There is no such conspiracy of the kind you appear to be hallucinating. One can be both a woman and a cis woman. Much as you might like to think it’s all about you, these terms simply exist to be able to talk about the topic.
How come “biological woman” is all warm and fuzzy for you but cis woman isn’t?
Did I say 'biological woman' is warm and fuzzy to me? There is no need to say 'biological woman', it's redundant. A woman is a biologically female person. There is no other kind of woman. Women are not 'identities' that men can have in their minds. To think otherwise is an absurd insult to women. We are women because we are female. Not because we 'identify' with pink or dresses or shaving our damn legs or whatever other stereotypical nonsense some men think makes them a woman. There is nothing they can do, or feel, that will make them a woman. Because women and girls are not defined by actions or feelings. Neither are men. Whatever a man feels or does, he remains a man.
Sounds like you agree “biological woman” or at least “biological female” is acceptable to you. Try talking about the topic of this thread without ever using the qualifier “biological” and you might calm down a bit about “cis”.
This was written in an academic journal, too. Yes, fickle, the idea that society has been constructed in ways that unfairly benefit "cis people" and oppress "trans people" is commonly shared among the proponents of Gender Theory, which implies that cisgender people are morally bankrupt.
The grievance studies affair was the project of a team of three authors—Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose—to highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. T...
For reference, in nature you don't see any transgenderism found in animals.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but I don't care to look up references because I know how this stupid argument goes every time with homosexuality. You make the above claim, someone provides references showing that yes, that does happen, and then you change your argument to "animals also rape, are you saying we should behave like animals?"
The fact remains: trans people weren't invented by Magnus Hirschfeld. They have existed as long as cis people.
I've been back and forth with you on these threads, and I don't think you truly understand this ideology and why it predictably leads to the inverse of what it claims to do.
When some people experience unfair discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, this does not mean that people who don't face this particular mode of discrimination have privilege. Fair treatment is not a privilege; it's the basic right of all human beings within liberal philosophy. Liberal rights principles laid the foundation for many of the freedoms we enjoy in Western democracies today. Calling fairness a privilege allows power hungry psychopaths to rip our social fabric apart while doing very little to solve actual social problems. Liberal philosophy prevents tyranny; it's not the cause of oppression, as believers of contemporary social justice doctrine want us to belive.
Relatedly, this identity-focused ideology minimizes and often ignores wealth inequality and poverty, which is why so many educated and well-off people feel entitled to sneer at the culture and lifestyle of poor people, especially poor white people. Gender ideology similarly uses the cis/trans dichotomy to justify attacks on women. The "Karen" trope runs cover for people who want to publicly denigrate white women. That doesn't mean white women can't be jerks, simply that Karen is more often a mechanism to perpetuate hate than to describe actual bad behavior. More often than not, the ideas held sacred within this movement are part of an elite status game through which people with relative wealth and status kneecap their enemies and accrue power.
I am not getting it. To me it just seems you are arguing about language. You do agree that people experience discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, so from their perspective those who do not experience this discrimination are privileged not to face these barriers. Maybe you prefer to say that White women are not privileged as compared to Black women is US society, but instead Black women are under privileged? If that description is more to your liking, ok, but in the end the dynamic is the same. There is an imbalance of access, benefits, etc. Recognizing this difference does not negate other issues that need to be confronted like wealth inequality that is not race based. The sneering, which I abhor by the way, comes when the oppressed seem to take on the values and beliefs of their oppressors rather than join in solidarity with others who are similarly oppressed. As it pertains to the cis/trans dichotomy, yes women have been systematically oppressed over the course of history, but so have people who have non conforming genders regardless of their sex at birth. I wold think that a solidarity across all oppressed genders would be the way to go rather than antagonism. This does not mean that in every instance trans women and cis women need to be treated the same and that every place and space need to be made available to trans women, but the general attitude is one of solidarity rather than antagonism. If you think that trans women are simply males trying to oppress women, then of course, none of this makes sense, but if you see trans women as neither female nor the same as men, then it does make sense. Then the issue comes up that being trans is voluntary and that it is not fair to claim discrimination when you volunteered for it so to speak. This is a fundamental tension that I do understand. In the end, I do not believe being trans is voluntary for most people, rather it is more an immutable characteristic than an assumed identity taken on like changing clothes.
Did I say 'biological woman' is warm and fuzzy to me? There is no need to say 'biological woman', it's redundant. A woman is a biologically female person. There is no other kind of woman. Women are not 'identities' that men can have in their minds. To think otherwise is an absurd insult to women. We are women because we are female. Not because we 'identify' with pink or dresses or shaving our damn legs or whatever other stereotypical nonsense some men think makes them a woman. There is nothing they can do, or feel, that will make them a woman. Because women and girls are not defined by actions or feelings. Neither are men. Whatever a man feels or does, he remains a man.
Sounds like you agree “biological woman” or at least “biological female” is acceptable to you. Try talking about the topic of this thread without ever using the qualifier “biological” and you might calm down a bit about “cis”.
I never used the term 'biological woman' or 'biological female'. They are not acceptable to me. I say that women are female. They are. There are no women who are not female. I do not use a qualifier when talking about women. What you call 'ciswomen' are women. What you call 'transwomen' are men who identify as trans. Men who want to be called women. They are not women of any kind.
Even if everyone on this thread were to agree it is not voluntary to identify as trans it still does not change the fact that sports participation is very much voluntary
Sounds like you agree “biological woman” or at least “biological female” is acceptable to you. Try talking about the topic of this thread without ever using the qualifier “biological” and you might calm down a bit about “cis”.
I never used the term 'biological woman' or 'biological female'. They are not acceptable to me. I say that women are female. They are. There are no women who are not female. I do not use a qualifier when talking about women. What you call 'ciswomen' are women. What you call 'transwomen' are men who identify as trans. Men who want to be called women. They are not women of any kind.
Wrong, I even bolded “biologically female” that you used so you don’t have selective amnesia, but maybe you think “biological female” is substantively different from “biologically female”, a distinction without a difference.
What you call “biological” shares a lot of similarities of meaning and purpose with “cis”, even if not identical in all contexts.
I've been back and forth with you on these threads, and I don't think you truly understand this ideology and why it predictably leads to the inverse of what it claims to do.
When some people experience unfair discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, this does not mean that people who don't face this particular mode of discrimination have privilege. Fair treatment is not a privilege; it's the basic right of all human beings within liberal philosophy. Liberal rights principles laid the foundation for many of the freedoms we enjoy in Western democracies today. Calling fairness a privilege allows power hungry psychopaths to rip our social fabric apart while doing very little to solve actual social problems. Liberal philosophy prevents tyranny; it's not the cause of oppression, as believers of contemporary social justice doctrine want us to belive.
Relatedly, this identity-focused ideology minimizes and often ignores wealth inequality and poverty, which is why so many educated and well-off people feel entitled to sneer at the culture and lifestyle of poor people, especially poor white people. Gender ideology similarly uses the cis/trans dichotomy to justify attacks on women. The "Karen" trope runs cover for people who want to publicly denigrate white women. That doesn't mean white women can't be jerks, simply that Karen is more often a mechanism to perpetuate hate than to describe actual bad behavior. More often than not, the ideas held sacred within this movement are part of an elite status game through which people with relative wealth and status kneecap their enemies and accrue power.
I am not getting it. To me it just seems you are arguing about language. You do agree that people experience discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, so from their perspective those who do not experience this discrimination are privileged not to face these barriers. Maybe you prefer to say that White women are not privileged as compared to Black women is US society, but instead Black women are under privileged? If that description is more to your liking, ok, but in the end the dynamic is the same. There is an imbalance of access, benefits, etc. Recognizing this difference does not negate other issues that need to be confronted like wealth inequality that is not race based. The sneering, which I abhor by the way, comes when the oppressed seem to take on the values and beliefs of their oppressors rather than join in solidarity with others who are similarly oppressed. As it pertains to the cis/trans dichotomy, yes women have been systematically oppressed over the course of history, but so have people who have non conforming genders regardless of their sex at birth. I wold think that a solidarity across all oppressed genders would be the way to go rather than antagonism. This does not mean that in every instance trans women and cis women need to be treated the same and that every place and space need to be made available to trans women, but the general attitude is one of solidarity rather than antagonism. If you think that trans women are simply males trying to oppress women, then of course, none of this makes sense, but if you see trans women as neither female nor the same as men, then it does make sense. Then the issue comes up that being trans is voluntary and that it is not fair to claim discrimination when you volunteered for it so to speak. This is a fundamental tension that I do understand. In the end, I do not believe being trans is voluntary for most people, rather it is more an immutable characteristic than an assumed identity taken on like changing clothes.
The theories underlying trans ideology and intersectional oppression argue that language structures, rather than describes, reality. That's why proponents are so intent on introducing new language and policing conformity. I agree that language is important, but I don't belive that all aspects of human social life bend to the will of our language and conceptual categories. Instead, language can be used to manipulate our sense of reality by people who are seeking power.
However, my post is not about language. It's about conceptual clarity and assumptions about human nature and society. It matters a lot whether one begins with the assumption that all human beings have equal moral worth and develops a society based on that and whether one begins with the assumption that some people have inherited moral sins by virtue of their immutable characteristics and creates a society based on that premise. The former, liberalism, has led to the freedoms we enjoy today. The latter describes the ideology of intersectional oppression (Critcial Theory + Postmodernism) andn is a path to tyranny.
Well, the terms "biological women" and "cis women" can be replaced with just "women".
The term “transgender women” could also be replaced with just “women,” but since people keep starting conversations where they insist there is a difference in the rights or allowances between some women and others, we are forced to use modifiers like “cis” or “trans.”
I hope that we move past the need for the words myself and just start calling them all women.
think of it this way, if you had an uncle who transitioned to a female, you would just call her your aunt then, right? There would be no need to call her a transaunt, or to call any of your other aunts “cisaunts.” Same goes for son/daughter, husband/wife. Whatever.
When a man becomes a woman, call her a woman. No need for any extra prefixes.
I am not getting it. To me it just seems you are arguing about language. You do agree that people experience discrimination due to race or other immutable characteristics, so from their perspective those who do not experience this discrimination are privileged not to face these barriers. Maybe you prefer to say that White women are not privileged as compared to Black women is US society, but instead Black women are under privileged? If that description is more to your liking, ok, but in the end the dynamic is the same. There is an imbalance of access, benefits, etc. Recognizing this difference does not negate other issues that need to be confronted like wealth inequality that is not race based. The sneering, which I abhor by the way, comes when the oppressed seem to take on the values and beliefs of their oppressors rather than join in solidarity with others who are similarly oppressed. As it pertains to the cis/trans dichotomy, yes women have been systematically oppressed over the course of history, but so have people who have non conforming genders regardless of their sex at birth. I wold think that a solidarity across all oppressed genders would be the way to go rather than antagonism. This does not mean that in every instance trans women and cis women need to be treated the same and that every place and space need to be made available to trans women, but the general attitude is one of solidarity rather than antagonism. If you think that trans women are simply males trying to oppress women, then of course, none of this makes sense, but if you see trans women as neither female nor the same as men, then it does make sense. Then the issue comes up that being trans is voluntary and that it is not fair to claim discrimination when you volunteered for it so to speak. This is a fundamental tension that I do understand. In the end, I do not believe being trans is voluntary for most people, rather it is more an immutable characteristic than an assumed identity taken on like changing clothes.
The theories underlying trans ideology and intersectional oppression argue that language structures, rather than describes, reality. That's why proponents are so intent on introducing new language and policing conformity. I agree that language is important, but I don't belive that all aspects of human social life bend to the will of our language and conceptual categories. Instead, language can be used to manipulate our sense of reality by people who are seeking power.
However, my post is not about language. It's about conceptual clarity and assumptions about human nature and society. It matters a lot whether one begins with the assumption that all human beings have equal moral worth and develops a society based on that and whether one begins with the assumption that some people have inherited moral sins by virtue of their immutable characteristics and creates a society based on that premise. The former, liberalism, has led to the freedoms we enjoy today. The latter describes the ideology of intersectional oppression (Critcial Theory + Postmodernism) andn is a path to tyranny.
Boy, you’ve really drunk this “inherited moral sins” kool-aid in concentrate.
