Calls for trans elimination

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

We're talking about the inherent link between gender ideology and homophobia/misogyny.

It's not inherent. Iran is Iran, practices there hardly represent "gender ideology" as a whole.

And here's the misogyny--a woman is not a woman in her own right, her existence requires the perception of another person. And butch women who are mistaken for men are not women apparently.

If you lived on a desert island with no one else around, how much would being a woman affect your life? Not at all. Being female or male definitely would, but gender requires society. Also, butch women are still perceived as women it's not like men stop being misogynistic to them. The occasional misread isn't representative.

We're talking about whether it ELIMINATES trans people

It will eliminate us because we will kill ourselves if you do this to us, if we are unable to access hormones. I'd still be trans no matter what you do to me, but I'm not going to want to live if it has to be on your terms, on T.

I don't know, do you support the elimination of sex segregated spaces/rights/protections and the redefining of the definition of homosexuality as something other than exclusive same sex attraction?

No, there can be sex-specific groups for those who want them, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But public spaces like bathrooms have always implicitly allowed passing trans people, and will continue to do so.

And homosexuality is however the individual defines it. I have no issue with a trans woman and cis woman couple calling themselves lesbians. To many gay or lesbian does not exclusively mean same-sex but includes same-gender attraction, and those people are valid. If it means same-sex to you, then you should be clear about that and it's fine!

Secondary sex characteristics don't determine sex, that's why they're secondary

Cool I don't care? They're what matters in practice, and I'm getting SRS soon.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

you lived on a desert island with no one else around, how much would being a woman affect your life?

I’d still know I’m a woman based on my observable material reality. We’d still need to deal with menses or menopause, even while totally unobserved.

This is sort of what I was questioning you about last night.

You made a claim earlier that people are defined as what others observe them to be, however this is not true for a massive number of people.

A woman alone is still a woman, even without a society to verify this or to inform her that they expect her to behave a certain way because of her being a woman.

If we define ourselves as the perceptions of others, how can it possibly be an internal identity?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

Everything relating to your biology would still apply of course, I'm saying that that biology doesn't intrinsically make you a woman. There are trans men who menstruate who live their whole social and professional lives as men, so that can't be what makes them men or women, at least in the eyes of other people.

I have an internal identity but that means very little if I'm the only one who knows about it. So I define myself by others so that I won't have to keep it secret, I guess.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

I’m saying biology alone makes a woman and the perceptions of others have zero impact on that material reality.

If one’s identity requires the observation of others to remain, I’d argue it’s inherently not their identity. An identity that exists only through the participation or observation of others is a performance or a facade.

How can a working definition be something that is up to the perceptions of individuals? For example, three people are locked in a room. Two are female, one is male. One female person perceives the male as a male, the other perceives him as female. How can he possibly be defined as male or female if the only condition for defining something is by what it is perceived as?

If someone who doesn’t know about cats says their kitten is a golden retriever with a growth problem, does it stop being a feline due to perception?

Isn’t it better for definitions to use measurable, observable, objective information, instead of relying on subjective perceptions?

You may require external validation for your identity, but do you truly think that this is true for everyone else? Do you believe that there are no women who know they are women, without the agreement of others?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

I’m saying biology alone makes a woman and the perceptions of others have zero impact on that material reality.

I think we have v different ideas on what counts as material reality, I guess. If someone is seen as a woman, thought of as such by others, then that person will have certain experiences unique to how they're seen by others, right? That experience is real, regardless of whether they're actually female or not, and so perception matters a great deal.

I don't yet have female biology and so I obviously don't go through experiences specific to it, but other people believe as if I do.

If biology and not experience is all that matters, would I be a woman if pre-trans-derrple had woken up with a total sex change but still looked the same except for that? Everyone would still have seen me as male, I would have had a childhood of being male and nothing else, they wouldn't have known, so it feels odd to me to say that biology alone determines womanhood? You end up excluding people who lack various biological features but who may not even know it and for who it may never or rarely come up in a social context.

An identity that exists only through the participation or observation of others is a performance or a facade.

It's still there it's just not made manifest. It's like thinking of yourself as a chef but you never cook. You still have the sense of identity but it's totally private to you and unrealized.

How can he possibly be defined as male or female if the only condition for defining something is by what it is perceived as?

He couldn't be, in that context. What someone "is" is always changing depending on their environment, in that situation I think you should ask him how he feels and let him be the tiebreaker.

If someone who doesn’t know about cats says their kitten is a golden retriever with a growth problem, does it stop being a feline due to perception?

If people actually start perceiving it as a golden retriever sure! I mean you might not necessarily know otherwise so based on limited information, like all judgments are, you'd think so too.

Isn’t it better for definitions to use measurable, observable, objective information, instead of relying on subjective perceptions?

There is no objective information x( only sufficient evidence to convince you or someone else that some particular thing is true. But isn't it also better to have definitions that are based on how people actually live, not details about their biology that are invisible to the public? If you can't in practice measure it in the context you're trying to use it to define something, it's kind of a useless measure I think.

Do you believe that there are no women who know they are women, without the agreement of others?

Of course, I mean I'm the same way. I know I'm a woman regardless but I'm a human being, it's lonely to be the only one who knows that while everyone else tells me otherwise. "Proving" myself to others by transitioning is a lot easier than having to explain. Bc this way even people who would tell me otherwise won't know I'm trans to begin with

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

And you really honestly can’t see any flaws with people thinking the kitten is a dog? Do felines not have objective physical differences to golden retrievers? Does it not require a different diet? Different training, different medications, different grooming, different handling? Or do those constant physical realities bend and the cat is fine being being given large dog wormer because of how it is perceived?

You seem intent that physical reality is optionally observable and the idiosyncratic perceptions of individual people who may be incorrect about material reality somehow dictate or define the material.

If this was true, the kitten would thrive with large dog wormer. Would you, right now, dose a kitten with large dog wormer? If not, I suspect you may have a far better understanding of how physical reality actually matters more than personal perception of it.

There is absolutely objective information. Would you say it’s merely a theory that a human requires oxygen or water? Do we not measure temperature, weight, height, density, or light?

If I was unaware of the toxicity of ibuprofen and ate ten boxes, would I get sick because of overdosing, even if I and everyone in the room perceived them as harmless?

It’s absurd to claim there is no such thing as objective reality.

It seems as though you assume the vast majority of transgendered people are passing as the opposite of their sex all of the time, and thus should be included as a part of a count of that group. There’s two flaws here, one is that people are notoriously dishonest about how well people pass in order to be polite, meaning their perception is not truly of a woman but if a male who clearly wants to be a woman.

It also assumes that any facsimile or simulacrum of an object is also the same thing as the object. Like, saying this wax sculpture of an orange is an actual fruit, and fruits include wax sculptures, because a bunch of people looked at the wax sculpture and didn’t know it was wax.

I think you know that this doesn’t work.

If someone identifies as a chef, but hasn’t the qualifications, and doesn’t cook, they just aren’t a chef. They might think they are but they are incorrect. Chef does not become a word for both professional cooks and people who have never stirred a pot.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

And you really honestly can’t see any flaws with people thinking the kitten is a dog?

No? Not on its own. You could very easily take care of its diet privately and just let people outside think of it as a dog. Like I have to exist in my body every day and shower and do my injection but I don't tell people about that.

Would you, right now, dose a kitten with large dog wormer?

If my understanding or impression of it was as a dog then yeah I would because I could not know otherwise.

Would you say it’s merely a theory that a human requires oxygen or water? Do we not measure temperature, weight, height, density, or light?

Not with total accuracy...and yeah it's possible that there could be someone who just inexplicably doesn't require water or air.

There’s two flaws here, one is that people are notoriously dishonest about how well people pass in order to be polite, meaning their perception is not truly of a woman but if a male who clearly wants to be a woman.

"We can always tell" in action x(

Do y'all not think that some trans ppl think about this like...all the time?? Every interaction I have with someone irl I'm worrying about whether they've clocked me. I look for if people hesitate, if they look at me too long. It happens very rarely. Maybe you're notoriously dishonest about how well people pass, in which case I hope never to meet you irl because I would be really scared of you, but most ppl don't seem to consider trans ppl existing very often.

It also assumes that any facsimile or simulacrum of an object is also the same thing as the object

This is pretty much exactly what I believe, unironically.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I didn’t ask if you could lie to everyone and claim it’s a dog. I asked it if is a dog and can be medically treated like one.

I’m sure passing and knowing that polite society lies about it is extremely stressful. That doesn’t alter the fact that you are operating on what I believe to be a faulty premise.

I’m afraid that males presenting themselves as women might rape me, maim me, secretly film me using a public toilet. A trans woman’s fear that I will silently know they are not female hardly feels comparable.

Do you often find yourself choosing to believe things even when they have been proven false or impossible?

Do you often find yourself eating imitation foods by accident or do you know the difference when it actually matters?

Could you please answer the part about the ibuprofen? Would it be safe to eat ten boxes if I perceive it as harmless or would I suffer poisoning regardless of what I perceive?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I’m afraid that males presenting themselves as women might rape me, maim me, secretly film me using a public toilet

Do you see trans women as a threat but not women, then? Is there anything we could do to not, idk, be a threat? I don't want to make anyone afraid.

I didn’t ask if you could lie to everyone and claim it’s a dog

I'm having trouble understanding how it can't be a dog in one context and not in a medical context, I think.

That doesn’t alter the fact that you are operating on what I believe to be a faulty premise.

What do you mean, sorry

Do you often find yourself choosing to believe things even when they have been proven false or impossible?

I mean me believing I'm a woman should be false or impossible but it's like the one thing I'm sure of, so yes?

Do you often find yourself eating imitation foods by accident

I have pica so yes I end up eating things that aren't food actually :/

And imitation food can still be "real" food until you go to eat it, you know? Just like to some men I'm a "real" woman until I tell them, I guess

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I see all males as a potential threat, regardless of their attire, styling, grooming habits, or presentation. Thirty years of experience has proven this is the only way I can protect myself from male violence.

The animal discussed is objectively a kitten. It is incorrectly perceived as a large dog. I am asking if the kitten can be safely given a medicine dosage for a large dog, because reality is defined by perception, or if this would harm the kitten, meaning objective reality does not bend to perceptions.

I’m not asking you if your perception of yourself is false, I’m asking if you often truly believe things like “model furniture is useable despite being 1:12scale” or “arsenic is only poisonous if I know it’s poison”

So you would say that a wax orange is exactly as nutritious as a real orange? It’s just as juicy until it’s bitten into?

Pics is a specific craving for non-food objects which would mean you are able to differentiate a papier-mâché apple from a real one despite the two items looking like apples.

I’m not discussing you personally and think it would help immensely if you could also remove yourself from the conversation on a personal level and try to approach this with a wider frame of reference than just yourself.