sorted by:
top
hotnewinsightfulfun
links and comments from:
past year
past hourpast 24 hourspast weekpast monthall time

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am a small person at 5’4. There are bigger trans women for sure though.

You're still very likely stronger than the average woman. There are many males who are more vulnerable for a variety of reasons (e.g. very short height, old age, disability or minority status); however, women's spaces are not a refuge for any of them. Those spaces were built for women. Making special exemptions for some kinds of males defeats its purpose. Making cross-sex self-identification the special exemption is even worse because there is no objective way to determine who is a "true trans"; even you has admitted this much. In other words, allowing any trans identified male in women's spaces means, in practice, allowing all and every male there.

There are bigger trans women for sure though. I’m not going to go into a 3rd space to make a political point when I have been going into the right restroom already for decades without issue.

Without issue FOR YOU, you meant. But who cares what the plain women in those restrooms think about it, right? You're comfortable there and that is the only thing that matters.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

As if their comments don't exude anger too or as if they didn't misrepresent our arguments.

I don't know why you keep acting as if they don't come here because we are such lying and unredeemable jerks. This sub was created because the reddits administrators banned the old one for "transphobia". Most QT users celebrated the moved and they didn't want to come here. It's not a secret.

Anyway, at 99% of the internet you have to walk on burning eggshells not to offend them, while they are free to say the most vile things. But I guess a little forum that is little bit less biased in their favor is too much for them to handle.

Edit: I don't know what the removed comment said, I just thought this needed to be said.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Hearing opposing views, most of which doesn't contain any kind of insult, is not self-harm.

I don't need to imagine how a QT poster could feel by coming here. I've been in the minority position in a hostile environment in another forum for a very different issue and I still stuck around. I could argue that is a form of "self-harm" for me to keep coming here to argue with random people who don't listen, too. And as I said, just asking questions about transgenderism is enough to attract a rage storm to you in a good bunch of the internet. Don't you think many GC posters knows exactly how is to be in the minority position? Anyway, although moderation is important, when discussing any controversial subject that has been debated to death, some anger is going to be expected. So, I don't know what QT potential posters, expect besides being treated as royalty like everywhere else. Maybe I should be more sympathetic, but I cannot. They keep acting as if they were the most oppressed people in the world when they get everything served in a silver plate. And it's not like my sympathy would be reciprocated.

Furthermore, you're assuming I never looked for some potential mod before you. I did it in private, but I got rejected. And it's not as I had some options to choose from. About the "unmoderated" posts, I saw them. We're surely going to disagree; however, if I ignored them, it means I though they didn't merit action or I left them to other mods to decide (yeah, useless hope, I know). That being said, if I treated GC users with "kid gloves", so I did with QT. I did not banned circling, for instance...

Anyway, I didn't burn out for workload since there wasn't much activity here most days. I did because, although I tried to honor my value for fairness, I resented every single time I had to mod in QT favour. I just didn't sign up for that. I became a mod because there was not an active GC mod and I wanted thing were more balanced. I didn't expected that I'd be doing QT mod's job because they couldn't bother to show up. Plus by arguing with QT and trying to stay civil after reading so many infuriating and absurd takes, not to mention all the lies. It was because I absolutely disagree with the rules that make impossible for me to speak honestly; a rule that is not going away ever because QT get more offended by the truth than whatever hideous and dehumanizing insult that anyone could think of. Plus I keep getting increasingly frustrated by real life development of transgenderism (that in spite whatever trans identified people says it has a big impact on so many people because everyone must accommodate their every wish regardless of the consequences) alongside other issues, which I won't mention nor detail so not to get too political.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Yes, I saw who the banned user was and I can imagine what she could have said (I don't want to make assumptions since I didn't see her comment). I still stand for what I said, anyway, especially because she only comments once in a blue moon. And, really, yo do realize that GC posters receive way more push-back on most of the internet than what QT posters receive here. As I said, in many cases on the internet, or even irl, GC hear far far worse, particularly if they are women (QT has no problem recognizing them without pulling any pants down, funny that). For some women saying GC ideas has come with real life consequences, e.g. getting fired or actual violence (rather than just the typical threats). Yet GC keep discussing against all the odds. However, you say QT posters cannot handle some push-back in a small anonymous forum where we still have not to contradict how they perceive themselves? Sorry, but I am not impressed.

So, because I made you a mod it means I can never disagree with you?

Look, this fairy tale that I was such a biased mod that never bother to moderate is getting old. And it's not true. I was the most active mod by a long shot. Grixit disappeared as soon as he made me a mod (I should have never believed him and accepted his offer), quetzal showed up exactly and peaking was mostly absent and peaking absences had the worst timing, too. There never was so many QT posters here. Most threads were made by the spammer playing devil's advocate (you know the one) and who I must have banned dozens of times; but it seems that Spammer has gotten bored. And I was so "biased" that when a user complained about me to the mod mail, quetzal was forced to admit that I've been fair. I was so biased that I had Flippy calling me a rapist apologist (or something like that) because I warned him off in the very same thread where circling was asking for me to be removed from the "mod team" (i.e. just me). I was so biased I even offered you being a mod. Honestly, I wish I was as harsh as every single QT poster claims I was. It would had been easier for me.

Anyway, of course, what else an ex-biased mod like me could say? After all, the biased mod is going to defend herself against all the evidence. But I have to ask you, beris, if you think I was such a biased mod, why are you following my steps. You keep being very open about how you think GC posters are so mean and of course QT ran away from such hostile environment. Given that there is no GC mod anymore (no, peaking doesn't count), don't you worry that GC posters just leave? Well, I guess that is a way to attract QT posters. Although it may not work since GC posters are usually more resilient than that. And whatever the result, it doesn't change the fact you are, at least, as biased as me, beris.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

So, you keep talking about your lived experience, but what about your un-lived or whatever the antonym of lived experience may be? I mean, can there be personal experiences that are not lived? Does the phrase redundancy give the experiences more validity? Jokes aside, you're falling on a kind of exceptionalism. According to you, no one but trans identified people are qualified to talk about the "trans experiences"; nevertheless, you give yourself permission for matters that should be foreign to you, like the "lived experiences" of women. For how could you know you are a woman, otherwise? How could you know who, including yourself, is a woman when you are unable to define the word? You have no idea how it is to inhabitant a female body and all the biological and social experiences that arises from this fact.

Words have meanings that people have agreed upon in order to communicate with each other. Thus, I don't have a personal definition of "woman", rather I go by the one that is (still) in the dictionaries (the one that has been used by everyone before transactivists started lobbying to change it), which is based on the reality of sex. Because, here is the thing, reality doesn't change just because you give something a completely unrelated name. A donkey doesn't become an unicorn just because you say it's really an unicorn. I doesn't become one either even if you also fix a horn on its head.

Anyway, I didn't say you lack empathy for women because of our disagreements. I said it because you showed no concern for the very real impacts trasactivism is having on women. Instead, you worry that "modern transgender people" ruin it for you. What is more, you're worried for consequences that have yet to materialize for you. If it is true that you "pass" as a woman completely, I mean, you "pass" 100% and no one ever could tell you are actually "transsexual" by looking at you, then why do you mind if Republicans want to ban all males from the women's restrooms at all?

Something like requiring SRS surgery, 10 years on hormones, no transfers from male prisons, and no history of certain crimes makes sense to me as criteria for trans women in female prisons for instance.

None of these things would make them female, though. Furthermore, that was already tried. Old school transactivists in different countries lobbied to be legally recognized as the opposite sex and have access to sex-segregated spaces that weren't intended for them. It was a trap. Soon enough, that was not good anymore because not all trans identified people could afford "medical transition", for some it could not be accessed legally in their countries, some though it was cruel to be subjected to procedures that have all kinds of harsh side effects in order to be recognized as their "true selves", to say nothing of the "forced sterilization".

No. Self-ID doesn't happens overnight, but it's a gradual process that starts by ignoring biology. It never ends with just a few special cases.

I think that we need to be judged by our characters and not by having the original sin of being born male.

I agree with judging people by their characters. I don't think being born male is a sin. As there is, however, many males who do shitty things, women have plenty of reasons to be wary of them, especially because we cannot tell who are the bad ones. Any decent male would understand this and not make it personal.

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

You say I can't talk about trans identified people because I lack the "necessary" personal experience. If we follow this premise to its logical consequence, then history quickly becomes a off-ground subject. So why have you be talking about the experiences of historical groups of people with such an authoritative voice? Have you been there to back up your claims? How do you know people "transitioned" before there was a concept of "transgender"? How could they "transition" when there were no exogenous hormones or surgeries (other than castration) available?

I suggest you give a read at the links in my comment above. Transactivists often project modern ideas on ancient people and misrepresent other cultures. I guess it must be reassuring to think that there has always been trans identified people as we understand it now; but there is little, if any evidence, for such claims.

Also, you have no answered why we don't give liposuction to patients with anorexia nervosa nor why we don't amputate healthy arms for people who desperately want to get rid of them. What does make trans identified people so different that we must go against what would be regarded as common sense in any other mental health issue?

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Discussion in a conversation framed like that is just as futile as women conversing in a forum of men who have a grudge against all women in general -- of course every women has committed a sin again maledom in that distorted view of reality. If a women disagrees with any of their points then her humanity is cast away from her and she is nothing other than the caricatures that exist their futile machinations.

Interesting example...

GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out by rainynights in GCdebatesQT

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

Well, thanks so much for not challenging the claim I did so little modding. So glad, I quit being a mod.