine with that solution too if it works for those who self-identify as those to-be-defined genders.
Infinitely many more genders I reckon. That's the beauty of something that is entirely subjective. Anyone is entitled to believe fae are a two-spirit polygender cis man with fae/faer/faers pronouns. The difference between you and I is you feel obliged to accept this as true and I don't.
|
DAE trans people exist = you must believe in fairies???
The difference between normal people and transphobes is that the world loses something of value when a normal person dies.
|
Northern Ireland25665 Posts
On July 10 2023 06:29 ZeroByte13 wrote:Oh, too bad.
I can only assume given my cis female friends take safety precautions before first dates, and how anti-trans violence is, and that ‘gay panic’ was (is?) still a legally admissible defence in court until not too long ago, that trans women are probably pretty damn careful in this domain.
Whether that’s letting their potential date know very early so to ward off those who might be violent if this is dropped later on, or something that is revealed a bit later, I’m sure it varies a lot with individuals, and I’m sure they’ve got a better gauge on how to negotiate it than us folks in here
|
On July 10 2023 09:52 WombaT wrote:I can only assume given my cis female friends take safety precautions before first dates, and how anti-trans violence is, and that ‘gay panic’ was (is?) still a legally admissible defence in court until not too long ago, that trans women are probably pretty damn careful in this domain. Whether that’s letting their potential date know very early so to ward off those who might be violent if this is dropped later on, or something that is revealed a bit later, I’m sure it varies a lot with individuals, and I’m sure they’ve got a better gauge on how to negotiate it than us folks in here
I got into a fairly long and in depth argument here on TL with a trans woman who basically said trans women don't owe people any kinda "fair warning" in these situations. The gist of their argument was that if you're at a club looking for a quick hookup, what people are hoping to get out of a 1 night stand does not require a trans women to make their past known.
I don't agree with that perspective. But if we were to assume it is true, in this political climate, not telling someone ahead of time feels like a potentially very dangerous risk to take.
|
Instead of telling trans people what the real dangers they are already well aware of, we should be telling transphobes about the dangers they should be aware of. Namely: if they spout out their transphobia in front of a good person, they might end up in a fight.
|
On July 10 2023 10:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 09:52 WombaT wrote:On July 10 2023 06:29 ZeroByte13 wrote:Oh, too bad. I can only assume given my cis female friends take safety precautions before first dates, and how anti-trans violence is, and that ‘gay panic’ was (is?) still a legally admissible defence in court until not too long ago, that trans women are probably pretty damn careful in this domain. Whether that’s letting their potential date know very early so to ward off those who might be violent if this is dropped later on, or something that is revealed a bit later, I’m sure it varies a lot with individuals, and I’m sure they’ve got a better gauge on how to negotiate it than us folks in here I got into a fairly long and in depth argument here on TL with a trans woman who basically said trans women don't owe people any kinda "fair warning" in these situations. The gist of their argument was that if you're at a club looking for a quick hookup, what people are hoping to get out of a 1 night stand does not require a trans women to make their past known. I don't agree with that perspective. But if we were to assume it is true, in this political climate, not telling someone ahead of time feels like a potentially very dangerous risk to take.
Do you think pre-op vs. post-op could matter? As in, a trans woman who hasn't had surgery to swap out male parts for female parts, surprising a date with a penis, as opposed to a trans woman who passes for a cis woman between her legs? I imagine the former would probably demand a heads up, but I don't know about the latter.
|
I think the point is that being trans in the US is just very dangerous regardless of how they comport themselves because the US is a sick and brutal society that still (as one of countless examples) has literal slaves it keeps in cages.
People have convinced themselves for/by one reason or another that the US isn't the dystopian police state plasmid mentioned because it hasn't set its sights on them...yet (or it's not literally 1940's Nazi Germany). So they insist the only rational action for the groups of people they are actively coming for is to keep listening to the perpetual Democrat hold music and mindlessly voting Democrat. Oh and don't dare say Biden/Democrats piss poor performance isn't good enough, we gotta be obsequiously thankful and boisterously supportive (despite actually losing rights) or else their persistent incompetence/incapacity/unwillingness to act is blamed on us for "selfishly" demanding rights and doing so in ways that Democrats insist aren't "pragmatic" (while Democrats "paternalistically believe they can set the timetable for other peoples' freedom").
I'd love for people to try to spend 30+ pages working through/confronting/reconciling that, but that sort of introspection/consideration doesn't provide the same satisfaction 30+ pages of droning on about bathrooms, dating, and defining what it means to be a woman (which isn't even loosely tied to US politics at this point) does, so I'm not optimistic.
EDIT: I for one do appreciate jrkirby's valiant efforts though btw.
|
|
|
On July 09 2023 11:41 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 11:08 Razyda wrote:
I actually think that biggest issue in acceptance of trans people are actually LGBTQ+ activists. Some recently suggested vocabulary/definitions in the name of inclusivity:
Birthing person
Bonus hole (aka vagina)
Lesbian - non-man attracted to non-men
This looks like something from "Handmaid's Tale", if they wanted to turn people hostile on purpose, they would have a hard time beating that.
Considering that hostility to trans people often manifests in the form of violence, I would say that the biggest problem is the violence. If you suggested that the new word for “tree” should be “frumble,” and then I killed you, the biggest problem in that scenario is not that you made a crazy suggestion, it’s that I’m a murderous psycho. Some people just hate trans people and wish they didn’t exist. If we are ranking the issues in acceptance of trans people, that one is the biggest.
Way to not address the point of the post you quoted. Yes violence bad, now we established that can you address my point that some activists actually do more harm than good when it comes to acceptance of trans people?
And about your example:
If you suggested than new world for "tree" should be “frumble” and I would say that I like "tree" and plan to stick with that.
Then you would sent angry mob after me, threaten my family, cause me to loose my job and ruin my reputation then guess what? It is still violence and you still a psycho.
On July 09 2023 12:34 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2023 11:08 Razyda wrote:On July 09 2023 09:22 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 07:43 BlackJack wrote:On July 09 2023 06:54 StasisField wrote:On July 09 2023 06:49 BlackJack wrote:1.7% or 0.018% depending on whose number you go withAnne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of "nondimorphic sexual development" might be as high as 1.7%. A study published by Leonard Sax reports that this figure includes conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that if the term is understood to mean only "conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018% That's still over 1.4 million people. Address the point I made instead of trying to dodge like always. "You say being able to declare yourself a woman "cheapens" what it means to be a woman but I really don't even know what is being cheapened." Based on the definition offered here, I don't know either. "A woman is someone that says they are a woman" doesn't mean anything at face value. You still have to describe what it means to be a woman to give any meaning to it. So if it doesn't mean anything how am I wrong to say that definition cheapens it? As much as everyone wants to criticize my definition for not accounting for extremely rare genetic exceptions, does anyone else want to offer what they think makes a woman a woman? So there is no "cheapening" what a woman is because if there was you would have actually answered my question. But you dodged because you have no real answer. Glad to know the fake-outrage is alive and well with Blackjack! There is no set "meaning" for being a woman. If there was, what a "woman" is in the eyes of society would be constant throughout history and society and we wouldn't have societies that found it necessary to use more than 2 genders to describe all the different people in said societies. That's why people aren't offering you what a woman is beyond "someone who thinks they're a woman." If there is no set meaning for being a woman, then everyone can attach different meaning to it. So person who identify self as a woman may have totally different idea what being a women mean, than any other person. Why cis woman should prioritize the meaning attached to it by trans women, rather than the one she attaches to it herself? I think you answer your own question in the first sentence of your reply: If there is no set meaning for being a woman, then everyone can attach different meaning to it.
What a "woman" is cannot be defined because what is considered a "woman" is always changing. A woman can decide what being a woman means to herself but there is no definition for "woman" that fits all women and there never will be. If a cis woman decides that dresses, long hair, and gardening is how she defines her personal womanhood then fine. As long as she doesn't think anyone who doesn't wear dresses, doesn't have long hair, or doesn't like gardening isn't a woman then there is no problem. There's only a problem if she decides that other people can't be women because they don't fit into what she's decided womanhood means for her.
bolded: You missed the point:
Trans women believes that women is anyone identifying as a women
Cis women believes that women is adult human female
If cis women must accept that trans women is a women, she also must accept that she is wrong about what a woman is.
It doesnt help that "women is anyone identifying as a women" is an actual logical fallacy:
"women is anyone identifying as a women" => "anyone identifying as a women is a woman"
A is true because B is true and we know that B is true because A is true.
Italic - this is false - there are certain traits which didnt change in any significant way through entire human history.
On July 10 2023 00:19 jrkirby wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 00:05 ZeroByte13 wrote:
I'm saying you can understand that another person is an ignorant asshole (according to your criteria, of course, as this is subjective) just by talking to them. Nobody thinks about themselves as assholes so nobody will say this directly.
So there's both no big need for this disclaimer (you can learn it yourself just by talking to a person) and no realistic chance that someone will ever say this.
And you understand, of course, that other people might think you're an ignorant asshole (for whatever reasons they have) - but you will never admit it, right?
Because you don't think so, why would you? Well, they also don't think so about themselves, so why would they admit it? It's not all that complicated. If you spend time online debating the rights of other people, you're an ignorant asshole, and you should let all potential dates/acquaintances know ahead of time, so they can avoid you without wasting their time. Of course that's just my opinion, of course. All those chuds will do what they're going to do anyway. It's just unfortunate, because when a decent person find out that they've been spending time with an ignorant asshole they might understandably get a little violent, because they've been tricked. It's really for the sake of all these transphobes and other terrible humans that they are up front with their stupid takes. Violence is bad, and I wouldn't want and decent people to end up causing all kinds of conflict if they find out after being tricked like that.
Yeah, I hate those, I love those good humanitarians though, who impose rights without any debate, based on their own undoubtfully correct beliefs... /s
On July 10 2023 08:51 jrkirby wrote:The difference between normal people and transphobes is that the world loses something of value when a normal person dies.
Hey I heard that before, although I seem to recall that your spiritual mentor used "Jews" rather than "transphobes"...
It doesnt help at all that you seem to believe that anyone questioning current narrative and some of the decisions made as "transphobe"
|
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.)
|
On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.)
Not at all.
Not all females are adult or human.
Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion.
|
|
|
On July 10 2023 12:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.) Not at all. Not all females are adult or human. Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The addition of female does not provide the key information that we're all debating about. No one has a problem with the adult or human descriptors; it's everything else (that Razyda simply repackaged as "female") that we're debating, that makes a woman a woman. Inside "female" may or may not include a vagina or XX chromosomes or a uterus or the sincere belief that they are a woman or anything else that may differentiate trans or cis women.
|
On July 10 2023 12:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2023 12:22 cLutZ wrote:On July 10 2023 11:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Razyda: "Cis women believes that women is adult human female"
This is a circular definition, because being female means being a woman, and vice-versa. Using "female" doesn't help explain anything here. The question is what makes someone female or a woman. You've essentially said that a woman is an adult human woman. Adult and Human are fine, but women are tautologically female. What is female/womanhood?
(Also, you don't speak for all cis women when claiming what they all believe "woman" means. I know many cis women who believe that trans women are also women.) Not at all. Not all females are adult or human. Woman is like the word lioness. A lioness is a sexually mature female lion. I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The addition of female does not provide the key information that we're all debating about. No one has a problem with the adult or human descriptors; it's everything else (that Razyda simply repackaged as "female") that we're debating, that makes a woman a woman. Inside "female" may or may not include a vagina or XX chromosomes or a uterus or the sincere belief that they are a woman or anything else that may differentiate trans or cis women.
It is simply you saying you are rejecting the idea that female refers to a particular subset of sexually dimorphic species that produce one gamete instead of the other. Or you are rejecting the idea that this truth does not apply to humans, despite humans being a sexually dimorphic species.
Words are like pointers in programming languages. In the non-trans advocacy space, the word woman is a pointer to a subset of humans. In the trans advocacy space, it is not, instead it is a recursive function that only refers to itself. It destroys the value proposition of having the word woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
