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 →

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

What "woman" means isn't actually relevant to this post at all. Hence my examples of how you could replace it with other words and the functionality of the word "trans" would be the same.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

First you say

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

Trans woman != woman. Trans woman is a sub category of woman, a woman who is also trans.

Then when challenged you come back with

What "woman" means isn't actually relevant to this post at all.

Really? Do you truly think anyone is persuaded by your claim that the meanings of words aren't relevant? Especially on a thread where the OP asked:

So why are we calling certain people trans women?

As for this claim of yours:

You seem to be using the word trans as though it's a modifier on the word woman, when in fact it's an adjective describing a person who, in the particular example you are referencing is also a woman

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

Also, right before making that claim you yourself said:

We call certain people trans women because as well as being women, they are trans.

In that sentence you used "trans" as a modifier of women - twice.

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

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It just seems to be a very dishonest reading of my comment.

Firstly, I said that the meaning of the word "woman" was not relevant to this post, not that the meanings of words are in general not relevant. That's a statement that I stand by.

I don't think you understand what parts of speech are, their function and how they work together in sentences/phrases.

I certainly get the impression that we're coming at this from different angles but this doesn't give me much of an idea of what those might be.

In that sentence you used "trans" as a modifier of women - twice.

My usage of the word "trans" in that sentence didn't modify the word "woman" at all. That was my point. It added additional information, but the information provided by the word "woman" was unchanged.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

My usage of the word "trans" in that sentence didn't modify the word "woman" at all. That was my point. It added additional information, but the information provided by the word "woman" was unchanged.

Do you know what an adjective is?

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

I do.

ETA:

For fun, and because I realised I remembered it, here's a poem about adjectives that was on the wall of my secondary school English classroom:

Do you need added colour?

Reflective shine or bounce?

Lively lustrous body,

For your limp and lifeless nouns?

Just open your thesaurus,

Each fun packed entry gives,

A sparkling, bright selection,

Of farm-fresh adjectives!

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This just proves my point about you not understanding what parts of speech are.

A thesaurus is not just for adjectives! A thesaurus lists synonyms for all types of words: nouns, verbs, pronouns, prepositions, articles/determiners, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, interjections.

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

Are you honestly making the argument that the fact that a poem that I quoted (a poem for children no less) can be read as implying that a thesaurus only contains adjectives is proof that I don't understand "what parts of speech are"?

I didn't write the damn poem.

This is supposed to be a debate sub. If you're not interested in an honest discussion just keep out of it.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I didn't write the damn poem.

This is supposed to be a debate sub.

You're the one who decided to type out a child's poem on a debate sub, not I. Also, I never said you wrote the dumb poem. A childish poem that I still have no idea why you thought it a good idea not just to quote from, but to share in full.

If you're not interested in an honest discussion just keep out of it.

First you tell me that I and billions of other adult human females cannot be called women and have no right to that word because we do not regard ourselves in the way you and other misogynistic dictators insist we must. When I have posed questions in response to specific statements you've made in your posts, you've repeatedly come back with replies that pointedly do not answer any of my questions. Now after already telling me I am dishonest in other posts, you sneeringly suggest that I am "not interested in an honest discussion" and tell me to STFU by ordering me to "just keep out of it." Sheesh.

The arrogance, bossiness and total lack of self-awareness in your posts are very telling.

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

The poem was just a bit of fun. It wasn't part of any point I was making, I thought that was clear.

First you tell me that I and billions of other adult human females cannot be called women and have no right to that word because we do not regard ourselves in the way you and other misogynistic dictators insist we must

I believe that any person that identifies as a woman is a woman. There is no correct way to be a woman.

It is misrepresentations of what I said like this that make me feel that you are not engaging honestly, but maybe I was wrong and we're just misunderstanding each other. I apologize if I came across as abrasive.

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

I believe that any person that identifies as a woman is a woman. There is no correct way to be a woman.

To my view, those two statements totally contradict one another.

If there is "no correct way to be a woman," then how can it be that the only way to be a woman is to "identify as" a woman or claim to "identify as" a woman?

How can it be that there is "no correct way to be a woman" when you yourself have said on this thread that being a woman means "identifying with" the second-class social status and misogynistic stereotypes that misogynists and sexists for millennia have associated with humans of the female sex?

According to you, all the adult human males who today claim to "identify as" women are women, but the millions of adult human females on earth today who have Alzheimer's or other neurological conditions that make it impossible for them to "identify as" anything are not women.

According to you, all the adult males convicted of using their dicks and male power, strength and aggression to rape females who now say they "identify as women" are women, but none of their adult female victims can be women unless those female victims conceptualize themselves exactly as you and other males who claim to "identify as women" say adult human females must see ourselves in order to be considered women.

According to you, all the adult males who have fathered children who now say they are women are women, but none of the female people who bore and gave birth to any of the oodles of children fathered by men who claim to "identify as" women can be considered women unless they do as you command and "identify with" the second-class social status and sex stereotypes that misogynists associate with humans of the female sex.

According to you, the only people on earth who are women are those who have heard of, fully understood and decided to ascribe to, the cockamamie PoMo theories that you mistakenly seem to think are universally-held. Such as the theory that "people are whatever they say they are;" the theory that words like "women" have no collectively agreed-upon meaning; and that the theory the material reality of human beings' biological sex does not matter - all that matters are the claimed "identities" that some very privileged people with luxury beliefs claim to possess.

I have a hunch that you think I am not engaging honestly because I am truthfully telling you how offensive, imperialistic, arrogant and dictatorial your views come off to me and to many others. And I am telling you this in blunt and forthright language, not tip-toeing around so as not to ruffle your feathers, not pretending to dance to the tune of your misogynistic, imperialistic ideology - and not mincing my words so as to come across as "ladylike" and deferential to males the way sexists think adult human females should and usually do communicate. I suspect that getting pushback like this is not something you are accustomed to, so it perplexes and peeves you - and in your bafflement all you can do is take a combative "you can't tell me that" stance and harrumph that I am "not engaging honestly."

I am sorry if what I say is hard for you to to handle, but I think it's high time you were apprised of the true feelings and thoughts held by many of us who are members of the sex whose humanity you and the other adherents of the Church of Genderology aim to nullify, whose "lived experience" you insist on dismissing, whose views you are accustomed to talking over, and whose ways of constructing our own self-concepts you outright deny.