Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)
Options
Comments
-
Ok I'll lay the whole argument out for you so it doesn't cbecome a back and forth:
1. Do you believe that trans women should be allowed join the police. You've answered yes.
2. Do you believe a tall muscular trans woman should be allowed join the police.
3. Should a police force be able to promote the diversity of it's force? This includes racial, cis female, gay, and trans.
4. Can a police force use aggressive imagery as part of this. Specifically do you have a problem with the image of the cis female officer with the gun I posted?
5. Can a police force use non-aggressive imagery such as the other photos used of the trans woman in need articles?
All this is to get to the main point:
6. What difference would it make if they used non aggressive imagery to the main concern you've raised about strip searches? Presumably the woman being searched would meet this trans officer in person regardless of whether they'd read an article about it. How would this image and the promotion tweets and article make any difference to a woman about to be searched?
I also have to point out that this officer is a training officer and is unlikely to ever have to search anyone so this is all a lot of whataboutery but I will engage in hypotheticals.
Do you see any difference between a trans woman and a woman? Do you believe that every facet of them from a gender point of view is identical? That in every case you can swap a woman for a trans woman and there be no impact?
What does the word female actually mean to you?
Are there criteria attached? Are there table stakes that you can share?
If anyone had the ability to define themselves as male or female then unless you can define the criteria required, the words become meaningless and lack definition.
It would be pointless to describe someone by their declared gender since everyone's definition would be different.
Hence why they are tied to a persons sex.0 -
So those who subscribe to the gender identity ideology are allowed to 'have each other's back', but those that don't aren't? Is that what you're saying? Cos it sure as hell looks like that. Or is there some love-triangle between the 3 of you the rest of us aren't privy to? Hmm, given the record of things on Boards my gut is more inclined towards the former. If you're looking for deflecting, you might wanna look on the other side of the fence, and the mirror as well for that matter.
Well with that arresting idea floating of a snarled-up love triangle between Obvious, Banna and I, sleep and who knows what dreams beckon....
0 -
Do you see any difference between a trans woman and a woman? Do you believe that every facet of them from a gender point of view is identical? That in every case you can swap a woman for a trans woman and there be no impact?
What does the word female actually mean to you?
Are there criteria attached? Are there table stakes that you can share?
If anyone had the ability to define themselves as male or female then unless you can define the criteria required, the words become meaningless and lack definition.
It would be pointless to describe someone by their declared gender since everyone's definition would be different.
Hence why they are tied to a persons sex.
What? You crazy! Okay like.. .. ..
Woman have XX chromosomes.. .. transwomen have XY chromosomes..
Women can menstruate.. transwomen cannot (f*ck the 'people who menstruate' garbage)
Oh and the most important one I think.. .. women are female.. transwomen are.. male? Hmm.
Again: stating a fact. Simply stating a fact is not hate. If you can't deal with that, then you're in desperate need of a reality check. Can facts be used in a hateful way? Yes of course. Simply stating a fact however is in no way hate. GET OVER IT.
Wanna live your life as a transman/transwoman? Be my guest! But a man/woman you ain't. Gender is not a social construct or a feeling. It is what you physically are. Same thing as sex? Umm, yeah. Another wee fact there.
I'm about at my limit when it comes to gender identity.. .. Although that said, I sympathise with those who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria. Yes I said suffer. Because despite what the WHO decided, it is a mental condition. You can't choose your gender anymore than you can choose that you're human. BELIEVE ME, you have no idea what I'd give to not be human (cos humans for the most part are so prone to greed/stupidity/completely lacking in reason/logic. But the reality is I am. Those are the cards I was dealt, and you can only play life with the cards you have.
The same as depression is a mental conidition. The same as OCD is a mental condition. The only difference between mental conditions is that some are more severe than others on people. The brain is powerful, and it is extremely easy to manipulate our minds.
These non-binary crowd though are nothing more than self-entitled sh*theads who have it way too easy in life. "Oh I'm neither a man nor woman". F*ck off. There's male, there's female, and then there's intersex (of which has many variations of course).0 -
Do you see any difference between a trans woman and a woman? Do you believe that every facet of them from a gender point of view is identical? That in every case you can swap a woman for a trans woman and there be no impact?
What does the word female actually mean to you?
Are there criteria attached? Are there table stakes that you can share?.
Let's not start talking about tables again ...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Actually apparently females can pat down males. That is interesting. If males object it would be something they should campaign against. Justifiably.
Males already cannot intimately search females by law. Gender identification should not change that protection. In my opinion. And I would campaign against that changing, as I am doing I suppose.
The actual law is nothing to do with what I asked. Presumably the law will be applied irrespective if someone has read promotional materials for trans officers or cis women officers.
It sounded like you were saying earlier that the promotion materials surrounding this trans officer should have had some sort of disclaimer telling women they will not be searched by her.
If I've interpreted you correctly then shouldn't promotion materials for cis women in police forces discuss the possibilities (or impossibilities) of them searching males?
Just to clarify I am not asking your thoughts on the legality or sensibleness of anyone searching anyone else. Simply the need for disclaimers about searches in diversity promo materials.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Emphatically, yes. That picture by itself suggests a person who is neither female, nor feminine, nor photogenic.
That's just the fact of the matter, and the vast majority of people would see that without needing any accompanying text or context.
If you search Google Images, there's an image (from the same shoot I'd say), without the harsh lighting and without the full face portrait which is not flattering.
It's a much, much better image than the one used in the article, which is horribly lit and I think chosen by a photo editor with questionable motives. As we have come to expect from the 'meeja'.
That only has an impact on them being female of you believe women have to look stereotypically feminine. I've met many cis women who don't.
Kind of worrying that we are leaning into these notions again.0 -
-
Do you see any difference between a trans woman and a woman? Do you believe that every facet of them from a gender point of view is identical? That in every case you can swap a woman for a trans woman and there be no impact?
What does the word female actually mean to you?
Are there criteria attached? Are there table stakes that you can share?
If anyone had the ability to define themselves as male or female then unless you can define the criteria required, the words become meaningless and lack definition.
It would be pointless to describe someone by their declared gender since everyone's definition would be different.
Hence why they are tied to a persons sex.
I don't see a difference between trans women and women because they are women. I do see a difference between trans women and cis women.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of language to think that the meaning of words lies in definitions.0 -
political analyst wrote: »It was just an aside! By the way, given that the ex-cop in question has nothing to do with transgender matters, why did you attach a picture of her?
A poster said that's never seen an image like that involving a cis woman. I was helping them out.0 -
Advertisement
-
What? You crazy! Okay like.. .. ..
Woman have XX chromosomes.. .. transwomen have XY chromosomes..
Women can menstruate.. transwomen cannot (f*ck the 'people who menstruate' garbage)
Oh and the most important one I think.. .. women are female.. transwomen are.. male? Hmm.
Again: stating a fact. Simply stating a fact is not hate. If you can't deal with that, then you're in desperate need of a reality check. Can facts be used in a hateful way? Yes of course. Simply stating a fact however is in no way hate. GET OVER IT.
Wanna live your life as a transman/transwoman? Be my guest! But a man/woman you ain't. Gender is not a social construct or a feeling. It is what you physically are. Same thing as sex? Umm, yeah. Another wee fact there.
I'm about at my limit when it comes to gender identity.. .. Although that said, I sympathise with those who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria. Yes I said suffer. Because despite what the WHO decided, it is a mental condition. You can't choose your gender anymore than you can choose that you're human. BELIEVE ME, you have no idea what I'd give to not be human (cos humans for the most part are so prone to greed/stupidity/completely lacking in reason/logic. But the reality is I am. Those are the cards I was dealt, and you can only play life with the cards you have.
The same as depression is a mental conidition. The same as OCD is a mental condition. The only difference between mental conditions is that some are more severe than others on people. The brain is powerful, and it is extremely easy to manipulate our minds.
These non-binary crowd though are nothing more than self-entitled sh*theads who have it way too easy in life. "Oh I'm neither a man nor woman". F*ck off. There's male, there's female, and then there's intersex (of which has many variations of course).
I'm honestly not sure if you think you are agreeing or disagreeing with my post...?0 -
What? You crazy! Okay like.. .. ..
Woman have XX chromosomes.. .. transwomen have XY chromosomes..
Women can menstruate.. transwomen cannot (f*ck the 'people who menstruate' garbage)
Oh and the most important one I think.. .. women are female.. transwomen are.. male? Hmm.
Again: stating a fact. Simply stating a fact is not hate. If you can't deal with that, then you're in desperate need of a reality check. Can facts be used in a hateful way? Yes of course. Simply stating a fact however is in no way hate. GET OVER IT.
Wanna live your life as a transman/transwoman? Be my guest! But a man/woman you ain't. Gender is not a social construct or a feeling. It is what you physically are. Same thing as sex? Umm, yeah. Another wee fact there.
I'm about at my limit when it comes to gender identity.. .. Although that said, I sympathise with those who genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria. Yes I said suffer. Because despite what the WHO decided, it is a mental condition. You can't choose your gender anymore than you can choose that you're human. BELIEVE ME, you have no idea what I'd give to not be human (cos humans for the most part are so prone to greed/stupidity/completely lacking in reason/logic. But the reality is I am. Those are the cards I was dealt, and you can only play life with the cards you have.
The same as depression is a mental conidition. The same as OCD is a mental condition. The only difference between mental conditions is that some are more severe than others on people. The brain is powerful, and it is extremely easy to manipulate our minds.
These non-binary crowd though are nothing more than self-entitled sh*theads who have it way too easy in life. "Oh I'm neither a man nor woman". F*ck off. There's male, there's female, and then there's intersex (of which has many variations of course).
It's crazy that we even have to state the obvious truth, as if it wasn't clear enough0 -
I don't see a difference between trans women and women because they are women. I do see a difference between trans women and cis women.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of language to think that the meaning of words lies in definitions.
I mean I don't understand how people can sincerely engage in this this circular logic. You are highly unlikely to apply such bunkum logic to any other area of life, but do so here purely for ideological reasons.
They aren't women, because they aren't female. And to suggest that the meaning of words don't lie in definitions is such utter horse****e it's hard to know we're to begin.0 -
I don't see a difference between trans women and women because they are women. I do see a difference between trans women and cis women.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding of language to think that the meaning of words lies in definitions.
The meanings of words aren't their definitions? Unless I have read that wrong, that's the absolute craziest thing I have read on here.0 -
He meant that it's a sunny day tomorrow.Deleted User wrote: »The meanings of words aren't their definitions? Unless I have read that wrong, that's the absolute craziest thing I have read on here.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The meanings of words aren't their definitions? Unless I have read that wrong, that's the absolute craziest thing I have read on here.“Postmodernity is said to be a culture of fragmentary sensations, eclectic nostalgia, disposable simulacra, and promiscuous superficiality, in which the traditionally valued qualities of depth, coherence, meaning, originality, and authenticity are evacuated or dissolved amid the random swirl of empty signals.”
― Jean BaudrillardPostmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. - Britannica.comThis is an attempt at a summary of basic post modernist propositions by US philosopher Alvin Goldman, chosen at random for brevity...
1. There is no such thing as transcendent truth. What we call "true" is simply what we agree with. So-called truths or facts are merely negotiated beliefs, the products of social construction and fabrication, not ‘objective’ or ‘external’ features of the world.
2. Knowledge, reality, and truth are the products of language. There is no language-independent reality that can make our thoughts true or false.
3. If there were any transcendent or objective truths, they would be inaccessible and unknowable by human beings, hence unavailable for any practical epistemological purposes.
4. There are no privileged epistemic positions, and no certain foundations for beliefs. All claims are judged by conventions or language games, which have no deeper grounding. There are no neutral, transcultural standards for settling disagreements.
5. Appeals to truth are merely instruments of domination or repression, which should be replaced by practices with progressive social value.
6. Truth cannot be attained because all putatively truth-oriented practices are corrupted and biased by politics or self-serving interests.
As you can see from these 6 points postmodernism and its hand maiden deconstructionism is an active attempt to overthrow what has been fundamental to the way of thinking in the western world since at least Plato (though that way of thinking has much older precedents in the East) and especially the Enlightenment. Not only does postmodernism reject all metaphysics, which would be acceptable, but it also rejects empirical science. In an ironic twist this leads to a type of neo-religionism. Postmodern people begin to fervently, ''believe'' what suits their inner ''soul'' identity.“Science is essentially an anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend, Against Method“The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.”
― Paul Karl Feyerabend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_warsAnd it is of course not true that we have to follow the truth. Human life is guided by many ideas. Truth is one of them. Freedom and mental independence are others. If Truth, as conceived by some ideologists, conflicts with freedom, then we have a choice. We may abandon freedom. But we may also abandon Truth. - Paul Feyeraband0 -
CtevenSrowder wrote: »I mean I don't understand how people can sincerely engage in this this circular logic. You are highly unlikely to apply such bunkum logic to any other area of life, but do so here purely for ideological reasons.
They aren't women, because they aren't female. And to suggest that the meaning of words don't lie in definitions is such utter horse****e it's hard to know we're to begin.
It’s pretty easy to understand, it’s the basic principle of communication - a common language. According to your opinion, it should stand to reason that everyone across the globe should speak the same language, because words and definitions matter and languages never evolve and change and people have never communicated in any other way only through written and oral communication in the only language they learned from childhood and didn’t develop numerous ways to name their body parts for example, and that’s only among those people who could speak and read and write.
People have the ability to figure out meaning from context. If I’m not familiar with a word, I can generally figure out what the person means from the context in which words which are unfamiliar to me are used, and most of the time I’m fairly good at it, not perfect, but good enough that I generally get the idea of what a person means. I used to think it was just me who struggled with euphemisms for example, but the more people I communicated with, I came to realise that lots of people struggle with euphemisms.
You’re complaining about circular logic and yet your reasoning for correcting the poster who refers to women as women, is that they aren’t women because they aren’t female. Unless you’re also agreed on what is female, your definition is insufficient to demonstrate the difference. It’s just another word for the same thing. It’s no different to learning new words and ways of communicating ideas than any other areas of life where you would learn new skills and ways of doing things. That same logic you refer to as “bunkum”, already applies in all areas of life. It’s why people who use the term “adult human female” to refer to women are generally going to struggle to have that one catch on, because people don’t generally communicate in such reductive language.
Demanding that people restrict themselves to using language only in the ways in which you understand, might work if you’re communicating with children and they need something from you, but it doesn’t work so well with adults who need nothing from you and can communicate among themselves without needing you to understand what they mean.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »It’s pretty easy to understand, it’s the basic principle of communication - a common language. According to your opinion, it should stand to reason that everyone across the globe should speak the same language, because words and definitions matter and languages never evolve and change and people have never communicated in any other way only through written and oral communication in the only language they learned from childhood and didn’t develop numerous ways to name their body parts for example, and that’s only among those people who could speak and read and write.
People have the ability to figure out meaning from context. If I’m not familiar with a word, I can generally figure out what the person means from the context in which words which are unfamiliar to me are used, and most of the time I’m fairly good at it, not perfect, but good enough that I generally get the idea of what a person means. I used to think it was just me who struggled with euphemisms for example, but the more people I communicated with, I came to realise that lots of people struggle with euphemisms.
You’re complaining about circular logic and yet your reasoning for correcting the poster who refers to women as women, is that they aren’t women because they aren’t female. Unless you’re also agreed on what is female, your definition is insufficient to demonstrate the difference. It’s just another word for the same thing. It’s no different to learning new words and ways of communicating ideas than any other areas of life where you would learn new skills and ways of doing things. That same logic you refer to as “bunkum”, already applies in all areas of life. It’s why people who use the term “adult human female” to refer to women are generally going to struggle to have that one catch on, because people don’t generally communicate in such reductive language.
Demanding that people restrict themselves to using language only in the ways in which you understand, might work if you’re communicating with children and they need something from you, but it doesn’t work so well with adults who need nothing from you and can communicate among themselves without needing you to understand what they mean.
You've jumped the shark.
You really have.
Using words to explain why words don't necessarily mean what they are defined as.
It's very simple. A male is someone born with a penis. A female is someone born with a vagina. A man is an adult male. A woman is an adult female.
Trans people are people who wish to be recognised as the opposite sex to which they were born.
There's no ambiguity. They are simple and verifiable facts.
Your attempts to obfuscate and to deny that definitions are valid or to insinuate that language is changing all the time so therefore words have no meaning is absolute bull**** of the highest order.
Your numerous attempts to portray different posters as enforcing their opinion on others is as wrong as it is tiresome. You claim alternate realities and definitions yet cite law as definitive.
You couldn't be more contradictory if you tried.
Bravo.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »You've jumped the shark.
You really have.
Using words to explain why words don't necessarily mean what they are defined as.
It’s a good thing I know that’s an idiom, otherwise I might be terribly confused as I’m nowhere near water.[Deleted User] wrote: »It's very simple. A male is someone born with a penis. A female is someone born with a vagina. A man is an adult male. A woman is an adult female.
Trans people are people who wish to be recognised as the opposite sex to which they were born.
There's no ambiguity. They are simple and verifiable facts.
There’s plenty of ambiguity there because your definitions are insufficient to describe people who don’t fit with your definitions. Again though, I get where you’re coming from, so I’m not the least bit concerned about whether or not your definitions are insufficient, they work for you and I’m grand with that. I don’t want to upset anyone by telling them they must now refer to themselves as “vagina owners” (and even then, there’s plenty of ambiguity in that reference).[Deleted User] wrote: »Your attempts to obfuscate and to deny that definitions are valid or to insinuate that language is changing all the time so therefore words have no meaning is absolute bull**** of the highest order.
Your numerous attempts to portray different posters as enforcing their opinion on others is as wrong as it is tiresome. You claim alternate realities and definitions yet cite law as definitive.
You couldn't be more contradictory if you tried.
Bravo.
You keep throwing out accusations and I’m wondering where it’s coming from because I’ve never attempted any obfuscation, I advocate for the use of Plain English (I won’t link, you can look it up if you want). I’ve never implied that words have no meaning, which would be bullshìt. I’m saying that different words can mean the same thing. Surely it’s not that difficult to understand that I can use many different words to refer to my penis for example, and I’ll still be understood. By definition, I am a penis owner. I wouldn’t use the reference myself, but I understand what the person using it means.
I cited law as objective, which it is, it’s written in black and white and the meanings of the words don’t change based upon anyone’s own individual interpretation, notwithstanding the fact that among the legal profession they have their own lexicon, as does the medical profession, as does science, in any discipline you can think of really, it has it’s own lexicon.
Just because you choose to portray what I have said as contradictory, by twisting the meaning of what I’m saying to suit your own purposes and portray me as something I’m not, doesn’t mean I am what you say I am, or that I’m doing what you accuse me of doing, it’s fairly obvious what you’re attempting to do, but what you’re doing doesn’t change reality.0 -
That only has an impact on them being female of you believe women have to look stereotypically feminine. I've met many cis women who don't.
Your premise is incorrect from the off.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with how women 'have to' look stereotypically feminine.
As an example, very few people if anyone has ever observed that eg Fatima Whitbread is 'stereotypically feminine' in appearance.
It's believable that she's a woman though, because your experience of observing the non-stereotypical is far from worthy of special mention. Of course all doubt on this matter would be removed if we were to discover that FW gave birth to a child.
The individual in the image we are discussing, on the other hand - the vast majority of people I would say, can see at first glance that we are looking at a transwoman. It might be something to do with how we have evolved over thousands of years to make an instant determination.
In making a distinction between these two cases, I refer to my own half-century of observing the stereo- and non-stereotypical, as well as some biology to draw the following conclusion -
a transwoman is not, when all is said and done, a woman.0 -
Advertisement
-
As you can see from these 6 points postmodernism and its hand maiden deconstructionism is an active attempt to overthrow what has been fundamental to the way of thinking in the western world since at least Plato (though that way of thinking has much older precedents in the East) and especially the Enlightenment. Not only does postmodernism reject all metaphysics, which would be acceptable, but it also rejects empirical science. In an ironic twist this leads to a type of neo-religionism. Postmodern people begin to fervently, ''believe'' what suits their inner ''soul'' identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
It's so good to have you back on the thread.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Your premise is incorrect from the off.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with how women 'have to' look stereotypically feminine.
As an example, very few people if anyone has ever observed that eg Fatima Whitbread is 'stereotypically feminine' in appearance.
It's believable that she's a woman though, because your experience of observing the non-stereotypical is far from worthy of special mention. Of course all doubt on this matter would be removed if we were to discover that FW gave birth to a child.
The individual in the image we are discussing, on the other hand - the vast majority of people I would say, can see at first glance that we are looking at a transwoman. It might be something to do with how we have evolved over thousands of years to make an instant determination.
In making a distinction between these two cases, I refer to my own half-century of observing the stereo- and non-stereotypical, as well as some biology to draw the following conclusion -
a transwoman is not, when all is said and done, a woman.
You haven’t said anything different to what L is saying? You’re still saying it’s based upon observation. In order to be perceived as a woman, they are compelled to look as they imagine a woman should look (I’ll be honest I’ve seen some piss poor attempts and some utterly convincing attempts), but it’s the whole idea behind ‘passing’ - conforming to their idea of how they perceive a woman (or indeed a man) should look.
I used Arlene Foster earlier as an example of ambiguity from my perspective, I hadn’t heard of her before and just caught sight of her on the news, caused some momentary confusion, but nothing more. It wasn’t required that she give birth in order to verify that she is indeed a woman.
Fanny Chmelar on the other hand, well I had to look her up because for one thing I couldn’t imagine someone would have such an unusual name - first heard it on The Chase, thought it had to be a misleading answer, but it was true, she actually is a World Champion Alpine Skier. German though, which would explain why her name would be unusual in English, hardly all that unusual in German society though I’d imagine.0 -
This judgement is every reason why that “facts don’t care about your feelings” shìte is just that - complete bullshìt, parroted by ignorant idiots.
European court rejects cases from three Irish symphysiotomy survivors who claimed State breached their human rights0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »This judgement is every reason why that “facts don’t care about your feelings” shìte is just that - complete bullshìt, parroted by ignorant idiots.
European court rejects cases from three Irish symphysiotomy survivors who claimed State breached their human rights
I'm not being smart here but I have no idea what you are talking about or what your point is.
Facts don't care about your feelings is a silly phrase used by a man who bases his disgusting political views on god so obviously a bit ironic. It could be applied to anything.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »This judgement is every reason why that “facts don’t care about your feelings” shìte is just that - complete bullshìt, parroted by ignorant idiots.
European court rejects cases from three Irish symphysiotomy survivors who claimed State breached their human rights
That link does not prove anything.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »You haven’t said anything different to what L is saying? You’re still saying it’s based upon observation. In order to be perceived as a woman, they are compelled to look as they imagine a woman should look (I’ll be honest I’ve seen some piss poor attempts and some utterly convincing attempts), but it’s the whole idea behind ‘passing’ - conforming to their idea of how they perceive a woman (or indeed a man) should look.
Skye is certainly trying to conform to that stereotype, and yet...
But actually, contrary to your assertion, I am not saying that 'it's based on observation', and certainly not finally.
Thus I refer to biology.
In some sense it isn't fair to judge this person on that particular image. I think that picture was chosen out of mischief for reasons I've already given. A quick search will show an image from the same shoot much more in harmony with the stereotypical image that Skye is trying hard to achieve.I used Arlene Foster earlier as an example of ambiguity from my perspective, I hadn’t heard of her before and just caught sight of her on the news, caused some momentary confusion, but nothing more. It wasn’t required that she give birth in order to verify that she is indeed a woman.
Well you wouldn't require that to 'verify' that Skye is a woman either, so that takes us no further.
Most of us believe that any such litmus test for Skye simply doesn't exist.
Because we don't believe that Skye is a woman by any measure.0 -
jam_mac_jam wrote: »I'm not being smart here but I have no idea what you are talking about or what your point is.
Facts don't care about your feelings is a silly phrase used by a man who bases his disgusting political views on god so obviously a bit ironic. It could be applied to anything.
The point I’m making is that the phrase is often invoked to suggest that people’s feelings are irrelevant, that only the “facts” matter. They’re the same kind of person who goes on about “biological realities” and all the rest of it, as if that’s supposed to mean anything.
The reason I used the article as an example to make the point that “facts don’t care about your feelings” is bullshìt, is because the women involved, even though there was a breach of their human rights, their cases were denied a hearing because they didn’t go through the Irish Courts first of all in seeking justice. They were the victims of an injustice, who were denied justice because of the way the system is set up.
A stupid phrase like “facts don’t care about your feelings” ignores the complexities of reality in order to deny people who are transgender acknowledgment of their human rights based upon the acknowledgement of human dignity, a concept based entirely upon feelings and empathy.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »
A stupid phrase like “facts don’t]care about your feelings” ignores the complexities of reality in order to deny people who are transgender acknowledgment of their human rights based upon the acknowledgement of human dignity, a concept based entirely upon feelings and empathy.
Is reality a thing again? I thought it was nebulous by way of being an infinite amount of different things.0 -
Frankie Machine wrote: »Most of us believe that any such litmus test for Skye simply doesn't exist.
Because we don't believe that Skye is a woman by any measure.
I get what you’re saying, you’re basically looking for objectivity, where there isn’t any, hence why stereotypes exist and why people perceive things the way they do and why some people in order to gain acceptance from their peers feel compelled to conform to those stereotypes. Skye believes themselves to be a woman, and so they make an attempt to conform to stereotypes of what being a woman means to them. It’s circular but that’s why ‘passing’ is important to them, because it validates their perception of themselves if other people are convinced they’re a woman.
Because of the mental stress though that is involved in attempting to pass or conform to stereotypes, it can often lead to ill mental health, which is why the affirmation model of therapy now exists - because the medical and surgical routes of treatment have been shown to be largely ineffective in addressing the underlying issues. All they do is just create a different set of issues, hence why many people who are transgender are simply not opting for medical and surgical transition any more, which is kinda off-putting to people who will only accept people who are transgender if they conform to that person’s perception which is informed by stereotypes, and has nothing to do with biology. Biology arguments are just their attempt to legitimise their dislike of people who don’t conform to their standards.0 -
Advertisement
-
Listening to radio earlier and a Doctor was talking about Covid Vaccine and pregnant persons. Women can’t even have pregnancy anymore.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement