you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The dictionary bit was just a repeat of what you said before. I already know you reject all sources in favour of whatever springs to your mind. Where are your sources? (btw, no one was asking for the definition of trans-woman, but woman, how many more times???)

Your whole bit on Beauvoir was just you confusing GNC with being trans, even though those are usually opposites. You simply conclude that since Beauvoir is pro GNC she must be pro-trans. Non-sequitur. In fact, quite the reverse can be deduced. If you view a trans-woman as a man then they are GNC, but as soon as you view them through the transgender lens, as their preferred sex, they are gender conforming. Gender conformity is not something any feminist advocates for.

This is exactly like taking to an MRA, they do the exact same thing. If you give them a source they just pretend the source says the exact opposite of what it actually says.

From The Second Sex: "Woman is determined not by her hormones or by mysterious instincts, but by the manner in which her body and her relation to the world are modified through the action of others than herself. The abyss that separates the adolescent boy and girl has been deliberately widened between them since earliest childhood; later on, woman could not be other than what she was made, and that past was bound to shadow her for life"

Transcribed from an interview with Beauvoir: "That formula (One is not born but made a woman) is the basis of all my theories & it's meaning is very simple: that being a woman is not a natural fact. It's a result of a certain history. There is no biological or psychological destiny that defines a woman as such. She is the product of a history, of civilisation, first of all, which has resulted in her current status. And secondary for each individual woman of her personal history in particular, that of her childhood. This determines her as a woman, creates in her something which is not at all innate, or an essence, something which has been called the "eternal feminine", or femininity. The more we study the psychology of children the deeper we delve, the more evident it becomes that baby girls are manufactured to become women. Long before a child is conscious, the way it is breastfed, or held, or rocked etc. inscribes in its body what might later appear a destiny"

To sum up, what we think of 'woman' is femininity, & femininity is a form of brainwashing of anyone female via socialisation. That's what gender identity actually is i.e. an actual identity, not a wish. Go on, interpret the polar opposite from the text.

Where is your super long nothing-burger section avoiding giving a straight definition of 'woman'?

it is highly probably that will see dictionary definitions like “adult human female” be changed to

To what? To what??? Spit it out already! Or don't you know? Why do you take issue with 'adult human female' as a definition, when there is no alternative?

Men breaking gender norms helps rid the world of gender, but men overcompensating with stereotypical hyper-femininity in order to pass as women is an obstacle to ridding the world of gender. Transgenderism isn't gender critical, it's sex critical. Sex is literally the only thing transgenderism challenges & you make no mention of it in your entire novella!

The social majority within the trans-movement are all binary trans people, specifically trans-women, specifically gender conforming trans-women. The road to gender abolition is in the opposite direction.

If trans people just accepted the sex that they are & never medically or legally transitioned, if they just resolved to be their GNC selves, would that help & hinder the feminist movement's drive to abolish gender?

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I already know you reject all sources in favour of whatever springs to your mind. Where are your sources?

If by "reject all sources" you mean, acknowledging that appealing to the Great Holy Dictionary and Our Lord and Savior Wikipedia for defining terminology in fallacious by nature, then yes, I reject your so-called "sources".

(btw, no one was asking for the definition of trans-woman, but woman, how many more times???)

I'm using the definition of "trans woman" as an example to your entire argument. If you were to say "The dictionary says trans women are women, therefore they are women" that would be fallacious reasoning. Similarly, arguing that "The dictionary says woman means adult human female, therefore trans women cannot be women" would also be fallacious. The entire argument vests itself in prescriptive use of the dictionary. If we can't move past this point about the dictionary (which you vehemently choose to rest your entire argument on), then there is no point to continuing this discussion.

All that being said, we can only inductively reason what Beauvoir might think about the transgender movement today, therefore (unless you bring her back from the dead to prove your argument) no one is going to come on top of this discussion regarding her writings. It is purely hypothesizing what her beliefs of trans people might be today, which is extrapolated from literary works.

To what? To what??? Spit it out already! Or don't you know? Why do you take issue with 'adult human female' as a definition, when there is no alternative?

Notice how you've blinded ignored my definition this entire time. I've explicitly defined gender as a combination of expression and identity. Therefore, woman is currently defined by both femininity and identity. However, I don't support the notion that women must be feminine, therefore, identity is all that remains. In other words: a woman is a person who identifies as a woman, because there is no biological basis to being a woman, nor should there be a mandated role of "woman" for people to adopt. This is what we are seeking to get rid of, we both agree that expectations of femininity must go.

This is exactly like taking to an MRA

Acknowledging that extrapolating the beliefs of a dead person's writings in the modern context can only be inductively reasoned, and therefore, cannot ever be a complete fact-of-the-matter makes me a men's rights advocate? Notice I've yet to throw an ad hominem your way.

Have a great day. I'm not really interested in this conversation anymore.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Dictionary > the Great Holy shit you pulled from your ass, Wikipedia > the Great Holy shit you pulled from your ass, The late great Simone de Beauvoir > the Great Holy shit you pulled from your ass – SHOCKER

Still no definition of WOMAN, saying "but I pulled a definition of gEnDeR out of my ass" x1000 still isn't a definition of woman, sorry.

There is nothing beyond female & femininity, that's why you're incapable of defining said thing or finding a source to back up anything you've said. Femininity = social identity, personal identity is what makes you a unique individual. These are scientific facts, which you pretend don't exist.

Hard to believe I know, but feminist theory & scientific consensus > your uninformed opinion

[–]transwomanHesitantly QT? 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hard to believe I know, but feminist theory & scientific consensus > your uninformed opinion

Ironic.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh really? What parts of any of my comments have been just my opinion? My own opinion differs from what I have repeated in my replies, but I realise that no one is interested in what some rando online thinks, which is why I limit what I say about gender identity to the consensus. A shame you're incapable of doing the same.

Gender is a term used in biology, sociology, psychology & social-psychology etc. & the cause, effect & definition outlined in these respective disciplines is concordant with what I have repeated in my replies to you. Which scientific disciplines are concordant with your prevarications on the topic of gender?

Femininity is a gender, gender identity is a social identity, gender identity is caused by socialisation. These are all facts. Pretending otherwise won't change that.