Helen Joyce compares transgender dogmas to a cultish, hyper-intolerant religion

submitted by ceck from self.whatever

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

That response is fucking insane. This is not a semantic issue. The ideologues are now saying gender = sex, like women is a protected class. The sex is protected. Now if you identify as a woman, you should be allowed to go to women's prison? Locker rooms? Sports teams? That is redefining a foundational word of the language, nothing like saying "oh, 'cap' used to mean a type of hat, but now it also means a lie". Get your head out of your ass. This shit is highly damaging and destructive to society.

And you didn't even respond to my obviously true statements. You're just spouting some nonsense about the etymology of the word, as if that has any bearing on the destruction that this shit is causing. Who cares if the latin root is "genre"? It's being used now as a synonym for sex for all the ways that have a destructive effect on society, and it's doing the most illiberal things possible - attacking women.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It is literally a semantics issue. It is an argument over the definition of a word. That is what "semantics" means.

There are two concepts. One is "does this person have a hole or a pole." The other is "What do we expect of people with holes versus poles. How do we expect them to dress, behave, etc."

They're both real, and they aren't the same thing.

It doesn't really fucking matter what we call them. We could call one oogy and the other boogy. I'm fine calling them sex and gender, because they're the most common words for the concepts, and that makes communication easier. But if you're triggered by calling those expectations "gender," fine, dude, I'm perfectly happy to use "boogy" with you.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Again you are completely dodging the real issue that trans ideology is trying to equate gender with sex and is causing real harm by doing so. Not to mention my point that the concept of gender as described does not hold up to rational scrutiny. You know it's wrong, but you can't bring yourself to go against your liberal tribal doctrine.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

If you knew me at all, you'd know I'm really very anti-doctrine.

But look at what you're saying - it doesn't really make sense. First you say "there is no gender separate from sex." You say that "The idea that gender is different than sex is a relatively new idea, founded by.. a monster."

You say, basically, that sex is gender. Same thing.

Now you're saying that "the ideologues are now saying gender = sex" and "the real issue [is] that trans ideology is trying to equate gender with sex." They're trying to say that gender is the same thing as sex.

You're angrily accusing them... of holding your own position. Pretty weird, man.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I'll break it down in a way perhaps you can understand.

There is no gender that is different than sex.

Trans ideology started with the concept that gender is your feeling of what sex you are, or should be, potentially different than your physical sex. Then it moved the goalposts to saying the mantra "transwomen are women", which states that if someone's gender is woman, they should be treated as if their sex is female in all aspects of life. Any non-woman hating, rational person should vehemently disagree with that.

I also disagree with trans ideology's first postulation, that you can "feel" like a different sex than what you are, simply because you cannot feel like anything you are not. You may believe you aren't in the correct body, aka dysphoria, but that is a mental issue, not a reality. No trans woman can ever know what it feels like to actually be a woman, or vice versa.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I think I see the problem. You think you're arguing against a very specific position. You think that trans people are an organized group, and they've created something called "trans ideology," and "trans ideology" takes specific stances on sex and gender, full of postulates and theorems and proofs, and that it's dogmatic, almost Scriptural, to them.

But that's not true. Trans people argue with each other all the time over these issues. There really is no unified consensus.

All that the vast majority of them really agree on is: "I want to be treated as the gender that doesn't match my biological sex. If I'm treated that way, I'll feel happy. If I'm not treated that way, I'll feel deeply uncomfortable."

People are freaking the fuck out over that, and it gets pretty hysterial. You're basically saying it's going to do tremendous damage to women everywhere if someone born male says "my pronouns are she/her" and I say "okie dokie." And that's... not realistic.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The part agreed upon "I want to be treated as the gender that doesn't match my biological sex" has led to all the aforementioned insanity. That feeling cannot be enshrined as a right as it results in the destruction of women as a protected class.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Well, more fundamentally, it can't be enshrined as a legal right because it violates the First Amendment. I'm a cis man; you have the right to ignore my preferred pronouns and call me a girl; there's basically no way to change that without repealing the First Amendment and abandoning the idea of free speech.

But I do believe most trans people completely understand that. They want people to voluntarily call them by their preferred pronouns, not to have the government force them to do it through threats of imprisonment and violence.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Are you aware of the laws that have been passed that force employers to comply with pronoun requests? Such as https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-use-transgender-pronouns-or-face-fines

I don't think this would hold up constitutionally, but IANAL. This includes ridiculous neo-pronouns.

What about the Lia Thomas situation? What about USA boxing's decision to allow men to compete against women? Hormones are hardly the only thing that makes men much tougher in a fight than women. Hand size and strength, skeletal structure, etc.

What about Biden's administration dismantling Title IX protections by forcing colleges to admin men in women's sports? https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics/title-ix-transgender-student-athletes-biden-rule/index.html

The list goes on and on, but it comes down to, if you support legislating trans rights to the point that trans women should be able to enter into women's protected spaces (both physical and metaphorical), you really just hate women. It's blatant myisogyny.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Are you aware of the laws that have been passed that force employers to comply with pronoun requests? Such as https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-use-transgender-pronouns-or-face-fines

Well, going back to my example, you have the perfect right to ignore my preferred pronouns and call me a girl in a bar or on the Internet or whatever, but if we're co-workers, you can't be stopping by my desk every day to say "What's up, little girl?" when I've made it clear to you and HR that I want that to stop. That would give me actionable grounds for a harassment lawsuit. People are allowed a reasonable expectation of a non-hostile work environment.

What about Biden's administration dismantling Title IX protections by forcing colleges to admin men in women's sports? https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/06/politics/title-ix-transgender-student-athletes-biden-rule/index.html

Did you read the link? It says that the Biden administration proposed a rule where colleges can reject biologically male athletes from women's sports, but they can't do it categorically. Rather, they have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

That's not exactly tyranny.

The list goes on and on, but it comes down to, if you support legislating trans rights to the point that trans women should be able to enter into women's protected spaces (both physical and metaphorical), you really just hate women. It's blatant myisogyny.

I can't say I agree with that. I prefer third-wave feminism to fourth-wave feminism.

It's really weird, honestly - pre-feminist thought said "Men and women both need protected spaces. Separate spheres. Men work and women cook, and women need to stay out of the worksites and men need to stay out of the kitchen."

Then by third-wave feminism, we were at "Men and women are equals. They don't need protected spaces and shouldn't have them. Public life should be one shared space."

And then fourth-wave feminism changed the narrative to "Men should never be allowed protected spaces, but women must be allowed to have them."

To me, that's both regressive and misandrist. And I don't think that opinion makes me a "blatant misogynist."