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 -  (17 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 -  (16 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?

[–]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.

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

It's not my definition.

Whose definition is it then? Where does it come from?

I have provided links to the world's most respected and trustworthy dictionaries starting with Johnson's showing that all agree that a woman is an adult human female. I have looked through the 20-30 dictionaries and longstanding style guides that I have in my own house, and at every online dictionary I can find, and I have not come across a single one that says as you do that a woman is a person of either sex

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

Yet you insist that the definition of woman you put forward is the definition that is the most commonly used, most widely understood and universally agreed-on and accepted. When asked to provide evidence that this is really the case, you provide none. You just keep insisting that since you personally believe the word woman means what you have said means, it must be so - and that's that. Just like Humpty Dumpty did to Alice.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

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

Anything except listen to the women saying that you are doing just that.

[–]rubberdubberd00 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm listening. I've been here for days listening. I've yet to hear an argument for why it's sexist to recognise that society classifies people according to sexist stereotypes. That recognition is necessary to my feminism and to fighting back against those stereotypes and it would be doing a disservice to women to give it up because some people on the internet feel, in some way that they can't describe, that it's bad.