Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[Athos]

I don't believe the science I have quoted is 'questionable', indeed I have yet to read a convincing repudiation of Blanchard's typology (including Moser, Serano, Veale and Nuttbrock). If you know of one I'd love to read it, I'm always open to have ideas challenged.

'Misgendering' is more a reflection of reality, however as I have said I view that identifying an adult male as a man is a now a revolutionary act. Acquiescing to pronouns is an act of submission.

Critiques of Blanchard have been provided; you don't accept them.

A reflection of your reality. A 'reality' that asserts the ideology that 'man' means biological male. Other realities are available.

I agree that enforced recognition of preferred pronouns is an act of domination (though, not so, the voluntary usr of them, of course). But that works in both directions. You can take an ideological position about which is to be preferred, of course. But don't pretend it's (their) ideology versus (your) reality or science.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

In the abstract it says this, which somewhat demolishes Blanchard's typography.

I said:

On the contrary a reading of Veale's 2008 paper says otherwise, contrary to the conclusion reached this paper suggests the sample chosen fell into populations of 'autogynepilic' and 'even more autogynephilic'.

Reading the paper in full, even without agreeing with my position, I think you would agree it's difficult to reach the same conclusion that Veale does, because it doesn't follow.

But you do appear to support Blanchard's claim that androphilic transsexuals possess an innate femininity. That is gender essentialism.

Androphillic transsexuals are homosexual males so it would not be surprising they demonstrated behaviour society codes as feminine, because that's what society has persecuted gay men for, for a verey long time.

Weren't we talking about pronouns?

Pronouns imply our sex.

Of course, it's me using buzzwords, when trans critical rad fems go on and on about Men's Rights Activists and transgenderism being a male sexual rights movement they mean a bit like prostate cancer charities and stuff. No attempt to smear at all, all perfectly innocent. You must think people are fucking idiots.

Yet you smeared men's rights activism. This makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Critiques of Blanchard have been provided; you don't accept them.

I've quoted the widest known, I have read and analysed these, and more. I don't believe anyone else has offered a different study to any of these, so if you know of one I'd be very interested.

A reflection of your reality. A 'reality' that asserts the ideology that 'man' means biological male. Other realities are available.

Please offer an alternative meaning for 'man'?

I agree that enforced recognition of preferred pronouns is an act of domination (though, not so, the voluntary usr of them, of course). But that works in both directions. You can take an ideological position about which is to be preferred, of course. But don't pretend it's (their) ideology versus (your) reality or science.

I object to the enforced use.

 

[Ralph Llama]

Sorry if I`m covering well-trodden ground -
Personally, I think the attack was stupid and reactionary and I can see why it`s condemmed by most.

Great article here from Milan (Peace News crew) inspired by the Anarchists bookfair incident (trans-activists attempting to silence feminists)

How to destroy our own movements

Editorial: How to destroy our own movements | Peace News

few snippets :

Activists need to find better ways to struggle with each other and to fight with each other, argues Milan Rai

People ask me how we would defend the bookfair from a fascist attack, but I’m not worried about them out there. I worry about what we might do to each other in here.’

Free speech

Defending someone’s freedom of expression is not the same as approving of what they are saying. Chomsky points out: ‘If you’re in favour of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you’re not in favour of freedom of speech.’

 

[smokedout]

I said:

Reading the paper in full, even without agreeing with my position, I think you would agree it's difficult to reach the same conclusion that Veale does, because it doesn't follow.

I'm not paying £35 to read it, sorry.

Androphillic transsexuals are homosexual males so it would not be surprising they demonstrated behaviour society codes as feminine, because that's what society has persecuted gay men for, for a verey long time.

From infanthood? Is this a gay essence or a feminine essence? And why do only 'extreme' homosexuals possess these "female typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences."?

Pronouns imply our sex.

Pronouns generally imply gender, unless you are arguing that ships are biological females.

Yet you smeared men's rights activism. This makes you a hypocrite.

Is this really the latest hoop you want to jump through? Are you going to attack those criticising the MRA movement because it smears prostate cancer charities?

 

[Athos]

I've quoted the widest known, I have read and analysed these, and more. I don't believe anyone else has offered a different study to any of these, so if you know of one I'd be very interested.



Please offer an alternative meaning for 'man'?



I object to the enforced use.

I am not aware of any other criticisms of Blanchard. But I'm persuaded by those I've seen. You're not, which is fine. I'm not really interested in persuing this aspect; we'll have to agree to disagree.

One alternative could be 'anyone who thinks they're a man'. There are pros and cons of either conception. But it's false to suggest that yours is any more real.

Of course you object. As do those upon whom you'd impose your preference.

 

[mojo pixy]

Can I just say that I in fact call my car (and bike) he and him. Almost all inanimate objects are he/him in my world. My grandfather (from Dorset fwiw) used to do it and I think I picked it up off him.

Oh yeah apart from boats, which are of course biologically female as any fule kno.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

we'll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine; disagreement is good.

One alternative could be 'anyone who thinks they're a man'. There are pros and cons of either conception. But it's false to suggest that yours is any more real.

We are gonna have to disagree on this

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I'm not paying £35 to read it, sorry.

Try SciHub.

From infanthood? Is this a gay essence or a feminine essence? And why do only 'extreme' homosexuals possess these "female typical attitudes, behaviors, and sexual preferences."?

You're wilfully misrepresenting my words. Anyway, what could possibly be more gender essentialist than innate gender identity?

Pronouns generally imply gender, unless you are arguing that ships are biological females.

Usually they imply biological sex. And so what? I's not personal.

Is this really the latest hoop you want to jump through? Are you going to attack those criticising the MRA movement because it smears prostate cancer charities?

You didn't make a meaningful criticism of the men's rights movement, rather you decided all men's rights activism is misogynistic. Which is factually incorrect.

 

[Athos]

That's fine; disagreement is good.



We are gonna have to disagree on this

What makes your conception more 'real?

 

[bimble]

What makes your conception more 'real?

The other day you said

.. I know a woman who says she's clever; she's not. I walk past a homeless bloke who claims he's part of the royal family; I disagree. I'm not saying they don't honestly believe those things, and I wouldn't try to force them to conceive of themselves otherwise.
Whilst it's incumbent on me to treat them courteously, there can be no moral imperative for me to adopt their beliefs. That way lies madness!

What are you saying now, is it that you just happen to disagree with the homeless bloke but neither of you are any more right than the other?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You didn't make a meaningful criticism of the men's rights movement, rather you decided all men's rights activism is misogynistic. Which is factually incorrect.

Where activists campaign on particular issues by framing them as 'men's rights' issues, ime the campaign is invariably misogynistic.

That's not the same as simply taking part in a prostate cancer awareness drive. You can campaign on health issues without framing them as rights issues.

 

[Athos]

The other day you said


What are you saying now, is it that you just happen to disagree with the homeless bloke but neither of you are any more right than the other?

No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other. And, as I said in that post, I wouldn't seek to impose my conception on them. But nor is it morally incumbent on me to adopt theirs. And that taking that approach doesn't invalidate them as a person, as was suggested.

 

[bimble]

No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other

Far out man. ok.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Where activists campaign on particular issues by framing them as 'men's rights' issues, ime the campaign is invariably misogynistic.

That's not the same as simply taking part in a prostate cancer awareness drive. You can campaign on health issues without framing them as rights issues.

To add to that. Of course, MY and their chums think mtf trans rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. But they need to recognise that many others do not accept that. That's them imposing their ideology again. It's not a question of us needing to be edumacated cos we're missing some of the important facts.

 

[bimble]

To add to that. Of course, MY and their chums think mtf trans rights activists are by definition men's rights activists. But they need to recognise that many others do not accept that. That's them imposing their ideology again.

Of course they recognise that - nobody is denying that they've got an ideology here are they?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Of course they recognise that - nobody is denying that they've got an ideology here are they?

Yes.

 

[bimble]

Yes.

Not MR anyway, they've been very open about having axes to grind.

 

[Athos]

Not MR anyway, they've been very open about having axes to grind.

They repeatedly set up a spurious dichotomy between opponents' ideology and their reality/ science.

 

[bimble]

They repeatedly set up a spurious dichotomy between opponents' ideology and their reality/ science.

That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly feel...blah'

 

[Athos]

That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly feel...blah'

No.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's how people argue their point of view, isn't it? Unless it's just 'but I strongly feel...blah'

'I don't make the rules'

It's like arguing with a religious person. Their pov is validated by an external authority.

 

[bimble]

I don't see that, I reckon the religiousness is more on the other side of things but you know, we'll have to disagree, which is fine cos nothing is true or real anyway.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't see that, I reckon the religiousness is more on the other side of things but you know, we'll have to disagree, which is fine cos nothing is true or real anyway.

Nah, you don't get to agree to disagree when you put a dig at the end of it.

Nobody here is disputing the reality of biological facts. But MY posts in a way that explicitly states that those facts mandate a particular ideology, that there is no other possible way to think in light of those facts. That's akin to religious thinking - 'it's not my law, guv, it's god's law'. And ironically enough, many of those with whom MY's group now make common cause think in exactly that way.

 

[Red Cat]

No. I'm saying that I don't make any claim that one is more 'real' than the other. And, as I said in that post, I wouldn't seek to impose my conception on them. But nor is it morally incumbent on me to adopt theirs. And that taking that approach doesn't invalidate them as a person, as was suggested.

So there is no such thing as a delusion?

 

[Athos]

So there is no such thing as a delusion?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

 

[Red Cat]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

It's not clear to me what you are saying. Maybe I missed something you posted earlier, I haven't been keeping up lately.

 

[Athos]

It's not clear to me what you are saying. Maybe I missed something you posted earlier, I haven't been keeping up lately.

Essentially, that words mean different things to different people, and, in this case, any individual's decision to favour one basis of meaning over another (e.g. biological sex versus self-identity) is an ideological choice (and that attempts to protray it as some fundamental truth are misconceived). It doesn't make it any particular meaning any more 'real' for anyone else (even if it more widely held). I think there are pros and cons of seeing trans women as women, and of seeing them as men. On that ideological question, I favour the former (largely for compassinate reasons, and the balance of harms); that doesn't make it any more 'true', or give me any right to impose that on other's ahead of their legitimate concerns.

 

[8ball]

yes, i know that. yes, i can tell the difference - i discriminate in the wines i drink, i do not oppress the wines i drink.

I'm oppressing some beer right now.

 

[spanglechick]

I'm confused and I'm genuinely wondering if I've missed something here. Miranda Yardley I believe you prefer gender neutral pronouns for yourself- and you are opposed to using feminine pronouns for trans women (and presumably masculine pronouns for trans men). I think I've got all that right.


Why don't you use gender neutral pronouns for other transsexual people? Or for that matter, why don't you prefer masculine pronouns for yourself?