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 →

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

Of course we can perceive sex. All sexually reproducing animals can do this instinctively; it is what enables efficient procreation. Otherwise we’d be making babies by bonking each other indiscriminately. Lions wouldn’t know which lions to fight to the death and which ones to woo. Sorting people by sex is not even a skill, it’s just that basic. And I feel like I’ve lost 10 IQ points just explaining this.

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

A bunch of fetishists unilaterally decided “woman” is a identity that can be put on like an anime costume, meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology. And you struggle to see how this isn’t misogynistic patriarchy? You’re like that Somalian pirate saying “I’m the captain now”. No, you’re not; you’re just a pirate doing bad things.

You’re right that most things aren’t a matter of identity. Because it’s a faulty way of classifying people in a material world. I don’t have diabetes because I identify that way. I don’t have brown eyes because I identity that way. I’m not American because I identify that way. Im not a woman because I identify that way. I’m a woman because I’m an adult human in the female sex class.

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

Of course we can perceive sex.

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

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

[–]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.

[–]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.