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 →

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (35 children)

No one has the right (or, indeed, the ability) to redefine words to suit their interests.

LOL, except throughout this thread you've been redefining words - particularly the word woman - to suit your interests and the interests of other gender vendors. I and many posters have repeatedly told you that since the word woman was invented, the universally agreed-upon definition has been that woman is a human being who is female. To wit:

The female of the human race.

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=woman

An adult female human being

https://www.oed.com/oed2/00286737

An adult female human

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/woman

But you keep insisting that everyone from Samuel Johnson to the OED to medical science are dead wrong. You keep saying that a woman can be either sex, because to you a woman is merely a chosen "identity" that has nothing to do with having a female body. You explicitly deny that the word woman refers to sex or can be connected to a person's physical sex:

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.

In fact, to you it's actually easier for a misogynistic, sexist male with a sick male sexual fetish, mean male masturbation habit who has fathered children to be a woman than it is for feminist female who rejects sexist genderism to be a woman. According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children - but males who've fathered children like Jan Morris, Rachel Levine, Jennifer Finney-Boylan, C Jenner and oodles more, they're all women! Because according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology, it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in and accepting and embracing a second-class social status:

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

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (34 children)

I have no interest in redefining words. As I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, what I am doing is describing my experience of how I have grown up using the word and how I see others around me use it. I have also been clear on the fact that this is not the only usage and that "adult human female" is another valid usage of the word.

According to you, females who reject genderism can't be women even if we have experienced pregnancy and given birth to children

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be, but I can assure you that I do not believe that a person has to have any particular belief system to be a woman.

according to you, being a woman has nothing whatsoever to do with biology

Being a woman is absolutely to do with biology. Both because there is another meaning of the word that refers exclusively to this, and because biology is one of the key things that defines the female social role.

it's entirely based on believing in the sexist, misogynistic ideology you believe in

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (33 children)

Oh c'mon, now you're just playing games. Pretending that you haven't said the absurd, incredibly sexist, misogynistic things you've said in multiple posts throughout this thread and putting on a faux naive act. You probably opened your eyes real wide, put a hand to your chest and made a point of batting your eyelashes in an OTT, theatrical way meant to denote feigned innocence and ignorance when you typed

I don't know what "genderism" is supposed to be

What sexist, misogynistic ideology is that?

The only thing you forgot is the UwU.

[–]rubberdubberd00 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I would suggest that you take this as an opportunity to reflect on the attitude that you've come into this discussion with.

The fact that you have a "feeling" that my ideas are misogynistic / sexist but can't find any examples of my having actually said anything that fits that profile suggests to me that you are reading my into my comments with some kind of pre-existing bias.

I sense we're done here, but something to think about.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (31 children)

Can you give me one example of a thing that I said that was sexist?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

stops lurking for just a second

Just one?

“Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is.“

goes back to lurking

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

Can you give me one example of a thing that I said that was sexist?

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

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

I can see that you might disagree with that statement, but I can't see how it could be sexist. It is a statement about the usage of a word. It is not a statement about any group of people and certainly not a discriminatory statement about people of a particular sex.

If you genuinely think that I'm saying something sexist here, can you explain why?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It’s the total denial that human females are not a biologically distinct group but a collection of sexist roles, grooming habits, and sexist expectations of behaviour or a ‘social class’ as you call it.

It’s inherently sexist to reduce women to these sexist tropes and it’s alarming that you cannot see this.

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

It’s the total denial that human females are not a biologically distinct group

I was not taking about human females at all in that statement. I was defining a usage of the word "woman" as it is applied to a different group.

When you say that I am "reducing women to sexist tropes" what you are doing is taking your definition of the word and applying my description of how an alternate usage is defined as though it is a statement about the group that your definition applies to. This is an easy mistake to make, particularly when the statement that I made has been removed from all context, but if you look at it in context I hope you can see that this is not what I was saying.

To be super clear, I do not believe that all adult human females identify with the social class associated with the female sex (that would actually be a belief that denied trans identities) and I absolutely do recognise that human females are a biologically distinct group. I'm not some science denier.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

What is a woman if not an adult human female, rubber? You previously stated it was a gender and that gender is at least half personal styling. This would be a sexist claim to make so I’m assuming you mean something else now.

Unless you care to retract saying that woman is a gender?

That’s the sexist message deeply rooted in the core of what youve been arguing.

The statement that a woman is a set of feelings and preferences anyone can have, but certainly not a biologically distinct group of people who’s sex has been the source of their oppression. That’s allowed to be referred to according to you but we simply can’t name the distinct biological category because…it hurts the feelings of sexists..

The belief that woman is anything but an adult human female is a sexist belief. Supporting the sexist men and women who claim that gender roles and norms are defining of humans is sexist.

Reducing woman to a group who perform certain culturally approved actions is sexism.

I’m not mistaken in seeing the sexism you’ve put forward and word games don’t erase it.

Every definition of woman that includes cultural definitions of gender roles or includes males is a sexist one.

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

I did not previously state that:

gender is at least half personal styling

That's actually something that you said, and that I disagreed with:

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/9f5a/qt_the_most_damning_contradiction_of_trans/yhjq

Regardless, yes, I am saying that the word "woman" can refer to a gender.

You do not give any explanation in your comment of why you think that these beliefs are sexist. The beliefs you are talking about are about language, they are not statements about a group of people. It is not sexist to recognise that sexism exists and shapes the way that our society treats and categorises people.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Do you really think that just because you didn't detail what that "social class" entails, we cannot tell what you meant by that? Once you reject a biology based definition of the word woman, all that is left are sex-based roles and stereotypes. If not, then what did you mean by "social class"? What do characterize the "social class" of "women"? And why would anyone choose willingly to be second class citizen?

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

Let's imagine that by "social class" I literally only meant sexist stereotypes.

How would that make the above a sexist statement?

I feel like this is just people processing that statement in a different way than I intended. If I had instead said:

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

Would you still consider that to be a sexist statement?

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term. I can see how that could be unclear when you remove the sentence from its original context.

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Stop dodging the questions. You have been doing this for days now. You claim women cannot be defined by biology but, when you are called out for being sexist, you insist you didn't mean anything sexist while still refusing to explain anything. If you trully are not defining women based on sexist stereotypes, then tell us explicitly with great detail what do you mean by "social class". Also, do not forget telling us why would anyone choose willingly to be a second class citizen?

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term. I can see how that could be unclear when you remove the sentence from its original context.

LOL How can you not talk about a group of people when you are defining said group?

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

You claim women cannot be defined by biology

I have repeatedly said that the word has multiple meanings, one of which (adult human female) is solely defined by biology.

If you trully are not defining women based on sexist stereotypes

Sexist stereotypes have a good deal to do with what defines the usage of the word "woman" that I am talking about. It's not sexist to acknowledge the existence of sexist stereotypes.

LOL How can you not talk about a group of people when you are defining said group?

Well if the only statement you're making about that group is "can be referred to by mouth noise X" you're not saying anything about them, are you?

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

Please stop trying to totally change the topic under discussion by coming up with silly hypotheticals. You didn't denigrate and dehumanize the momos of the world, FFS. You denigrated and dehumanized the half of the human race who are female and adult, past and present.

I'm not talking about a group of people called "women" and assigning the attribute of "identifying with a social class" to that group. I'm defining a term.

But that's you behaving like Humpty Dumpty again, issuing pronouncements from on high that the word woman means whatever the hell you personally say it means. And just as Humpty Dumpty did, when others tell you that no the word woman does not mean what you say it means, you respond by saying that we/they are in the wrong because we aren't as smart, sophisticated and privy to higher wisdom and the truth as you - and none of us knows how to read properly to boot.

The word woman has a longstanding, well-established, widely agreed-upon and universally understood definition already. A definition that is clear and simple: adult human female. It's not up to you to redefine the word woman in your own idiosyncratic way to reflect your own personal misogynistic and cockamamie beliefs, then issue edicts to others informing us that the whole world is wrong - the word woman does not actually mean an adult human female like everyone on earth except for regressive genderists believe, rather it means a person of either sex

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

The issue with your definition of the word woman is not that it's unclear. It's that it's totally inaccurate and untrue. Moreover, the new definition you have given to the word and arrogantly are insisting that all the rest of us must accept as the correct definition is regressive, misogynistic and deeply insulting.

[–]rubberdubberd00 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

You know, I am a person.

I have a mother, and sisters, and a daughter who I would do anything to protect.

I'm sure it's very easy for you to imagine that I'm just some internet troll with no feelings, but that's not the case. I'm here in good faith and trying my best to have a good and clear conversation here, and to have it suggested that I'm "denigrating and dehumanizing" people is beyond hurtful.

You have proven that no matter how much thought and care I put into my comments you will ignore them and respond to whatever preconceptions you have about what I believe, so there's really not any point in my engaging any further.