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 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.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Denying that gender is made up of personal grooming/styling as modern americanised culture assigns to the respective sexes after claiming gender is in fact partly personal presentation was never any sort of meaning, definition, or explanation.

Please tell me, what is a woman if not an adult human female, and what is the term to refer to adult human females?

If woman is a gender, it is not adult human females. So either there is no word for adult human females, or the word woman means effectively nothing because it can be used to refer to multiple contradictory things.

Is woman a feeling? It’s sexist to say that the word that has exclusively referred to adult human females actually refers to a feeling men have.

The fact that you say you cannot see anything sexist about that is disturbing to me. Like, you keep banging on about semantics but you see nothing wrong with adult human females having no langauge to refer to themselves? No word to name the basis upon which we are oppressed?

It seems as though you want to repeat your semantic word salad at us without entertaining what any of our objections are actually about.

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

I never once claimed that gender was partly personal presentation. As I previously clarified, when I mentioned presentation I was referring to things that could indicate a person's gender to another person, not to gender itself.

Please tell me, what is a woman if not an adult human female

This is where this discussion started. I'm not interested in getting caught in an infinite loop, you can go back and read my earlier response.

and what is the term to refer to adult human females?

"Woman" is one, in some contexts. Another is "adult human female", which seems to be serving you perfectly well here.

If woman is a gender, it is not adult human females.

The word (like most words) has multiple meanings depending on context.

It’s sexist to say that the word that has exclusively referred to adult human females actually refers to a feeling men have

This is not something I have said, but even if it was - It is not sexism to describe a sexist system.

Like, you keep banging on about semantics but you see nothing wrong with adult human females having no langauge to refer to themselves? No word to name the basis upon which we are oppressed?

"Adult human females" is language that adult human females can use to refer to themselves. The basis on which they are oppressed is the basis of sex. Regardless though, if you see this as a problem, it's not one that I can solve. I have no power to change language.

It seems as though you want to repeat your semantic word salad at us without entertaining what any of our objections are actually about.

This is a discussion about semantics. I'm sorry if it seems like a "word salad" to you but semantics can get that way. What are your objections actually about? Please tell me.

[–]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.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So you think it's perfectly acceptable for you to keep telling women that the definition of the word for us - woman - is not an adult human female like all the dictionaries say and we keep pointing out, but rather that a woman is a person of either sex

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

But when women who feel this definition of yours denigrates, dehumanizes and denies the biological reality and dignity of those of us who are adult human females, you throw your toys out of the pram and cry that our words are so mean as to be

beyond hurtful.

Wow. Talk about double standards. You really weren't kidding when you said that in your view the only way a woman can be a woman is if she "identifies with" and accepts the inferior social class and regressive sex stereotypes that sexists and misogynists associate with and continually try to foist upon the female sex.

You know, I am a person.

Adult human females are people/persons too. Why is it okay for you to keep hurling slings and arrows at women that denigrate and dehumanize us, but it's beyond the pale for us to voice objections to you denigrating and dehumanizing us?

How come you're the only person here whose feelings count? Indeed, why do you seem to think you're the only poster who has any feelings to begin with?

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

But when women who feel this definition of yours denigrates, dehumanizes and denies the biological reality and dignity of those of us who are adult human females..

It's not my definition. While I disagree that it denies the biological reality of adult human females (rather, just not being about that), I agree that it's one that has its basis in an oppressive system of gender stereotypes. That is something that we should recognise and I don't see how shutting down discussion on the subject helps women.

You really weren't kidding when you said that in your view the only way a woman can be a woman is if she "identifies with" and accepts the inferior social class and regressive sex stereotypes that sexists and misogynists associate with and continually try to foist upon the female sex.

Honestly, why even respond if you're going to misrepresent what I say like this? What am I supposed to do here? It doesn't matter what I say, you've made up your mind as to what I believe and the actual words that I say seem to have no influence on that.

Why is it okay for you to keep hurling slings and arrows at women that denigrate and dehumanize us, but it's beyond the pale for us to voice objections to you denigrating and dehumanizing us?

It is not ok for anyone to denigrate and dehumanize women. If I thought for a second that this was something I was guilty of I would do anything to change that.