you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Do you enjoy the circular reasoning and ridiculously long posts that simultaneously rant while saying nothing of substance? I find QT laughable, when I don't find them disgusting, but I have no need for more of them around here. They won Reddit, they can stay there.

[–]worried19[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

But this is a debate sub! If we don't have any QT posters, that defeats the purpose.

I just want QT people who will discuss issues in good faith. We don't have to agree, but we can at least hash things out.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That may be the idea, but they don't debate. This and the old one at reddit are just training for them to better gaslight the unsuspecting and gullible.

When talking about a guy flashing his dick at a little girl in Wi Spa, they talk about: how they can't be in men's rooms because they're not safe yet provide no evidence and certainly none that can stack up against the number of documented and prosecuted assaults on women by men in dresses in bathrooms (the old reddit sub "this never happens" documented it, but rather than deal with the reality of it all, they got it banned), or how the little girl was leering at the poor widdle twans victim when no one there said that happened because they have to blame the victim and have to shift the attention away from perversion. How many threads are about intersexed conditions where at the end they switch and somehow make it about gender with no logic or justification?

Yesterday I got told that women can feel empathy (implying men can't) and that men are monsters. When the sexism of that is pointed out, the QT advocate doubles down irrationally and with no evidence or justification other than saying sexism can not apply to men. A main argument of GC is that gender, ie the system of sexism, hurts us all.

How is an internal sense of an identity, something we make up and is imaginary and ever changing as we grow and learn and live, "gendered" in such a way that it mimics (as in its a toxic mimic of) sex? How can an internal identity be "woman" or "man" when woman and man refer to reproductive roles? We're never given an answer other than "my identity is not open to debate". The ridiculous brain studies do not every deal with the questions of: why that very weak data somehow means we should change the definition of man and woman, or why a male (based on reproductive capacity) should be considered anything other than a male and a man? Peoples brains are far more diverse than their genitals. It changes nothing about a person's reproductive function. Gender is a social construct and we should ignore it as much as possible. Sex is real, and pretending it away for gender requires accepting lies. People who accept lies can't argue in good faith, they've lost that battle within themselves already.

I'm here for the laughs. I do not need to debate people who argue disingenuously and who use every bad rhetorical and logical tactic in the books, and I don't need to because I've read enough and seen enough. Trans is not real. There are no trans children, no trans adults, only people who are confused, misled, or lying.

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Were you active on the old debate sub? We did have trans regulars who argued in good faith. We had good conversations there, and some people's minds were changed. Obviously, you can't convince everyone, nor that should be the goal. We should seek to understand each other if nothing else. Our two sides don't have to be bitter enemies.

Trans is not real. There are no trans children, no trans adults, only people who are confused, misled, or lying.

I don't take such a hard line. I don't believe in transitioning children of course, but I'm fine with adult transsexuals having some reasonable accommodations made for them. I'm just against the TRA brigade pushing for more and more extreme things under the guise of trans rights.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I lurked there. I'm more familiar with this one than the old one. I do not recall seeing solid arguments of any kind from team QT. Good conversations, or feeling empathy for other's circumstance, do not require solid arguments. In fact they might be too formal for conversation or empathy. At this point, I think bitter enemies is the only reasonable option. Regarding the Wi Spa thing, and taking the woman at her word (her lived experience as they say)-- without making the man (as she called him every time) a 'transgender' as the Willie Wokebro tried to do excusing the offense, or making up a leering child or leering woman which also was not part of the discussion till smoke and mirrors were needed to blame the victims--, it is an escalation of creepiness that can not be tolerated. They have a coed space, the dude chose the women's space and didn't back out when he saw children like he was trying to be the Rosa Parks of pedophiles. And TranTiFa and the whole QT team pretend we should accept that. I've lost tolerance and patience with groomers and sex offenders, which is how I see the Wi Spa thing and what I think is just below the surface of team QT.

I want to point out that you are moving your own goal post for no reason. Being fine with adult transexuals and making reasonable accommodations for them is not in conflict with saying trans, which at this point is short for transgender and I didn't think I should have clarified that, is not real. Obviously if someone gets surgery to remove their genitals and create some kind of facsimile of the other sex's genitals, then they are transexuals and that is real. But we're told over and over that the idea of "transexuals" is offensive or out-dated, and gender has nothing to do with bodies or surgery. QT is not about the reality of people who have had extensive surgery on their genitals. It seems increasingly about gender and eliminating other people's, including children's, boundaries.

[–]worried19[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not saying they necessarily had convincing arguments, but lots of them argued in good faith.

At this point, I think bitter enemies is the only reasonable option.

I haven't lost hope. I think GC people can find common ground with transmedicalists and old-school transsexuals. TRAs may be winning battles, but the war is not yet won.

I want to point out that you are moving your own goal post for no reason. Being fine with adult transexuals and making reasonable accommodations for them is not in conflict with saying trans, which at this point is short for transgender and I didn't think I should have clarified that, is not real.

"Real" is a tricky word. Sex and genital dysphoria is real and causes real distress. Transsexuals are real human beings, and most of them are not in denial about biological reality. However, what the TRAs are trying to push is not real, these "gendered souls" and "trans children" and all the rest of it. They've pushed far beyond reality into the realm of fantasy and make believe.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not saying they necessarily had convincing arguments, but lots of them argued in good faith.

Arguing in good faith requires a correct use of logic and rhetoric. When I say they do not argue in good faith, I mean that they do not argue in good faith. They don't make valid arguments. I'm not talking about them or anyone as conversationalists.

A kind of argument I often see them use is one I see made on ancient aliens. They present something as a problem, be it some impressive ancient structure or their claim of discomfort in the men's rooms, and then only accept one single solution, aliens built it or they then must be allowed in the women's rooms. We could go on all day about how many bad faith arguments they make. It's not about being convincing or not. It's not possible to be genuinely convincing when the premise, that men who claim to be women are women, is false and certainly no possibly proven true.

I think GC people can find common ground with transmedicalists and old-school transsexuals.

To the extent that they make arguments, let's have at it. But they are no longer the "trans" community. They are what they've always been, statistical outliers in the most extreme sense. Now they are statisical outliers in the social space they and their surgeons pioneered. I think most make the argument, but don't hold me to that, that for them surgery and presenting themselves in ways society deems feminine is somehow better for their mental health or for their emotional well being or it has some improvement on their ability to be in public and socializing. It is analogous to putting a wall outside between my window and a trash heap I don't want to acknowledge is there. The problem is in their minds, not their bodies. Much is written in the fields of psychiatry and psychology about how "the body never lies" or "the truth is in the body" but no one thinks our minds are right about anything. The "ancient aliens" point from above in this argument is that they present a problem and then present a solution that has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is some discomfort with themselves. This problem is understood and expressed in reference to the two sexes we have and their gender roles. But, no one would say the problem is well understood, much like ancient building techniques are not commonly understood and especially not understood by the people Ancient Aliens interview. The people with the problems understand them least. Sadly the history of those who choose to treat these people, sometimes mutilating children, do not understand the problems fully either. It is too tied into gendered expectations, and historically has been used to slice the gay away-- far more intrusive and no more compassionate then praying it away. At least with pray the gay away, they tend to define gay in terms of actions, not what ever "passions" (look it up, ancient Christian writers talk about any of our desires that pop up in our minds and drive us as "passions" ie they passively arrive in our minds and command our attention. It's not much different than distractions when meditating) tend to possess us. They may say "don't be gay" but the mean "don't have gay sex". This genderist shit accepts that what ever ideas we accept are somehow how we are. In that sense Clayton Bigsby is really white-- oh but no trans racial can't exist even for a blind man who literally can't see race. An emotional reaction often points to some truth, but what that truth is can be very elusive. But our ability to rationalize bad ideas all on our own is very powerful and very dangerous. Worse is when that rationalizing is crowd-sourced.

"Real" is a tricky word.

It's really not, especially in this case but even in arguments about negative numbers or imaginary numbers. Gender dysphoria is a real diagnosis. Saying that a person who has it is therefore trans is a leap away from that real diagnosis into something that is not real. If they were "born in the wrong body", then they are having an out of body experience and we have to ask whose body is it they are in, how did they come into possession of it, and where is their body (and it is always some hot and generally petite woman's body isn't it)? The idea is silly, and that it is no longer repeated as much as it used to be has more to do with the fact that making even weak arguments is not that important to team T as it used to be.

Similarly AGP is real, perhaps more real than most claims of gender dysphoria now, but that does not mean a person is "trans". To your point about transexuals, I do think I said essentially the same thing you are saying already. I do not deny they exist, I do not believe the treatment is a cure anymore than I think a pain killer can fix a broken arm.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To your point about transexuals, I do think I said essentially the same thing you are saying already. I do not deny they exist, I do not believe the treatment is a cure anymore than I think a pain killer can fix a broken arm.

Well, I agree with that. I don't think it's a cure. It's just a way to mitigate distress and can lead to at least some transsexuals being able to lead more normal lives. But it should not be promoted as a cure-all and certainly not encouraged widely in the general population.