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 -  (3 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.

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

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.