Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is this woman a transphobe?

Random interjection.

The anti-trans narrative hypes up the idea that trans rights are mainly supported by men. But polling shows (yougov, for example) that women are considerably more likely to support trans rights than men. I don't think this is surprising. It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.

I say this as a cis man. But, at the same time, I would point out that the idea that "well I would, wouldn't I?" is not statistically supported.
 
Raheem said:
Random interjection.
It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.
Click to expand...
Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?

Can I identify out of my taxon?

As for knowing our place, it seems to me that it is trans activists who insist a certain identity makes one a man or woman who are reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why does identifying with the features and characteristics associated with the opposite sex turn that person into the opposite sex? Why can't men or women reject the gender stereotypes of what a man and woman means without becoming the other? It seems to me that it is much more radical to state that trans women and trans men are men and women who are gender non conforming within their sex and who reject the gender assumptions and stereotypes associated with that sex. "Trans women are men" is not a statement of bigotry, on the contrary, it a rejection of toxic male stereotypes that says men must behave a certain way in order to be men.
 
Last edited:
dylans said:
Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?

Can I identify out of my taxon?
Click to expand...
The meanings of words aren't fixed in time and place. If enough people use the word 'woman' to include trans women, then that comes to be what it means; that doesn't require anyone to change their biological sex. And it means that people moving from one category to another can't be seen as purely a matter of their own individualism.

Similarly, you might well change taxon if definitions of the different taxons changed.

Does it make you a bigot to refuse to accept that the definitions of gender - man and woman - can be divorced from sex classes? Not necessarily, but, given the practical consequences of that political choice, is worth reflecting on your motivation.

On the second point, I used to think similar, but increasingly understand that both cis people not conforming with gender and trans people being trans are ways to undermine gender. And, more importantly, trans people who genuinely feel they are a particular gender don't have that choice.
 
Last edited:
Raheem said:
Random interjection.

The anti-trans narrative hypes up the idea that trans rights are mainly supported by men. But polling shows (yougov, for example) that women are considerably more likely to support trans rights than men. I don't think this is surprising. It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.

I say this as a cis man. But, at the same time, I would point out that the idea that "well I would, wouldn't I?" is not statistically supported.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, there have always been a number of trans inclusive women on these threads, the dudes always subtly doubling down on what a minority were saying always made it seem like there were none.
 
Athos said:
The meanings of words aren't fixed in time and place. If enough people use the word 'woman' to include trans women, then that comes to be what it means; that doesn't require anyone to change their biological sex. And it means that people moving from one category to another can't be seen as purely a matter of their own individualism.

Similarly, you might well change taxon if definitions of the different taxons changed.

Does it make you a bigot to refuse to accept that the definitions of gender - man and woman - can be divorced from sex classes? Not necessarily, but, given the practical consequences of that political choice, is worth reflecting on your motivation.

On the second point, I used to think similar, but increasingly understand that both cis people not conforming with gender and trans people being trans are ways to undermine gender. And, more importantly, trans people who genuinely feel they are a particular gender don't have that choice.
Click to expand...
Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.

Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy. Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
dylans said:
Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.

Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy. Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.
Click to expand...
No. Quite the opposite of undermined, more people are coming out than ever before. If anyone is dragging us back into the dark ages it is folk like yersel. As well as being a shit spokesperson for women, we don't really need you piping up for us LGB lot either thanksBYE
 
HoratioCuthbert said:
No. Quite the opposite of undermined, more people are coming out than ever before. If anyone is dragging us back into the dark ages it is folk like yersel. As well as being a shit spokesperson for women, we don't really need you piping up for us LGB lot either thanksBYE
Click to expand...
I really don't care what you "need." You don't get to police what I post. I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck yourself.
 
dylans said:
Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.

Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy. Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.
Click to expand...

I've already explained that I think it's an error to try to force others to accept a definition they're not ready to, particularly where that's through bullying. But it remains the case that, increasingly, the words 'man' and 'woman' are being widely understood to include trans people.

I'm not sure it's the whole picture to claim that 'woman' has been defined as an adult human female throughout human history. Gender categories have varied over time, place, and context, if, indeed, they've always existed.

It's not that words mean nothing, so much as they mean something you don't want them to. It's like my uncle insisting that 'gay' only means happy!
 
Everyone has a right to express an opinion on anything, here on urban and elsewhere. It shouldn't matter what your sex, perceived gender, age, sexuality, race or religion* are. What is important is the content of the posts. On a forum with anonymity, even if some people know who is behind the username, that has to be the case.

It is also true that knowing which of those variables apply to which posters may have a bearing on the weight you give to their opinions.

I still reckon it shouldn't matter most of the time, but sometimes it will. No idea how to get around that one.




* feel free to add to this list at your own discretion.
 
frogwoman said:
:D 'If you don't like it you can fuck off' 'snowflake' 'virtue signalling' etc, ah yes such top drawer content and high level debate
Click to expand...
I have NEVER used the term "snowflake" or accused anyone of "virtue signalling" in my entire life. \

"I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck off" is a statement of general principles, applicable everywhere and at all times. I have the right to my opinion, engage with it, ignore it, hold it in contempt, but you do not get to tell me I have no right to it.
 
dylans said:
Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?

Can I identify out of my taxon?

As for knowing our place, it seems to me that it is trans activists who insist a certain identity makes one a man or woman who are reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why does identifying with the features and characteristics associated with the opposite sex turn that person into the opposite sex? Why can't men or women reject the gender stereotypes of what a man and woman means without becoming the other? It seems to me that it is much more radical to state that trans women and trans men are men and women who are gender non conforming within their sex and who reject the gender assumptions and stereotypes associated with that sex. "Trans women are men" is not a statement of bigotry, on the contrary, it a rejection of toxic male stereotypes that says men must behave a certain way in order to be men.
Click to expand...
This is my favourite part of the gender critical man spiel. Following the angry rants about perverted trans waving their genitals about in front of children and destroying society and how blue haired queer teenagers are really the oppressor class it always ends with why not just be a feminine man eh eh, why not just be a man in a dress eh, why not come and use the male fucking toilets with me eh eh, what's wrong, are you scared pervert?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wookey
Woman falls through a hole in Blackpool Pier
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lotte
L
WhyLikeThis
Is your Labour MP on this list?
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
WhyLikeThis
WhyLikeThis
D
Kemi Badenoch’s time is up!
2 3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
4K
Petcha
P
tim
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby's time is up.
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
Boo Radley75
Boo Radley75
Maggot
What is wrong with government borrowing?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
LakieLady
LakieLady
Back
Top Bottom