QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology

submitted by Chronicity from self.GCdebatesQT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

Don't dodge the question. What a woman is it's absolutely relevant if you're going to define "trans". What does the adjective "trans" means when describing a "woman"? What does make someone "trans"? What are the differences between "transwomen" and women?

Your argument relies on us accepting the claim that a "transwoman" is a type of woman. If you expect we accept this, then first you need to define what is a woman and how "transwomen" fit the definition.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (46 children)

I'm happy to explain how I personally use the word "woman", but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread. I'll put an explanation at the end of the comment but I'd rather not change the subject.

What does the adjective "trans" means when describing a "woman"?

The same thing that it means when describing a "teacher" or a "capricorn". My understanding is that a person is trans if they identify with a different gender to the one that was assigned to them at birth based on their observed sex. The fact that someone is trans tells you nothing as to what their gender is.

Edit: missed that last bit. I do not want you to believe that a tran woman is a type of woman. A trans person is a type of person. Whether they are a woman or not is a separate, independent fact.

~~~~

Anyway. The word "woman" has multiple different meanings in common use, but the one that I use most commonly and that I believe best explains the most common usages that I hear from others refers to a social class. In particular I think it's a fair interpretation to say that a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

So now sex is dependent on, or synonymous with, social class? LOL. Oh c'mon, mate. This is just more genderist gibberish. Misogynistic genderist gibberish that I find personally offensive to boot. I bet your mum and gran(s) would find it insulting too.

Since your definition makes being a woman entirely dependent on "identifying with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex," it leaves out vast swathes of the female human inhabitants of earth of adult age who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." Which is probably the majority of the world's adult human females. Not very "inclusionary" of you.

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Or don't we deserve a name that describes us and only us?

Your definition is not just exclusionary, it's incredibly ableist. Because it automatically leaves out all the world's adult human females who for various reasons - very low IQ, limited language processing skills, brain injuries, dementia - are incapable of the kinds of cognition required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" - whatever the hell that bunch of misogynistic malarkey is supposed to mean.

At the moment, there are roughly 4 million adult human females in the USA alone with Alzheimer's disease. Most of them are mothers and grandmothers. But due to the nature of AD, they do not have the ability, or they are fast losing the ability, to engage in the kinds of cognition and mental gymnastics required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex." In fact, the vast majority would not have a clue about what your genderist gibberish is actually supposed to mean. According to you, these adult human females can't be called women - but males like Lia Thomas and Rachel Levine must be.

FYI: sex and being female aren't specific to humans. Other animals and plants are sexed, too. Female has a meaning that extends across all sexually reproducing species. A doe is a deer of the female sex. A mare is a horse of the female sex. A hen is a chicken of the female sex. A jenny is a donkey of the female sex. A woman is a human adult of the female sex.

Also: when you speak of "social class" and "culturally associated," how are others supposed to know exactly which societies and cultures you mean? And how are we supposed to know at what points/periods in history you're referring to? Fact is, social class is very different in places like the USA, the UK, Belgium, India, Russia, China. Moreover, within longstanding societies, the numbers, kinds and nature of social classes have changed over time. Culture varies markedly from place to place too, and cultures themselves change over time.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

So now sex is dependent on, or synonymous with, social class?

Not at all. I wasn't talking about sex except to mention that there is a cultural association between womanhood (by the definition that I gave) and the female sex. They are neither dependent on nor synonymous with each other.

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

Those would be men or nonbinary people, depending on how they identify. It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

Your definition is not just exclusionary, it's incredibly ableist. Because it automatically leaves out all the world's adult human females who for various reasons - very low IQ, brain injuries, dementia - are incapable of the kinds of cognition required to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" - whatever the hell that bunch of misogynistic malarkey is supposed to mean

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability. That said, why do you think it would be a bad thing for people to be "left out" in this regard? There's nothing wrong with not being a woman.

FYI: sex and being female aren't specific to humans

Do you think I'm like 5 years old? I know what sex is.

As to your last point. Yes, culture varies by time and location. As does what it means to be a woman.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Earlier you said:

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

Now you say:

I wasn't talking about sex except to mention that there is a cultural association between womanhood (by the definition that I gave) and the female sex.

So although in the space of two sentences you mentioned sex three times and the female sex twice, your new line is that you weren't talking about sex any of those times. Like I said before: you speak/type genderist gibberish.

It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

I am saying I don't believe most of the world's adult human females have gender identities. Go to some maternity wards, senior centers, refugee camps and ask.

By the way since you invoked your experience, what is your experience exactly? How many female people have you interviewed about their self-concepts? In what continents, countries and regions do they live? What is the range of their birth dates?

When exactly did you do all this talking to adult human females of the world that enables you to speak so authoritatively about the inner lives of billions of us?

Most people have an idea of their gender identity by the age of 2, it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

No they don't. The fact that you claim this about 2 year-olds shows you have very little or zero experience raising or working with babies, toddlers and kids - and you know nothing about child psychology and early child development.

it's not something that requires some special level of cognitive ability.

How is it possible for people with zero or very little cognitive ability to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"? Just parsing that hard-to-follow phrasing and trying to make sense out of it does my head in - and I'm operating with at a pretty high level of cognitive ability. How can wee bairns and people with limited IQ, dementia and language processing difficulties possibly pull off all the mental gymnastics you say everyone not only does engage in, but which we all must engage in so as to deserve a name?

How can 2 year olds possibly have a good enough understanding of social class and the be familiar enough with the broad sweep of cultural associations even within their own culture to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex" or the male sex for that matter? Have you ever spent time with any 2 year olds?

That said, why do you think it would be a bad thing for people [of the adult human female type] to be "left out" in this regard? There's nothing wrong with not being a woman.

The word woman has a meaning: adult human female. But those with deep-seated animus and covetousness towards adult human females have decided to appropriate the word for us and to totally redefine it. In your definition, a woman is anyone of either sex who identifies with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that generations of women (the adult human female kind) fought so hard against. And according to your definition, anyone who does not identify with those misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes can't possibly be a woman. On the contrary, you say that all adult human females on earth who do not identify with the misogynistic, regressively sexist sex stereotypes that you insist all women must identify with

would be men or nonbinary people

I agree that "there is nothing wrong with not being a woman." What I think is wrong here is people with very sexist, regressive ideas and authoritarian mindsets who have not a clue about what a woman is suddenly coming along and telling all the adult human females on planet earth that we longer can be called women unless we identify with the very same sexist stereotypes that men have invented over millennia to dehumanize, limit, hobble and lord it over us. The arrogant, domineering, supercilious, colonialist sleight-of-hand thievery you are engaged in strips the half the adults on earth of our name.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Are you unaware of the meaning of the word "except"?

When I talk about my experience I am talking about my normal day to day interactions with the world. I am not an academic and made no claims to having any authority on the subject. I qualified that I am talking from my experience.

How is it possible for people with zero or very little cognitive ability to "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

Why would it not be possible? We absorb this information passively, it's not like you need to understand the full cultural context of womanhood to know that you relate to this idea that you have been around since birth.

The word woman has a meaning: adult human female.

A meaning that I have been very explicit that I am not talking about. If you interpret any statement that I have made about the word "woman" to be using it to refer to sex you are misunderstanding my intent.

Like most trans people I believe in self identification when it comes to gender and as such would never tell anyone that they can't use a particular word to describe their gender identity. That said, the word "woman" is culturally linked to these sexist and regressive ideas that you are talking about and the fact that you and I wish that this was not the case does not make it not so.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Just like you clearly don't understand parts of speech and how they function and work together in sentences and phrases, you don't seem to understand what cognitive ability means. You appear to take it as a given that everyone has the same exact mental faculties, ability to make sense of the world and thought processes as adults with normal-range IQs, fully developed brains and no impairments or neuro-atypical conditions. This is not true. Two-year olds don't think like adults do. People with dementia don't have the same mental powers as people without dementia. People with autism absorb information like everyone else, but it doesn't register in quite the same way.

Also, even those of us who have full mental capacities aren't firing on all cylinders 24/7/365. What any of us will take in from the world around us when we are are wide awake, on the ball and unstressed is very different to what we will absorb from the exact same input when we're drunk, stoned, drop-dead tired, or asleep - or when under great stress.

You said that

a woman is a person who identifies with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex.

When I disagreed and claimed this is not true for the majority of female adults on earth, you said I was wrong based on your own personal experience. You said

In my experience it is a tiny minority

Who think the way I believe most adult human females regard ourselves.

My questions remain: what makes you think you are an expert on how the world's adult human females think about ourselves and see ourselves?

Why do you get to tell legions of the world's adult human females that we can't be considered women anymore?

Like most trans people I believe in self identification when it comes to gender and as such would never tell anyone that they can't use a particular word to describe their gender identity. That said, the word "woman" is culturally linked to these sexist and regressive ideas

But you've just told me that the word for any adult human female who does not "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"

would be men or nonbinary people

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You appear to take it as a given that everyone has the same exact mental faculties, ability to make sense of the world and thought processes as adults with normal-range IQs, fully developed brains and no impairments or neuro-atypical conditions...

I don't know what I've said that's given you this impression. You are incorrect. I am perfectly aware that different people have different styles and abilities when it comes to processing information.

what makes you think you are an expert on how the world's adult human females think about ourselves and see ourselves?

I don't think I'm an expert. You're asking me to defend something that I literally never claimed.

If a person didn't identify as a woman I wouldn't call them one, no. That would be disrespectful. But if someone does identify as a woman, I will respect that. It's as simple as that. I can't understand the issue you seem to see with that. If a person didn't identify as a woman, they wouldn't want to be referred to as one

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If a person didn't identify as a woman I wouldn't call them one, no. That would be disrespectful.

So if you were making a documentary or doing a report about the long, hard road to the USA's 19th amendment; the lives of long-reigning British queens such as Elizabeth I and II and Victoria; health issues like cervical cancer, menopause, uterine fibroids, pre-eclampsia, pudendal neuralgia and Alzheimer's disease; practices such as foot-binding in China, breast-ironing and FGM in Africa, forced veiling in Muslim countries and communities, and acid attacks in Pakistan and India; or the victims of such serial killers such as Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler and the Yorkshire Ripper - you'd never, ever use the word women once because you haven't personally spoken to every individual involved or affected and thus can't be sure they "identify" or "identified" "with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

If you were to go to a country where you don't speak the language and thus couldn't communicate with anyone, you would never once think of or describe any of the thousands of female adults you'd see on the streets and in crowded public places like airports, city squares and bazaars as women? If pressed, you'd insist that all of them must be referred to the way you said I must referred to, namely as

men or nonbinary people

??? And you'd tell yourself that the reason you are doing this is to avoid being disrespectful??

If a person didn't identify as a woman I wouldn't call them one, no. That would be disrespectful.

What is disrespectful in my view is your arrogant, high-handed decreeing that not a single one of the billions of adult human females currently alive on planet earth and all the billions who have walked the earth previously cannot be referred to as women unless they/we all have made declarations - and declarations that you have personally heard or read, too - that they/we identify with the second-class position of women in human societies and also with all the sexist, misogynistic cultural associations - in other words regressive sex stereotypes - that men have invented to oppress, dehumanize, restrict and hobble the female sex. And which today's QT advocates like you now arrogantly insist we all must "identify with" or else you will deny us the name/word that for millennia has described us.

The dictatorial behavior and stealing of what does not belong to you that you try to pretty up and pass off as respect and politeness is, in my opinion, simply male arrogance, male dominance, male entitlement, male appropriation and pure unadulterated misogyny repackaged as QT.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would not call a person a woman if I knew that they did not identify as such. I don't think there's anything wrong with referring to someone as a woman without having had their identity explicitly stated.

And you'd tell yourself that the reason you are doing this is to avoid being disrespectful??

Yes, it would be disrespectful to refer to someone with a word that I know they do not identify with.

What is disrespectful in my view is your arrogant, high-handed decreeing that not a single one of the billions of adult human females currently alive planet earth - including your own mother probably - cannot be referred to as women unless they/we all make a declaration - and a declaration that you have personally heard or read, too

Again, no one has to have made any kind of declaration, and I would never refuse to refer to someone as a woman if they considered themselves such.

It's not dictatorial to refer to people by the language that they personally prefer. Quite the opposite. And I'm not male, not that it matters.

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

TIL my identity is actually non binary even though I think that’s a nonsense concept, all because I don’t gel with what’s considered feminine in modern Australia.

It’s handy to have Queer theory to tell us who we are.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I'm not telling anyone who they are. I'm saying that your gender is defined by how you self identify. If you consider yourself a woman, you are a woman. If you consider yourself a man, you are a man. Otherwise, you are nonbinary. Simple as that. You absolutely don't need to "gel with what's considered feminine" in order to be a woman.

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

Twain said

What word would you use for those of us who are adult humans of the female sex but who do "identify with the social class that is culturally associated to the female sex"?

To which you responded

Those would be men or nonbinary people, depending on how they identify. It seems like you are conceptualising gender identity in a different way to me however if you think that the majority of female people feel this way. In my experience it is a tiny minority.

So yeah, you are telling us who we are by applying your QT to the many women who feel zero connection to their socially prescribed idea of a woman whilst recognising that they are adult human females, ergo women.

QT is applied to all, despite their lack of faith in gender identities. You may as well have said we have the Holy Spirit.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The idea that adult human females are women is a part of the socially prescribed idea of a woman. If a person considers that they are a woman because they are an adult human female, I would consider that to be identifying as a woman. After all, no one relates to all aspects of womanhood.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a person considers that they are a woman because they are an adult human female, I would consider that to be identifying as a woman.

Again, what about all the adult females past and present who cannot and could not "consider" these matters because of mental impairments that make it impossible for them to grasp, reflect on and think about their sex, age, species, social status and "identities"? There are quite a few of them around. What about all the adult human females in comas?

It's incredibly ableist of you to keep insisting that being a woman is totally dependent on having fully-developed adult consciousness, cognitive capacities and powers of reasoning - AND also on having the very particular kind of SELF-consciousness that you and some others in today's world have.

You are assuming that the way current-day genderists with full mental faculties who inhabit materially-abundant environments full of mirror glass and surrounded by human-made imagery in certain Western cultures experience and conceptualize yourselves and construct your own self-concepts are the universal ways that all human beings everywhere on earth experience and conceptualize them/ourselves and construct our own self-concepts. This is not true, and believing and insisting that it must be true is cultural imperialism.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you think it's bad for a person to not be a woman? If a person doesn't have a gender identity, what's the problem with recognising that they don't have a gender identity?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Lmao sure, woman also refers to adult female giraffes, some models of Toyotas, and a delectable coffee based beverage.

Darlin you’ve already said what you’ve said. Backtracking and claiming there’s more to the definition you previously provided is some bullshit.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Lmao sure, woman also refers to adult female giraffes, some models of Toyotas, and a delectable coffee based beverage.

???

I stand by everything that I've said. If you think that there's some inconsistency there let me know what it is and we can discuss it.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So if I start telling my clients that I will white-glove clean and disinfect their home, then go splash some water around and say my personal definition of cleaning and disinfecting is making things damp, have I lied to them or not?

Do words have definitions all speakers share, or do words have no meanings other than the ones we personally assign?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If you genuinely believed this then it's not a lie, no.

Do words have definitions all speakers share? No, they don't. How could they?

If you paid me twenty grand to paint your house white, and I painted it neon green would you tell me I did a great job and pay up?

This would be a case where our different understanding of words has caused a problem in our communication (an extreme example, but this happens all the time!). As to how I would actually react in that scenario, I would not believe that you in good faith misunderstood what I meant by "white", and furthermore would expect that a professional house painter would, as part of their role, have an understanding of how people communicate their desire regarding the colour of their house. I would consider that a person who claims this misunderstanding is therefore either being dishonest or is not sufficiently good at their job, so it's not my responsibility to pay.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared. We can agree on this, at least.

Why do some words have shared meaning amongst speakers of English and some don’t?

What is the deciding factor in which words are defined personally and which are defined for the purpose of communication. Who is deciding this for all English speakers?

Can you explain why this is?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

So white and yellow have meanings that are shared

I'm not sure how you got this from what I said. I would argue that no word has a shared meaning between any two people, but there can be more or less overlap between people's understanding.

Words are neither defined "personally", nor for the purpose of communication. Definitions simply do their best to describe the prevailing trends in how a word is used.

What is the alternative that you are suggesting? Where do words get their meaning if not from the people who use them?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Lmao so nobody shares a meaning of the word dog, or yellow, or knife, we just all sort of overlap in opinions? That’s the biggest steamiest pile of shit I’ve seen this week.

Words are mere suggestions of ideas lmao, I beg you to reconsider this silliness.

Imagine what would happen in a hospital if clear definitions weren’t something humans have. Saline probably suggests some amount of salt in water never mind if it’s a cup of table salt dissolved in a bucket of mop water.

150milligrams and 150 grams are similar and often mixed up by those who rarely use such measurements. Sure everyone died on the icu cause morphine prefers precision but that’s just how words are.

“No, no, I didn’t hit your dog with my car I define that as nudging him gently.”

If this isn’t a joke you’ve made, I think the divide in your cognitive dissonance must make the Mariana’s trench look like a crack in a plate.

Think about this critically for a few minutes, what would the world look like if things other than gender identity were defined this way.

How would the legal system work? Medicine? Money? Food service, mining, production floors?

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

What way do you think language works if not this way?

You asking what the world would look like if this is the case is a bit baffling to me. So far as I'm concerned this is the case, and the world is how it is.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Because I’m allowing myself to think about the scenario instead of trying to make language conform to a modern invention like gender identity.

If words have no definition and merely refer to any object, phenomena, or idea that any individual might apply a word to, how the fuck are you reading this?

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical? That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

I doubt that very much. Claiming the world actually totally does follow your preferred model without giving any example, whilst using the language to communicate specific ideas using specific words to do so just looks beyond daft.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Can you please answer my question? How do you think language works if what I have suggested is "beyond daft"?

If words have no definition

I did not say that words have no definition. Definitions are what we use to describe the way that words are used.

how the fuck are you reading this?

I have no problem reading this because you and I have understanding's of most words that overlap to the extent that, in almost all cases, the differences that do exist don't matter.

Do you really think that amoxicillin is not a definitively defined chemical?

No, I'm sure it is definitively defined. That definition just does not (and cannot) account for the fact that there will be nuance in the meaning that each person takes away from the word.

That bovines are categorised by opinions had by people who have never seen a cow irl?

Why do you think that I would think this? I'm curious how you're interpreting what I'm saying here if it seems so strange and outlandish to you.