J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I just have, though I recommend an actual book. Looking at blue light before going to sleep makes you sleep poorly. Alas, at least you'll learn what biological sex is.

Enjoy your film!

Like gender and sexuality ideology, technology has advanced to filter out blue light on smart phones.

lozenges

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

Like gender and sexuality ideology, technology has advanced to filter out blue light on smart phones.

I posed a question earlier and I am curious as to your opinion.

What would you describe the sex of a trans person prior to their transition as?
Let's say a trans woman for arguments sake.

Thanks.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

lozenges wrote: »

I posed a question earlier and I am curious as to your opinion.

What would you describe the sex of a trans person prior to their transition as?
Let's say a trans woman for arguments sake.

Thanks.

I answered already, I let the person describe their identity to me, if they chose to tell me, it’s really not my business. I have no skin in the game. It doesn’t affect my life.

Like in many life situations i am led by the signals people present, I try not to judge.

lozenges

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I answered already, I let the person describe their identity to me, if they chose to tell me, it’s really not my business. I have no skin in the game. It doesn’t affect my life.

Like in many life situations i am led by the signals people present, I try not to judge.

You haven't answered the question.
That's ok. That in itself is quite revealing.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

lozenges wrote: »

You haven't answered the question.
That's ok. That in itself is quite revealing.

What would you describe a person as based on a hypothesis.

I wouldn’t describe a person without their consent because they are human, have bodily autonomy and agency and get to describe themselves.

I think that’s a very clear answer just because it’s not the answer you want to hear doesn’t invalidate it.

You keep judging people by what’s in or not in their pants. It obviously makes you happy, you’re obsessed by it.

Me, I’ll just float on minding my business talking to people about their lives and finding out who they are and how they see themselves in the world.

lozenges

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

What would you describe a person as based on a hypothesis.

I wouldn’t describe a person without their consent because they are human, have bodily autonomy and agency and get to describe themselves.

I think that’s a very clear answer just because it’s not the answer you want to hear doesn’t invalidate it.

You keep judging people by what’s in or not in their pants. It obviously makes you happy, you’re obsessed by it.

Me, I’ll just float on minding my business talking to people about their lives and finding out who they are and how they see themselves in the world.

I would describe a trans person as having transitioned gender. If their sex and gender identity were concordant there would be no internal conflict and no need for them to transition.

What do you understand by the term 'transition' with respect to the transgender community?
What are they transitioning from?

And since you take people's description of themselves as gospel, do you think that Rachel Dolezal is black?

Or do you think that she might have been misguided on that front.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I just have, though I recommend an actual book. Looking at blue light before going to sleep makes you sleep poorly. Alas, at least you'll learn what biological sex is.

If there’s one thing I know about biology and I know nothing else, it’s that conventional wisdom is always changing


Forget What You Think You Know About Blue Light and Sleep


As to learning about sex determination and differentiation in humans (it’s all biological, because sex determination is part of the field of study called biology), whereas once the conventional wisdom was that sex could be determined by one factor alone, now the conventional wisdom is that there are five factors which influence sex determination in humans at least -


In humans, sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia. Generally, the five factors are either all male or all female. Sexual ambiguity is rare in humans, but wherein such ambiguity does occur, the individual is biologically classified as intersex.


In reality, chromosomes are only one factor in sex determination, but more importantly at least from my perspective anyway, is not the whole back and forth about pointing out the obvious “biological reality” if you want to call it that, but rather the reality of the number of girls (or adolescent females if you prefer) wanting to transition to present themselves as males, by the introduction of hormones and in many cases progressing to surgical procedures -


Government probe into why so many girls want to be boys: Investigation ordered after number of 'transitioning referrals' increases by four thousand per cent


The biological realities presented by that particular phenomenon is causing real problems for scientists, medical professionals and mental health professionals as regards the long term impact it is having on girls themselves, women and the future outlook of society.

This is why I said JK isn’t even in the ha’penny place when it comes to this stuff, she’s focused her ire on the most visible targets on social media, the virtual world, whereas offline, the reality happening right under her nose is that exponentially increasing numbers of young girls are choosing to identify themselves as something other than females, or women. In effect, essentially young girls are disassociating themselves from what they associate with being female or being a woman. Young girls choosing to put themselves at risk like that is a far more rational and reasonable concern than the irrational fear of anyone ever being made to feel uncomfortable, or indeed being attacked, by the bogeyman.

ceadaoin.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Government probe into why so many girls want to be boys: Investigation ordered after number of 'transitioning referrals' increases by four thousand per cent


The biological realities presented by that particular phenomenon is causing real problems for scientists, medical professionals and mental health professionals as regards the long term impact it is having on girls themselves, women and the future outlook of society.

This is why I said JK isn’t even in the ha’penny place when it comes to this stuff, she’s focused her ire on the most visible targets on social media, the virtual world, whereas offline, the reality happening right under her nose is that exponentially increasing numbers of young girls are choosing to identify themselves as something other than females, or women. In effect, essentially young girls are disassociating themselves from what they associate with being female or being a woman. Young girls choosing to put themselves at risk like that is a far more rational and reasonable concern than the irrational fear of anyone ever being made to feel uncomfortable, or indeed attacked by the bogeyman.

Actually, she specifically mentioned the huge increase in girls identifying as boys in her statement

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.


Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018, American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

robertpatterson

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

This is just weird, I don’t know what age you are and don’t want to assume but there’s a level of immaturity to this.

A lot of people love cock but they also love the rest of the package forgive the pun that comes with it.

If you only love cock absent of other factors then it is a fetish. There’s straight me happily married that love to suck cock, they don’t want anything else from that persons body.

Theyre not straight if they like to suck cock.
Ive yet to meet a vegetarian who eats steak!

volchitsa

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I answered already, I let the person describe their identity to me, if they chose to tell me, it’s really not my business. I have no skin in the game. It doesn’t affect my life.

Like in many life situations i am led by the signals people present, I try not to judge.

So Rachel Dolezal is black then?

I wonder what all that fuss was about. Rachel Dolezal I wasn't identifying as black to upset people. I was being me

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

What would you describe a person as based on a hypothesis.

I wouldn’t describe a person without their consent because they are human, have bodily autonomy and agency and get to describe themselves.

I think that’s a very clear answer just because it’s not the answer you want to hear doesn’t invalidate it.

You keep judging people by what’s in or not in their pants. It obviously makes you happy, you’re obsessed by it.

Me, I’ll just float on minding my business talking to people about their lives and finding out who they are and how they see themselves in the world.

You wouldn't describe people without their consent?

Now honestly, that is one of the most hyper "right-on" statements I have read on boards.

Gruffalux

A definition that may be helpful although no definitions are real according to this mode of thought ie " there is no truth ( except this truth)."

"Deconstruction is a mode of philosophical and literary analysis derived from the work of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida that questions the most basic philosophical categories or concepts. In philosophy it involves the undoing of fundamental oppositions through a demonstration that they are constructions, not part of the nature of things but categories imposed by discourses which provide the evidence for their deconstruction. Beyond philosophy, deconstruction influenced work in such fields as law, anthropology, psychoanalysis, theology, and gender studies by providing an impetus to treat the categories and the metalanguage of a discipline as interested constructions rather than as a neutral framework, and by encouraging attention to the rhetorical and performative dimensions of texts as well as to their explicit arguments."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/deconstruction



Now it should be noted that it was feminists who first supported and promoted radical deconstructionist gender theory. If being female was the state of oppression then one could identify out of the state of femaleness because it is a mere social construct. Cue loads of literature on this. Not all feminists base their approach on deconstructionism but it was / is the most influential philosophy. (The gender constructionism of these people is one of the reasons I do not describe myself as a feminist. An egalitarian will do.)

I am a complete non expert in any of these areas - I just made it my business to get a very broad stroke outline of the field that generated the roots of what appears to be the sudden madness of radical gender theory as repeated ad nauseum these days. So it is just a shaky sketch of a map of vast territory with lots of winding contradictory paths. But at least one can hazard a good guess as to which country one walks in.

Post structuralism is also important to know about. It is the broader picture into which deconstruction falls. Derrida was the big deconstruction guy. Lacan, Foucault, Derrida are the big names in post structuralism and feminism was influenced by their ideas. Post modernism is associated with post structuralism and could be considered its more active radical political wing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

There are writers who theorise on the ulterior motives of the post modernists who arrived from France to America in the 1970s in terms of their politically motivated desire to unravel the society - but that is a huge dark area I am not going to get into.


From wikipedia -

"Poststructural feminism is a branch of feminism that engages with insights from post-structuralist thought. Poststructural feminism emphasizes "the contingent and discursive nature of all identities", and in particular the social construction of gendered subjectivities. A contribution of this branch was to argue that there is no universal single category of "woman" or "man."

Further reading if interested -

In Postmodernism's influence. There are much darker more conspiratorial writings that people can find.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/how-postmodernism-is-infiltrating-public-life-and-policy/article34734386/

Other -

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085635

"Despite the multifarious divergences within academic feminism, one general conceptual strategy seems to have informed its theorizing since the mid-1970s: the articulation of gender as a phenomenon separate from but related to biological claims of natural sex difference between men and women. The latter view is itself a by-product of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century science of reproductive physiology, which located sex difference in the male and female anatomies (Schiebinger 1989, Laquer 1990). The disentanglement of the concept of gender from the dichotomous variable of biological sex, with which it had previously been considered synonymous, was an emergent property of second-wave feminist philosophy and social science research ever since Beauvoir's (1949) celebrated formulation, “one is not born a woman, but, rather, becomes one.” Within social science research, the first systematic articulation of gender as a formal category of critical feminist analysis appeared in Rubin's (1975) structuralist anthropological account of a “sex/gender system.” Drawing on Freud, Lévi-Strauss, and Lacan, Rubin specified certain cultural and institutional mechanisms that transform biological males and females into a gender hierarchy (and a corollary heterosexual disposition) that subordinates women. What is important here is the operating premise behind this particular moment in the development of analytic feminism. As Lovenduski distills it (1998, p. 337), “sex and gender are analytically distinct, gender is relational, and the concept of sex is meaningless except when understood in the context of gender relations.”

The political significance of the conceptual innovation regarding gender can hardly be overestimated. Under this argument the supposedly natural relation of “male and female” could be theorized as the product of specific social, cultural, historical, and discursive processes, a move that throws into question the very concept of naturalness as well as the meaning of social construction (Butler 1987, 1990, Nicholson 1990). Furthermore, the sex/gender system that this hitherto “natural” relation represented could now be theorized as a social condition constituted through relations of power, thus open to critique and the possibility of change. Although not all modes of feminist theorizing abandoned biological foundational or essentialist arguments, the “social constructivist” framework for understanding gender became integral to contemporary feminist discourses and research programs across the social sciences."

suicide_circus

but even the "nothing is real, there is no truth" nonsense doesn't work here. If nothing is real then why the need to transition at all?

Dante7

The UK is set to scrap plans for self I'd. This is a great victory for women, and I suspect if JK had not spoken up and opened up the debate, this would have passed unopposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/trans-rights-government-reported-to-be-dropping-gender-self-identifying-plans

Gruffalux

suicide_circus wrote: »

but even the "nothing is real, there is no truth" nonsense doesn't work here. If nothing is real then why the need to transition at all?

I don't know. Since the beginning of this debate I have argued that there is no need for transition to express gender however one wishes.. I argue on the purely physical basis that is better for healthy bodies to retain form and function and avoid pain. This is a simple gut reaction of a mother - do not harm, especially not the young and defenseless. But of course one could also argue it from a philosophical perspective which would have full support from gender theorists own back yard.

lozenges

If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, you actually end up arguing against the need for healthcare for trans people at all.

J is an 18 year old who identifies as male. He has DD breasts. Since fully developed mammary glands are a characteristic of both males and females J has no reason to experience gender dysphoria. No need for a chest binder, testosterone or mastectomy.

M is an 18 year old who identifies as female. She has a strong jaw, facial + chest hair and a deep voice. Since these are secondary sex characteristics of males and females she has no reason to experience gender dysphoria. No need for oestrogen injections so.

Oh wait...

Silentcorner

Dante7 wrote: »

The UK is set to scrap plans for self I'd. This is a great victory for women, and I suspect if JK had not spoken up and opened up the debate, this would have passed unopposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/trans-rights-government-reported-to-be-dropping-gender-self-identifying-plans

Donald Trump has just done the same in the US.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/12/trump-finalizes-rule-defining-gender-as-a-persons-/

I don't think JK Rowling had anything to with either, to be honest.

Refusal to accept feelings over facts is inherently the right thing to do and should be seen as a massively progressive step forward

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

I don't know. Since the beginning of this debate I have argued that there is no need for transition to express gender however one wishes.. I argue on the purely physical basis that is better for healthy bodies to retain form and function and avoid pain. This is a simple gut reaction of a mother - do not harm, especially not the young and defenseless. But of course one could also argue it from a philosophical perspective which would have full support from gender theorists own back yard.

And that’s exactly the perspective which young girls are finding more appealing than the prospect of womanhood, basically. It’s not that they’re wanting to identify themselves as the opposite sex, it’s that they simply don’t identify themselves as being female, or being a girl, and will do whatever it takes to prevent their bodies from becoming that of a woman. It’s the ultimate expression of individual agency as far as they’re concerned.

They’re doing it because they want to, not because they need to, and they’re being given a “cheat sheet” as it were, the answers that multidisciplinary teams are looking for in order to determine that they are indeed experiencing psychological symptoms of distress which necessitates allowing them to transition on Governments dime (because privately funded healthcare is beyond their affordability, and that’s brought its own problems with an emerging black economy in hormones sold over the internet). Being prepared to go to those lengths, pointing out to them facts about sex as it relates to biology is a waste of time as they’ve already rejected it. If they’ve developed them already, these girls are having surgery to have their breasts removed. As far as they’re concerned, arguments about being confined to their sex by biological limitations are now invalid.

By their own actions they are redefining their bodies to suit their thought processes in order to decrease the cognitive dissonance they experience as a result of being unable to relate to being female or the prospect of womanhood. Of course it’s better for the human body that it retain as much of it’s natural form as possible, but when the body feels unnatural to the mind, it’s now a reality that people can change their bodies far easier than they change their minds, or thought processes as it were.

Simple gut reaction of any parent I would suspect is that they would wish no harm to come to their children, so when they’re presented with the dilemma of their children taking their own lives unless they are able to identify however they choose, 99 times out of 100 parents are going to choose the latter than the former, often having to hide their resentment that they have no control over being put in that position by their own children. It’s why I personally had such a visceral reaction to Rachel McKinnon and their “find your glitter family” nonsense, because they’re very much aware that what people want at the most fundamental level is acceptance and support from their peers. McKinnon is effectively offering to step in to supplant the parents in providing what the child sees as their needs. Of course children are going to find that more appealing than the idea of being rejected by their parents who they imagine “don’t understand”. It’s the danger of an echo chamber - reinforcing their beliefs that any pain they may experience by transitioning is only temporary and worth it to become who and what they feel they truly are.

That’s why I said earlier that the growing phenomenon is presenting real problems for scientists, medical professionals and mental health professionals, because even with all their expertise, they can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not any more when young girls are presenting as wanting to transition. They’re obviously having the wool pulled over their eyes and that’s why it’s becoming an even greater concern. It’s not that they’re afraid of being sued, it’s that they are all too aware of how the decisions they make for those children could lead to disastrous outcomes for those children as they develop into adulthood. It’s as much an ethical dilemma for them, as it is a moral dilemma for parents.

That’s why when JK uses the 4,000% increase statistic, from her perspective this is being forced on children, when in reality it’s quite the opposite. They aren’t all autistic (a condition which itself is coming under scrutiny for how it is being more broadly defined), the vast majority of them are simply unable to relate to being female or seeing anything positive in allowing themselves to develop and grow into womanhood. JK and anyone who considers themselves a “gender critic” could change these children’s perceptions by being role models in making femininity and womanhood more appealing than the alternative of the teenager on social media with an enormous amount of influence over an even greater audience, extolling the virtues of how fantastic they feel about having their breasts removed and how liberated they are that they identify as something other than terms commonly used to refer to femininity.

In the most basic terms, they’re not interested the least bit in the hard sciences, and simply find articles like this more appealing and relatable -

64 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression

Written by authors with influence which JK could only ever dream of achieving -

Mere Abrams


As for males identifying themselves as female? Same sort of influence going on is all, but not nearly to the same degree of influence as among young girls.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that’s exactly the perspective which young girls are finding more appealing than the prospect of womanhood, basically. It’s not that they’re wanting to identify themselves as the opposite sex, it’s that they simply don’t identify themselves as being female, or being a girl, and will do whatever it takes to prevent their bodies from becoming that of a woman. It’s the ultimate expression of individual agency as far as they’re concerned.

They’re doing it because they want to, not because they need to, and they’re being given a “cheat sheet” as it were, the answers that multidisciplinary teams are looking for in order to determine that they are indeed experiencing psychological symptoms of distress which necessitates allowing them to transition on Governments dime (because privately funded healthcare is beyond their affordability, and that’s brought its own problems with an emerging black economy in hormones sold over the internet). Being prepared to go to those lengths, pointing out to them facts about sex as it relates to biology is a waste of time as they’ve already rejected it. If they’ve developed them already, these girls are having surgery to have their breasts removed. As far as they’re concerned, arguments about being confined to their sex by biological limitations are now invalid.

By their own actions they are redefining their bodies to suit their thought processes in order to decrease the cognitive dissonance they experience as a result of being unable to relate to being female or the prospect of womanhood. Of course it’s better for the human body that it retain as much of it’s natural form as possible, but when the body feels unnatural to the mind, it’s now a reality that people can change their bodies far easier than they change their minds, or thought processes as it were.

Simple gut reaction of any parent I would suspect is that they would wish no harm to come to their children, so when they’re presented with the dilemma of their children taking their own lives unless they are able to identify however they choose, 99 times out of 100 parents are going to choose the latter than the former, often having to hide their resentment that they have no control over being put in that position by their own children. It’s why I personally had such a visceral reaction to Rachel McKinnon and their “find your glitter family” nonsense, because they’re very much aware that what people want at the most fundamental level is acceptance and support from their peers. McKinnon is effectively offering to step in to supplant the parents in providing what the child sees as their needs. Of course children are going to find that more appealing than the idea of being rejected by their parents who they imagine “don’t understand”. It’s the danger of an echo chamber - reinforcing their beliefs that any pain they may experience by transitioning is only temporary and worth it to become who and what they feel they truly are.

That’s why I said earlier that the growing phenomenon is presenting real problems for scientists, medical professionals and mental health professionals, because even with all their expertise, they can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not any more when young girls are presenting as wanting to transition. They’re obviously having the wool pulled over their eyes and that’s why it’s becoming an even greater concern. It’s not that they’re afraid of being sued, it’s that they are all too aware of how the decisions they make for those children could lead to disastrous outcomes for those children as they develop into adulthood. It’s as much an ethical dilemma for them, as it is a moral dilemma for parents.

That’s why when JK uses the 4,000% increase statistic, from her perspective this is being forced on children, when in reality it’s quite the opposite. They aren’t all autistic (a condition which itself is coming under scrutiny for how it is being more broadly defined), the vast majority of them are simply unable to relate to being female or seeing anything positive in allowing themselves to develop and grow into womanhood. JK and anyone who considers themselves a “gender critic” could change these children’s perceptions by being role models in making femininity and womanhood more appealing than the alternative of the teenager on social media with an enormous amount of influence over an even greater audience, extolling the virtues of how fantastic they feel about having their breasts removed and how liberated they are that they identify as something other than terms commonly used to refer to femininity.

In the most basic terms, they’re not interested the least bit in the hard sciences, and simply find articles like this more appealing and relatable -

64 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression

Written by authors with influence which JK could only ever dream of achieving -

Mere Abrams


As for males identifying themselves as female? Same sort of influence going on is all, but not nearly to the same degree of influence as among young girls.

You don't get to define your own body and be able to expect people to acknowledge or validate your decision.

A woman is, and always will be, a woman.

It's black and white.

By your logic, a person should be able to declare themselves as "not guilty" when charged with a crime.

Gruffalux

Sorry. I just cannot reply. My patience has a bound.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't get to define your own body and be able to expect people to acknowledge or validate your decision.

A woman is, and always will be, a woman.

It's black and white.

By your logic, a person should be able to declare themselves as "not guilty" when charged with a crime.

Stall on there, it’s not my logic at all. I’m simply offering one possible explanation of the logic that is behind these young people wishing to identify as something other than the confines and limitations as they see it, of their biology. The reality is that now with synthetic hormones and surgery, they actually do get to define their own body, and they are already surrounded by people who do acknowledge and validate their decision.

They don’t see JK as an authority on how they should be defined, they see the social media savvy teenager who tells them they can be whoever and whatever they want, as their role model and authority whom they want to emulate. By their logic, yes, your analogy works - the way they see it, if they declare themselves as something other than female or woman, they now have the means and the language to make that their reality. I don’t agree with it, but I do understand it.

0xzmro3n4y7lb5

I find the whole ‘there’s transgender people everywhere’ nowadays ‘it’s catching’ argument funny.

Trans people existed long before the term transgender was coined. See Hijra

All those people arguing the above would have been the same people in the 1800s/1900s saying gays are here and they are converting your children after the term was coined.

LGBTQI+ people are as old as time itself. Oppression has played its part in forcing people to live closeted lives.

And if a girl doesn’t want to be a girl, why does she have to be? Being a girl or the narrow definition of femaleness could actually be turning girls away?

What’s the logical response for those claiming to be looking out for these girls but to reinforce these narrow views of what it is to just be. That’s in no way helpful and we are at a point where the idea of what a woman is, is worse than it was over 50 years ago. LGBTQI+ aren’t the people setting these narrow definitions.

The people complaining are the people who created the problem. Just let people live their lives.

lozenges

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stall on there, it’s not my logic at all. I’m simply offering one possible explanation of the logic that is behind these young people wishing to identify as something other than the confines and limitations as they see it, of their biology. The reality is that now with synthetic hormones and surgery, they actually do get to define their own body, and they are already surrounded by people who do acknowledge and validate their decision.

They don’t see JK as an authority on how they should be defined, they see the social media savvy teenager who tells them they can be whoever and whatever they want, as their role model and authority whom they want to emulate. By their logic, yes, your analogy works - the way they see it, if they declare themselves as something other than female or woman, they now have the means and the language to make that their reality. I don’t agree with it, but I do understand it.

The absolute irony of you declaring that womanhood isn't aspirational for an increasing proportion of females.

The same person who supports archaic rigid gender roles in parenting, that mothers should always be the ones to stay at home to look after children and fathers should go out to work. No need for paternity leave, that's the woman's job.

I wonder why those girls don't find womanhood aspirational...nothing to do with fixed societal expectations of gender at all.

CtevenSrowder

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

I find the whole ‘there’s transgender people everywhere’ nowadays ‘it’s catching’ argument funny.

Trans people existed long before the term transgender was coined. See Hijra

All those people arguing the above would have been the same people in the 1800s/1900s saying gays are here and they are converting your children after the term was coined.

LGBTQI+ people are as old as time itself. Oppression has played its part in forcing people to live closeted lives.

And if a girl doesn’t want to be a girl, why does she have to be? Being a girl or the narrow definition of femaleness could actually be turning girls away?

What’s the logical response for those claiming to be looking out for these girls but to reinforce these narrow views of what it is to just be. That’s in no way helpful and we are at a point where the idea of what a woman is, is worse than it was over 50 years ago. LGBTQI+ aren’t the people setting these narrow definitions.

The people complaining are the people who created the problem. Just let people live their lives.

So do you think it is acceptable for a biological male, even one convicted of sex offences against women, to be put in prison with other women?

Do you think it's acceptable for biological females to lose out on scholarships worth near 100's of thousands of dollars, because biological males have self id'd the other way and due to their physical advantages, natural for their sex, crush those biological females and take said scholarships?

Would you view it as perfectly acceptable for Katie Taylor to get pummelled around the ring by a biological male who simply says they are female?

Or for biological men to be on female only shortlists for politics, grants etc.?

This "let people live their lives" libertarian mantra simply glosses over the real problems that arise when we do this.

Also, you have no basis whatsoever for you 1800's/1900's claim. You'd just have been as likely to be saying that as anyone. A nice little insight into the moral superiority you feel.

suicide_circus

is it a hate crime to maliciously misgender a person who isnt trans?

Delaney Nice Salesclerk

Delaney Nice Salesclerk wrote: »

And if a girl doesn’t want to be a girl, why does she have to be? .

If a cat doesn't want to be a cat why does it have to be?

If a terminally ill person doesn't want to be sick, why do they have to be?

If a boy wants to fly what can't he just choose to?

If a poor person wants to be rich, why can't he?

Listen to yourself.

Slowyourrole

Whether you agree with JK that there needs to be a safe space and specialised services for cis women alone, I'm curious as to how people would see this done in many places. Changing rooms for instance. If a shopkeeper sees someone that looks masculine queuing for the women's changing rooms are they supposed to ask them for ID? What if they are just a cis woman who looks manly? Are they to expect to be challenged whenever they want to do something other cis women do without issue? What about a domestic abuse shelter? Is a trans woman who has transitioned in every way but the final surgery supposed to be excluded from domestic violence supports? How are the staff supposed to know what sex she was born if her abusive partner has her ID? Just seems completely unenforceable.

Gruffalux

It is the trans activists who narrowly define gender.
Girl, you identify as a boy. I shall fight tirelessly for your right to chop off your breasts, alter your body irreversibly with testosterone. And create a neo phallus from your forearm.
Boy, you identify as a girl. I shall fight tirelessly for your right to stick on breasts, alter your body sensationally with estrogen. And lop off your penis to create a neo vagina from tissue in your lower intestine.

Who are the squares? Who are the barbarians with insanely conservative definitions of gender?

CtevenSrowder

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Whether you agree with JK that there needs to be a safe space and specialised services for cis women alone, I'm curious as to how people would see this done in many places. Changing rooms for instance. If a shopkeeper sees someone that looks masculine queuing for the women's changing rooms are they supposed to ask them for ID? What if they are just a cis woman who looks manly? Are they to expect to be challenged whenever they want to do something other cis women do without issue? What about a domestic abuse shelter? Is a trans woman who has transitioned in every way but the final surgery supposed to be excluded from domestic violence supports? How are the staff supposed to know what sex she was born if her abusive partner has her ID? Just seems completely unenforceable.

You ask good questions. As far as I'm concerned however, the debate can't even move to this stage until people accept biological reality. A female cannot be a male, a trans woman cannot be a woman. They are a trans-woman.