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 -  (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.

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

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

I guess that the reason that this doesn't seem contradictory to me is that I don't really see identifying as a woman as a way of being. It's not got anything to do with how a person acts, it's just how they personally conceptualise themselves.

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.

This is what makes me think that we conceptualise identifying as a woman in entirely different ways. To me, identifying as a woman is basically just thinking "I am a woman". Of course there will be some neurological conditions that make this impossible, but it wouldn't be as common as you seem to think. A person doesn't need to understand why they feel that they are a woman in order to understand that they do. So no, I do not believe that a person needs to understand any particular theory to be a woman.

I also don't believe that biological sex doesn't matter. I have definitely not said as such, so where did you get that idea? You are clearly attributing ideas to me that did not come from me. It is because of things like this that I thought you were engaging dishonestly, though I have changed my opinion on that.

I wouldn't be on this sub if I wasn't prepared for people to push back against my ideas, so don't worry about that. I'm hear to share my perspective and to learn about the perspectives of others.

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

I guess that the reason that this doesn't seem contradictory to me is that I don't really see identifying as a woman as a way of being. It's not got anything to do with how a person acts,

I never said that being a woman has "anything to do with how a person acts," though. Nor would I ever make such a claim.

My view is that being a woman depends on three things: being human, a member of the species Homo sapiens; being female; and being of adult age (18 or over). Consciousness and acting/behaving in any particular way or doing anything are not necessary. To me, an adult human female in a coma, under anesthesia, with severe brain injury, in a state of catatonia or without the ability to see, hear, speak or move is as much as woman as any other adult human female.

I have been close to a number of adult human females as they died of various illnesses that caused them to lose their minds and be totally incapable of acting any which way. Several could not move at all. Yet to me and everyone else around them, they were still women. When they died, their bodies were the dead bodies of women. You are the one who says this can't be true, because you keep insisting that there is no way to be a woman without being conscious and "all there" mentally enough to engage in the cognitive processes required to "identify" and think of one's self as woman:

we conceptualise identifying as a woman in entirely different ways.

No, the fundamental difference is that you equate being a woman with "identifying as a woman" and I don't.

You say

identifying as a woman is basically just thinking "I am a woman".

I say an adult human female is a woman even if she can't "identify" or frame the thought "I am a woman" in her mind - even if she can't think at all. I believe that being a woman doesn't involve engaging in any kind of cognition, self-reflection or thought processes - or having any sense of "identity."

I believe that the word woman simply describes the physical reality of a kind of human body. You think woman refers to gender identity, that being a woman is simply a way of thinking about the self - a way of thinking about the self that can be engaged in by adult human males as well as adult human females.

I have no beef with you and other people having a gender identity. Just like I have no beef with people who believe they have souls. My beef is with you insisting that everyone else on earth has a gender identity. I am challenging the way you and other genderists project your own inner mental processes, your own preoccupations, and your own very particular way of constructing your own sense of self onto everyone else in the world. You keep saying that woman refers to a way of thinking about the self that you apparently believe is universal - when in fact, it's a way of thinking about the self that is specific only to some people on earth.

I am not telling you not to have a gender identity. I am pointing out that not everyone on earth has a gender identity, and not everyone else believes in gender identity ideology. Some people think gender ideology is a load of sexist, misogynistic, regressive shite, in fact.

I am also asking you to please stop insisting that everyone else must construct our sense of self the way you and other genderists do.

To me, identifying as a woman is basically just thinking "I am a woman". Of course there will be some neurological conditions that make this impossible, but it wouldn't be as common as you seem to think.

How common do these sorts of neurological conditions have to be for you to recognize adult human females with said conditions as women?

As I said before, there are more than 4 million adult human females in the US alone with Alzheimer's. In Australia, there are nearly a quarter of a million adult human females with AD, and dementia is the single largest cause of death for adult human females in OZ. Why cannot you grant full humanity to adult females who don't have the same mental faculties as you? Why sneer that in your view neurological conditions that make gender identity impossible are too rare for the inner lives of people with such conditions to be considered worthy of consideration?

Also, even if it were true that only a very few people are affected by neurological conditions that make it impossible to have a gender identity, why don't they matter in the genderist/QT world view? Why do the tiny percentage of people marginalized because of their gender identities deserve sympathy and respect in your view, but people with neurological conditions get dismissed as irrelevant and unimportant? Where do you get off dictating that just because people have conditions that you believe are "not as common as you seem to think," they don't count and shouldn't be referred to as women, men, boys or girls?

Maybe if you spent some time in a nursing/care home where people with Alzheimer's reside, a hospice where people are living out their dying days, or in the company of some adult human females born with severe mental disabilities, you'd have a broader view of who counts as women. Maybe then you'd find it in your heart to be bit more charitable to the many millions of people on earth who don't have the capacity to engage in the mental processes that are required to "identify as a woman" and necessary for "basically just thinking 'I am a woman'."

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

I never said that being a woman has "anything to do with how a person acts," though.

I didn't say you did. You have been very clear on what your position is on what makes a person a woman, I can assure you I have no confusion there.

To your example of women in a coma, that's a pretty unusual scenario. Generally a person's gender doesn't change, so if a person is no longer capable of thought I wouldn't necessarily change their language given that I know that that person has always been a woman.

What I would like to understand better is why it upsets you so much to think of people not being women?

You are right that not every person has a gender identity, of course.

I am also asking you to please stop insisting that everyone else must construct our sense of self the way you and other genderists do.

I'm not insisting that anyone do anything. I'm describing something that I believe most people naturally do. If I'm wrong about that then I'm wrong, but I'm not telling anyone what they should do.

There are several women in my family with Alzheimer's. They are women, and they consider themselves such. If they did not, I would not love them any less for it.

Also, even if it were true that only a very few people are affected by neurological conditions that make it impossible to have a gender identity, why don't they matter in your world view?

Of course they matter. I don't have to think that someone is a woman for them to matter.