GC: What would you say to someone for who considers their transition to have been a massive improvement to their life and wellbeing? by pilf in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn’t argue them out of their position. If dressing a certain way and taking certain drugs to affect a certain appearance makes someone feel better about themselves, then cool.

If they use these feelings to justify disrespectful actions towards others, that’s where I draw the line. Female athletes shouldn’t lose titles because a transwoman feels happier playing against women than men. Women and girls shouldn’t lose a sense of safety and privacy in restrooms and locker rooms for the sake of transwomen’s feelings either. Correctly identifying a transwomen as a male and acknowledging this observation with the “wrong” pronoun shouldn’t cost someone a job or opportunity just because it upsets a transwoman.

If all we were talking about is making changes to oneself to alleviate distress, then we’d hardly have anything to debate. But obviously we are talking about more than that.

GC women: If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I do too.

Even the most delusional TW know they are men, at least subsconsciously. This deep awareness interacts with the internalized misandry also stewing in their psyche, causing them to exhibit the very behavior they hate the most to validate their own loathing towards men. They register this feeling as gender dysphoria and point to that as evidence that they are true trans. But it’s really a side effect of a maladaptive coping mechanism that is self-reinforcing: “I hate being a man—>I’m trans—>Look at how manly I just acted—>I hate being a man—>I’m trans—>Etc.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Giving men the right to apply the word women to themselves means “woman” becomes a meaningless term. That alone takes power from us; a nameless group might as well not exist anymore.

What is the women’s restroom? Is it a place for people whose biology requires easy access to toilets (rather than urinals), sanitary bins, and privacy from the opposite sex? Or is it place for people who feel like calling themselves women?

What are women’s sports? Are they a division for people whose bodies are designed in a such a way that precludes fair competition against someone born with a male physique? Or is it a division for people who feel like calling themselves women?

What are women’s rights? Are they legal protections aimed at ensuring women are not disadvantaged due to sex-based discrimination, both presently and historically? Or are they rights granted to people who feel like calling themselves women?

When men use trans identification to claim space in women’s locker rooms, sports, and prisons, it doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination to see how they benefit from this. Women lose privacy, safety (real and perceived), and dignity. They lose money and prestige and access to careers.

Are you asking this in good faith or have you seriously not given it any thought how all this is impacting women?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are (supposedly) basing it on your perception of their sex. You can't actually perceive their sex, but you can intuit it with some level of accuracy. I am basing it on my perception of their identity. I can't actually perceive their identity, but I can intuit it with some level of accuracy.

Of course we can perceive sex. All sexually reproducing animals can do this instinctively; it is what enables efficient procreation. Otherwise we’d be making babies by bonking each other indiscriminately. Lions wouldn’t know which lions to fight to the death and which ones to woo. Sorting people by sex is not even a skill, it’s just that basic. And I feel like I’ve lost 10 IQ points just explaining this.

Because "tall" isn't an identity and "woman" is. Not everything is an identity. Most things aren't.

A bunch of fetishists unilaterally decided “woman” is a identity that can be put on like an anime costume, meanwhile you ignore the viewpoints of billions of women that know they are such because of their reproductive biology and their history of being targeted for oppression because of that biology. And you struggle to see how this isn’t misogynistic patriarchy? You’re like that Somalian pirate saying “I’m the captain now”. No, you’re not; you’re just a pirate doing bad things.

You’re right that most things aren’t a matter of identity. Because it’s a faulty way of classifying people in a material world. I don’t have diabetes because I identify that way. I don’t have brown eyes because I identity that way. I’m not American because I identify that way. Im not a woman because I identify that way. I’m a woman because I’m an adult human in the female sex class.

You don’t have the right to redefine what it means to be a woman to suit male interests.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

What do you think sex is if you think it can be perceived? How does a person perceive it?

Sex is what distinguishes variants of a species that have essential roles in sexual reproduction. Females are in the class that produce large gametes (ova) and males are members of the class that produces small gametes (sperm). Human bodies are organized differently depending on which sex class they are in, because female and male mammals play very different roles in reproduction. In addition to ova production, human females gestate and lactate. Human males produce sperm and insemminate. This makes human males and females quite different from one another morphologically, and this is apparent both internally and externally.

The question really isn’t “How do we perceive sex?” The better question is “Why wouldn’t we be able to perceive sex?” Sex is fundamental to life; none of us would be here if our ancestors couldn’t ascertain it by sight, smell, and sound. For most of our evolutionary history, early death was the rule not the exception. To offset high mortality rates, humanity evolved to reproduce as efficiently possible. We wouldn’t have been able to do that if we were bumbling around not knowing which member of the species possesses the gametes that complement our own. Primary and secondary sex characteristics (genitalia, developed breasts, facial hair, musculature, etc) are extremely reliable cues as to who has what gametes. In other words, sex.

So why wouldn’t be able to perceive sex when its foundational to reproduction? Do you doubt other animals have this ability?Here’s a study that shows this ability has a neurological basis in mice. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/01/220121124421.htm

How am I ignoring the viewpoints of millions of women and their history? What did I say to make you think that I am ignoring those things?

By declaring “woman” an identity that is open to anyone of any sex, you erase the global population of women whose status as such rests entirely on biology. We have not been consulted on this “woman is a identity unlike height” way of thinking.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

I agree it is a trollish thing to play dumb about. But it further underscores how contradictory trans identity is.

If sex isn’t perceptible, then why are we talking about trans people? It is as if there is a material difference between a transwoman and a woman who isn’t trans. Obviously the transwoman knows there is something about them that qualifies them as trans, or they wouldn’t be calling themselves trans. How have they perceived this thing about themselves? Could it be that they, just like every other human being on the planet, know that they are male? Of course they do.

So to turn around and act like we only guessing at this stuff is bullshit. But somehow they think the “no one really knows what sex anyone really is” helps the trans position.

GC women: If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look, there is a thing called reality. Everyone lives in it and we can see with our own eyes that “transwomen are just timid little shut-ins” is a laughable generalization. Just recently a 29 year old trans-identified male took first place in a women’s skateboarding event, and most of his competitors were teenaged girls. Trying to square this wastrel of a human being with your claim of innocent timidness doesn’t work, even if the majority of TW are indeed like what you say. Honestly, if I were a transwoman, I would feel more shame being associated with transwomen than men. At least I see men talking about acting honorably.

It is sad that you have such a low opinion of men. Why do you feel this way?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This seems to be a fundamental part of your misunderstanding. When I talk about a "tall woman" I am not talking about an "adult human female of above average height", I am talking about a person who identifies as a woman who is above average height.

The problem with this is no one believes you actually do this. Because human beings don’t operate in the world in this way. When I describe someone as a woman or man, child or adult, tall or short, etc. I’m not basing my description on their self-identification. Identity is irrelevant. I’m basing it on how I perceive them empirically. Everyone does; it’s how our species has managed to survive for eons.

It is interesting that you seem to get how this works for “tall” but not for “woman”. Why is your concept of “tall woman” a person who identifies as a woman who is of above average height, rather than a person who identifies as a woman who identifies as above average height? You are treating height as a objective trait but not the status of being female or male/woman or man.

How do you not see you are erasing women’s existence as a biologically defined class that is materially distinct from men? What is stopping you from seeing how you’re only enabling misogynistic patriarchy by redefining womanhood into complete meaninglessness just so that men can take power from us? Do you just not care how dystopian your logic is to most people?

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Humans are not infallible, so yes sometimes it’s possible to missex someone. This tells us nothing about whether sex can be observed empirically . It most certainly can be, and over 99% of the time, we can clock someone at a glance without even thinking about it The shit is hardwired in us because of evolution. Anyone who doubts this hasn’t spent enough watching unneutered animals. If a male dog can sniff out a female in heat that is miles away, then its absurd to think human males can be easily fooled into thinking another male is actually the opposite sex just because of an identity claim.

In what sense are they erased?

Imagine if Trudeau unilaterally decided anyone in the world who identified as a Canadian was now a Canadian, and then entitled all “Canadians” to voting rights and free healthcare. But rather conveniently, the only people paying into the healthcare system and military defense are those whose status as Canadians meet specific requirements for official citizenship. This means citizens are carrying all the burden of living as an actual Canadian while the self-identifying Canadians only reap the benefits. Despite living in a democracy, the citizens have been denied the right to self-determination; they have not been given a say on how their group should be defined. Their existence as a people united by the criteria set forth in their charter/constitution has been erased; outsiders have now been allowed to colonize their identity and take power from them.

This is what is happening to women now. We are carrying all the burden that comes with being an oppressed class marginalized on the basis of sex, while men take pleasure in taking our name from us along with our legal protections.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I personally think the concept of “gender non-conforming” is as problematic as “trans”. It affirms that idea that there are a set of sex stereotypes members of the class called women or men adhere to by default, and deviating from these stereotypes merits a special term.

How many people truly conform to sex stereotypes, though? I’ve never see the woman who wears makeup and dresses but curses like a sailor and works as a CEO for a construction company called GNC, but why not? If a man went around calling himself GNC simply because he is non-athletic, nurturing, and likes baking, I suspect no one would take that seriously. So it only seems like the most superficial, externally obvious traits qualify someone as GNC. This is an implicit admission that our concept of gender is purely aesthetic. Why should we assign any importance to clothing, grooming, and hairstyles?

I fully support people expressing themselves how they like, regardless of their biological sex. But I don’t believe in labeling people “GNC” just because their expression differs from a set of superficial stereotypes.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

I live in a democracy, so of course it’s up to me (and every other voting person) to decide if trans has sufficient meaning to merit status in the eyes of the law.

If all you want to do is call yourself trans without the expectation of special privileges or accommodations, knock yourself out.

GC women: If you had been born male, and you felt unable to get the rest of the male community to behave better, wouldn't you be ashamed and embarassed too? Possibly to the point of wanting to hide it or make it ambiguous? by citydweller1 in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can understand feeling a sense of guilt and embarrassment mixed with frustration at my fellow man. It’s not easy being a member of a group known for fucked up things, and unfortunately, men have that reputation. (But they also are known for great things.)

What I don’t see myself doing is deluding myself that I’m not a man just because of these feelings. Self-deception of this type requires a level of distorted thinking that I don’t have.

There is something Shakespearean about a transwoman with internalized misandry, especially if they are AGP on top of it. To hate manhood because of masculine destructiveness so badly that it causes you to colonize women’s identities, invade their spaces, hijack their sociopolitical movements, take sports titles from them, fetishize them in broad daylight , and then attack them for not playing along has to be the height of masculine destructiveness, right? Imagine one day waking up and realizing what you’ve done. The self-loathing that must come with realizing your attempt to flee manhood has turned you into a textbook example of what you hate the most has to be unreal.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

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

Call me when “cleave” denotes a group of people who insist on being a protected class in the eyes of the law.

If the group can’t even decide the basic parameters of membership beyond self-ID, then “trans” lacks sufficient meaning.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nope, I’m not using trans as a modifier of woman; that’s what you and others are doing when you assert TW are a subset of women.

The issue comes down to this question: what definition of transwoman allows someone to be a one without contradicting the idea that anyone can be a woman regardless of their physique or appearance?

Definition #1: Anyone who identifies as a transwoman is a transwoman. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then trans is meaningless and there’s no reason to assign it any sociopolitical significance. If no, then this definition is wrong.

Definition #2: An adult human male who identifies as an adult human female. Problem: Can a human female be one? If yes, then this definition is wrong. If no, then this violates the tenet that anyone can be a woman regardless of physique and appearance.

You are saying “trans” is an adjective for woman, but it’s not. Compare how it works with the adjective “tall”.

“Tall woman” communicates “adult human female of above average height”. Take away the last four words and what do you have left? A woman.

“Transwoman” communicates “adult human male who identifies as a human female”. Take away the last six words and what do you have left? A man. All “trans” is doing is flipping the meaning to the opposite word.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

By your own admission, you think transwomen can be anyone who calls themselves a transwoman—even if they are biologically female.

Another person might define transwomen as biological males who want to be female.

These two definitions cannot both be true. The only way you can consider them equally valid is if you don’t care about logic. It’s like saying you believe in God and the holy trinity while also professing to be an atheist.

QT: The most damning contradiction of trans ideology by Chronicity in GCdebatesQT

[–]Chronicity[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What does it mean to be trans if it any definition of trans is as valid as any other one?

How can transgender be treated as a protected characteristic if literally anyone can call themselves trans?

Trans people often accuse others are denying their existence, but they don’t seem to realize they themselves are doing that when they wear the word trans like a meaningless label.

Is it exclusionary for the LGB Alliance to not include the T? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Wouldn’t a HSTS trans person have to see themselves as same sex attracted—as opposed to straight—to perceive LGB Alliance as serving their interests? As a rule, they don’t; that’s why they identify as trans. There is an inherent incompatibility there.

He won’t stop by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]Chronicity 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lesbians becoming trans = trans men

Lesbians being with trans ppl = lesbians being with trans men (because they want females)

Either option leaves this guy just as single as he is now, so this is a self own.

About the lack of logic in gender movement on Page's example by MezozoicGay in GenderCritical

[–]Chronicity 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If we made a list of internal contradictions plaguing this ideology, it would be as long as a piece of paper folded 42 times.

But yes, this one is up near the top of the list.

To those of you who lost friends when you came out as Gender Critical, would you ever take those friends back if they came to see the truth of transgender ideology and tried to come back to you? by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

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

I haven’t lost friends per se, but I’ve just been defamed as a bad actor on a message board community I’ve been a member of for over 15 years. My crime? Expressing skepticism that the informed consent model of care has improved transgender health and well-being. Because TRAs on the board can’t handle this viewpoint, the mods have indefinitely banned me from posting on transgenderism. It is surreal.

It doesn’t matter that I was respectful. It doesn’t matter that I supported my opinion with reputable cites. It doesn’t matter that I posted my opinion in response to a thread topic eliciting opinions about how trans are treated. It doesn’t matter that I know a thing or two about medical standards of care. All that matters is that my opinion was considered threatening to the gender ideology cult.

To add insult to injury, the message board’s credo is about fighting ignorance. Suppressing critical ideas only promotes ignorance, but you know, it requires some amount of critical thought to understand this. Newspeak is what the board is about now.

So I’m walking away from that community. Fortunately since JKR popped the cork in June, I’ve found other outlets for my opinionating. I’m posting here now so that I won’t be tempted to post there. But I’m still sad that I will be leaving it behind.

To answer the OP, I wouldn’t go back to any friends that cast me aside unless they apologized. I wouldn’t accept any passive merging back into my life without some kind acknowledgment of what they’d done.