Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden
- Thread starter Cloo
- Start date
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
And yet neurology is on our side entirely. Neurology isn't about absolutes, its about the diversity of human existence, of which trans people are a legitimate part.
I've seen many trans people argue that medical opinion is on the side of trans people. Which is essentially my argument - science based medicine practised in a humane way supports trans people.
Last edited:
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
Let's say that matters, because yes sometimes it does. Blood groups. What we can / can't digest. Genetics. But sometimes, it doesn't. We wear clothes, take drugs, go to space, have surgery. Human lifespan (eta, average, ish) has nearly doubled in the last 5000 years and we do all kinds of stuff that goes against 'biological truth'. It sustains us, improves us, and we're evolving with it. Capitalism aside, it's generally a good thing.
But you'd draw the line at sex and gender, male shall be masculine and female shall be feminine. Regardless of sexuality (I'll do you the courtesy of assuming youre not just homophobic) the 'biological truth' behind gender is sacrosanct - why? Why is your line there? (with respect to CNT36 who's already asked but not been answered)
tonysingh
Random Clever and Witty Strapline
Liked for the use of dinlow. Old-school insult. I salute thee.
editor
hiraethified
It's when people get hurt as a result of people projecting and spreading those views. People like you.
Let me spell it out for you:
...leads to...
Trans People at Four Times Greater Risk of Violence Than Cis People
Research indicates that trans people are at significantly greater risk of violence than their cis counterparts
A 2021 study published by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that trans people are four times more likely to experience violence and abuse compared to cis people. Around one in every four trans women who were victims of a violent crime believed it to be due to their gender identity. In comparison, only one in every ten cis women believed it to be due to their gender. Half of all victims of violent crimes did not report it to the police.
Further research also proves that experiences of violence and abuse negatively impact trans people’s well-being. The suicide rate for trans people is already extremely high compared to that of cis people. In the US, around 50% of young trans and non-binary people have contemplated suicide. In 2020, 20% attempted suicide.
Hate crimes reach record high as offences against transgender people double
Home Office report links rise in police-recorded transgender hate crimes to ‘discussions on social media’www.independent.co.uk
Hate crimes reach record high as offences against transgender people double
Home Office report links rise in police-recorded transgender hate crimes to ‘discussions on social media’
www.independent.co.uk
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I've been having these discussions and arguments for years, with people that actually have points worth discussing.
You seem to be mistaking biology with some kind of God's plan. Of course human biology can be changed. When a trans person takes cross sex hormones their hormonal make up - their biology - changes. It changes to the typical hormone profile of someone of the opposite sex to the one they were born and this is observable both by the development of secondary sexual characteristics and medical testing. It's you who is denying basic biology if you refuse to accept this.
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I seem to recall dinlo (sp?) is a Romany word and it does indeed mean stupid. Very usual in Portsmouth, evidently Chatham too
anywhere else? Dom Traynor where did you use dinlo before today? Good call btw
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Well you are a very stupid man so who knows?
Cloo
Banana for scale
I actually suspect there are many people like LDC (if I understand them correctly) who both believe that there are two biological sexes but also are entirely happy to accept trans people living their lives and don't feel a need to bang on about what they believe about biological sex in order to bash trans people. Those people do not face negative consequences for 'believing there are two genders' because they're not arseholes about it.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I vote for the banhammer now. That way we get rid of the tedious clown and he gets to go back to his favourite incel form and complain about the big bad communists cancelling him. Everyone's a winner.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
i will still argue with them though. Some feel that a trans person expressing disagreement equals being cancelled. So be it - if anyone believes that they deserve to be cancelled.
Thank you.
Fozzie Bear
Well-Known Member
These days.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
That's pretty much it, although I increasingly think that biological sex is also a complex mix and interplay of a whole host of things that can't be entirely seperated out from each other (or gender). I do think there's some small areas where biological sex and identity might conflict or need some discussion; sport, medicine and some spaces for example.
There's more stuff around understanding on a deeper level about what being trans is and isn't, and how it can be managed on a societal level; medical intervention and who gets to decide what interventions and drugs people get for example. But yes, I largely think that's seperate to how you treat people on an individual and wider collective level, and I think fully respecting them and how they want to be addressed or look, and defending them from attack from reactionary forces, etc. is the absolute bare minimum.
By the by I have seen some of my friends start off a few years ago with pretty reasonable views from the more 'gender critical' end of things who have now ended up espousing some politically horrendous views, it's become a pipeline to terrible politics and conspiracy theories.
It's also become very clear in the last year or so (the drag storytime stuff was a crunch point I think) that anyone continuing with banging on about this issue and/or going on demos about it has chosen not only the 'wrong side' but they've taken a decision to promote an issue that divides people along highly politically problematic lines, just at a time when we need solidarity and collective care in the face of an increasingly brutal world.
Jennaonthebeach
What would Picard do?
Trans people and allies have been having these discussion for decades. Things were becoming settled and now suddenly loads of cis people who honestly didn't seem to care one way or the other are butting in and trying to get all our accommodations and rights overthrown because they feel "a bit uncomfortable" with trans people existing based mostly on lies and smears they've read in the media or from TERF propaganda.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Cloo
Banana for scale
Yes, I think I've mentioned it earlier in this thread but I have some acquaintances who, in the past gave me some meaningful insight into especially the views of sexual violence survivors and why gender stuff made them feel concerned and, even while disagreeing with them, it made me feel like I could understand how they could find it difficult to accept - for example a sense that they always only felt safe around women and that they felt now they were being told they didn't get to define who is a woman and that was scary to them. And you can't necessarily say 'Well, just stop feeling that way' or whatever and wave it off.
But now some of those same people have swung all the way over to 'It's all a front for paedophilia' which is an absolute fucking line not to cross. And it's sad because their trauma and distress has been used and manipulated by bad actors to encourage them to believe that it's literally a plan by men to take away their spaces and that they're likely to run into a trans sex offender in the loos so they have to now contemplate every woman they see in case 'he' is 'one of them'. Of course, most women who have experience SA don't end up thinking this way, but some are vulnerable to it.
Not quite. I draw the line at people denying biological truth when taking the moral high ground in order to pander to one's sense of inclusivity. But, yeah, IMO, we musn't ignore the importance of gender binary since that is how every society on the planet is organised and how they all function. Doesn't necessarily mean that, legally, there can't be room for a gender that sits between the two.
I am neither transphobic nor homophobic. What I subscribe to is the notion that transgender is an a gender in and of itself. And that it should be legally recognised as such. Something that a transgender should firght for.
Being trans is good enough. Why are trans women activists, for example, fighting to be recognised as women to the extent of denying biological truth and redefining the term "woman" to include them? It's counter intuitive. It's cakeism. A greek tragedy. I don't get it. Don't trans activists realise that the second a trans woman "becomes" a woman is the moment her transgender identity ceases to exist? Erased. Eliminated. Terminated.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Is your view that everyone gets one identity, and that's it? Can someone be a woman and English at the same time?
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
what a load of non-gender-specific bovine shit
Gender identity is different from nationality.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Can someone be cis and a woman at the same time?
I'm not particularly religious, if you must know. So what about chromosomes? Can medicine change XX to XY or vice versa? No. Can medicine or surgery change our reproductive organs? No. I would love, on behalf of my trans childhood friend, for medical science to be able to do that but the reality is, it can't. Our biology is established, set, fixed at conception. And norhing can change it once it is determined.
Generally, there is no distinction between a cis woman and a woman. They both mean biological woman. The exception arises when a trans activist tries to redefine the term "woman."
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Of course surgery can change our reproductive organs, does so every day. And we do shitloads if things to change our biology, interaction with the world requires it.
Really? What, uterus and ovary transplants? Fallopian tubes? Testes?
What about chromosones? You mentioned hormone profiles which can be changed so that aspect of our biology is not fixed at conception. Genitals can also be changed as can secondary sexual characteristics so that aspect of biology is not fixed at conception either. Internal reproductive orgams can't be changed yet but it might be possible in the future. It's already been done in mice. So that aspect of biology may also be possible to change.
So the question of whether and when these changes amount to a change of sex category is very much debatable. It is a matter of opinion and it is you that is trying to shut down debate by enforcing your view of what constitutes sex categories on everyone else and refusing to acknowledge others may have a different and equally valid view. And we're still only on biology. We haven't even discussed whether womanhood and manhood are social, legal and political categories as well as biological ones. You won't even let us get there because you are so intent on shutting down debate by insisting (wrongly) that biology is fixed at birth and nothing else matters. Why are you so frightened of other people's points of view?
mojo pixy
...שלא נמצא בשמאל
I'm not quite sure what the bit about inclusivity means, but I do know we all want moral high ground. Denying biological truth, I mean we all do that too to an extent, with stuff like antibiotics and cosmetic surgery and hydroponics and long-haul flights etc.
True, but that might not suit all people who don't feel at one with the sex and or gender they've been given. I'm guessing you're response to that will be, 'well, tough'...
...but I dont think it's up to you.
I can't answer for such people. OTOH I don’t think recognising trans wo/men as indeed wo/men amounts to 'denying biological truth'. What you're talking about would be a legal definition based essentially on genitalia, calling it 'biological truth' is IMO overdignifying. Men and women are more than just walking genitalia.
This is quite judgemental and emotive stuff and it seems clear to me where you're coming from. Thanks for answering.
Similar threads
