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 →

[–]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.

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

I've yet to hear an argument for why it's sexist to recognise that society classifies people according to sexist stereotypes.

But you didn't say that "society classifies people according to sexist stereotypes"! There's nothing sexist about saying that.

If you did say that, the only objection I would raise would be to point out that it's too broad and sweeping a statement. Fact is, humanity doesn't just have one society: there are many different human societies, which vary considerably in the extent to which they engage in and endorse sex stereotyping, and in the exact nature of the sex stereotyping those societies engage in and promote. The societies of Saudi Arabia, Cambodia, Sweden, Israel, Poland, Brazil, the Phillipines, Samoa, India, China, North Korea, South Korea all differ from one another in these regards.

Even within the same society there is not unanimity of views - not even close. Within the USA and UK, for example, there is vast diversity of opinion between New York City and a Mormon enclave in Utah, and between Chelsea and Kensington in West London and a mostly Muslim area of East London or the Midlands. Vast diversity of opinion regarding sex stereotyping often exists from one neighborhood to the next in the same locale - for example, in NYC there are orthodox Jewish neighborhoods practically cheek to jowl with "gayborhoods." Often, there is marked diversity regarding views on women and sex stereotyping from one house or apartment to the next, and often within the very same household too.

What you said was totally different to observing and stating that some/many people in many/most different societies classify others according to sex stereotypes. You said a woman is a person of either sex who "identifies with" the inferior social standing and the sexist sex stereotypes associated with the female sex.

The phrase "identify with" used in this particular way is shorthand which means "classify oneself, base one's sense of self on, build one's self-concept around."

Your definition of woman completely ignores the fact that vast numbers of the world's female people do not classify ourselves, base our sense of self, build our self-concepts on the second-class social standing and on the sexist sex stereotypes associated with the female sex in various of the world's cultures. The fact is, many humans of the female sex do not accept, embrace, internalize and base our identities on our inferior social position and the sex stereotypes various cultures associate with and try to foist on us. We actively reject sex stereotypes and have spent our lives fighting to improve the second-class status of women in law and in virtually every area of life. Which according to you, means we are not and cannot be women and the word woman does not apply to us.

You told me point blank that in the classification system you use and you appear to believe is used pretty universally around the world, the name for a female adult who does not "identify with" the second-class social status and sex stereotypes her culture or any culture associates with the female sex would be either a man or a non-binary person.

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

You're not fighting back agains sexist sex stereotypes, though. You're furthering them and inventing and imposing brand new ones. Moreover, the new sex stereotypes you're promulgating and cheerleading for and say are accepted pretty much universally around the world are incredibly misogynistic, demeaning and dehumanizing of adult human being who are females in particular. Women are not "identities" and being a woman is not based on feelings and ideas in our heads. Women are human beings of the female sex, and sex is about the material reality of biology, not identity. We are women because we have female bodies, not because we "identify with" the second-class status and sex stereotypes associated with the female sex that you say we all must "identify with" in order to be considered women.

Tellingly, you aren't spending any energy on redefining the word man in such as way as to reduce adult human males to sexist sex stereotypes and to rob adult human males of the right to call themselves men. All your time, attention and effort on this thread has been directed at redefining adult human females according to sex stereotypes for the purpose of making it appear that if we do not "identify with" the inferior social position and all the sex stereotypes associated with the female sex in various cultures, we aren't real women - we're not women at all.

Also, your belief system is not "feminism." It's the total opposite.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We all recognise it, and have spent days telling you that saying that using that exact system of sexist norms to define women, by saying “anyone who says they’re a woman is a woman” is a sexist thing to do.

What you seem to be missing somehow is that society doing it doesn’t mean it’s good or that we should do it more.

Yet you’ve done exactly that repeatedly by the definitions of woman you’ve provided.
We have spent days saying it is sexism to redefine woman, a biologically distinct group, as an identity anyone can have.

We have spent days practically drawing diagrams of how it is sexist to say “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” and how this very statement infers that woman is not an adult human female but is instead a feeling, because words do not simply grow in meaning the way you have pointlessly insisted they do.

You’ve won’t adopt a different point of view for a moment because of what some people online feel but you’ve spent days arguing with us that an adult human male can be a woman because of his feeling bad about the word man.

Like..come on dude.

[–]rubberdubberd00 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

We all recognise it

So I guess you're all also sexist then, by your logic.

What you seem to be missing somehow is that society doing it doesn’t mean it’s good or that we should do it more.

What? When did I ever say that it was good? I think that the way that society defines gender is bad.

We have spent days saying it is sexism to redefine woman, a biologically distinct group, as an identity anyone can have.

And that is something that I've never done. I do not have the power to define, or redefine words.

I don't assume that when you say a woman is an "adult human female" that you are redefining the word according to what suits you. I understand that you are describing a way you believe the word is used. Why, when I describe a different definition, do you make this assumption?

We have spent days practically drawing diagrams of how it is sexist to say “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” and how this very statement infers that woman is not an adult human female but is instead a feeling, because words do not simply grow in meaning the way you have pointlessly insisted they do.

Wait... So am I understand that the problem is that you think that I think that adult human females do or should fit the definition that I've laid out for the word "woman"?

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

I don’t know what the fuck you think because you’ve given nothing but sexist examples of what a woman is, claimed you’re not sexist because society believes it, and apparently haven’t understood a single damn thing said to you.

Now because you can’t comprehend that any definition or understanding of woman that reduces a woman to a feeling, fashion statement, or stereotype is sexism I’m the sexist? because I already knew that society had shitty ideas about women already?

You use a sexist definition of what a woman is, by saying women are ideas. If a woman is a feeling or a fashion statement or stereotype a woman cannot be a human being. Just as a cow cannot also be a bicycle.

This strips the human away from the word used to describe them.

No, I don’t think you’re saying women should obey stereotypes of femininity. I’m saying you have repeatedly defined woman as a display of those exact stereotypes.

Nobody thinks you personally decided that woman means offensive stereotypes. We are saying that using those offensive stereotypes yourself is sexist.

If you still can’t get it idk, ask literally anyone else.

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

I do not have the power to define, or redefine words.

Yet you've spent the whole thread redefining the word woman in a very idiosyncratic way solely to suit yourself and to conform with the incredibly misogynistic views you espouse. You even acknowledge this outright in the last line of this particular post when you refer to:

the definition that I've laid out for the word "woman"

On this thread, I have linked to the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language which show that the time-honored, long-established meaning of the word woman is an adult human female. But throughout you have refused to accept that dictionaries written by learned lexicographers from Samuel Johnson to the current-day crew at the OED have any weight whatsoever. Instead you pretend that everyone just makes up their own definition of words, and therefore it's completely reasonable for you to

describe a different definition

for the word woman and to expect it to be taken just as seriously as the actual definition of woman documented in the world's most esteemed and trustworthy dictionaries. Which means you do in fact grant to yourself

the power to define, or redefine words.