No one is trying to exclude anyone from public life, though.
Women like me and many men are trying to keep males from using gender identity claims to compete in female sports.
We're trying to keep males from depriving female athletes of fair play, equal opportunity and chances to shine and by entering girls' and women's sports competitions and taking for themselves roster spots, chances to compete, opportunities to advance, and places on on winners' podiums that rightfully should go to female athletes.
We're also trying to get the official records changed so that all the wins, titles and record-setting accomplishments that males who claim to have a trans or other special gender identity have been allowed to rack up in girls' and women's sports in recent years are expunged - and all the female athletes who've lost wins, places and important titles to males can finally get the recognition they deserve.
We're also trying to keep males out of spaces that are supposed to be for females only like girls' and women's restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, spas, shelters, prisons, rape crisis centers, domestic violence/IP violence refuges. We believe that the only males who should be in these kinds of places are baby boys and very young boys who are with their mothers or other female carers (and cleaners, janitors, plumbers, construction workers, repairmen, maintenance workers when necessary,)
As for "your average trans person" - there's really no such thing. But over the past decade or so, the patients showing up at "youth gender clinics" in the USA and other Western countries seeking medical interventions such as "puberty blockers," cross-sex hormones and surgeries to remove healthy body parts have been predominantly teenage girls and young college-age women with a history of trauma such as CSA and a host of other mental and physical health problems including low self-esteem, very poor body-image, obesity, menstrual difficulties including dymenorrhea and PMDD, depression, anxiety, OCD, EDs and self-harm.
What's more, since the so-called "Dutch protocol" for "youth gender medicine" was first introduced in the Netherlands in the 1990s and was adopted and promoted in other countries starting around 2007-2010, a majority of the young people to get "gender affirming medical care" as minors that has left them unable to have normal sexual function, fulfilling sex lives or children of their own as adults are same-sex attracted (bisexual or homosexual).
This is patently false and a shameless attempt at shapeshifting. There are any number of posts where Verbosa has argued rabidly against bathroom access of their comfort for trans women, access to gender affirming care, and pretty much any societal privilege freely accorded to cis women. Heck, the bloke can’t even get himself to grant them the dignity of preferred pronouns. Dude suffers from irredeemable verbositis and transphobia.
You only see this kind of interaction on @gbnews. If @bbc, @itv and @Channel4 dared to allow their cult-immersed speakers to be confronted like this, we would soon be rid of the menace of gender identity indoctrination. https://t.co/R8TtrEHvkp
That bloke is a confident bullshǐtter, sort of like AI, but human, much more biased, with much less knowledge and reading comprehension, and afflicted by uncontrollable verbositis. He is also very petulant and takes everything on its hurt TERFy chin.
Why are you so obsessed with her?
I think the woman in the video below provides the answer at the end of her speech.
After blasting back at the male-supremacist agenda that blokes like prickle are trying to force the female half of the population to submit to even - or especially - against our will, she says:
"nothing enrages a misogynist more than a woman saying 'NO!' while insisting she knows her own mind."
It will never cease to amaze me how much oxygen this issue gets.
All the things to worry about in the world and somehow nothing gets people on both sides of the aisle fired up like the trans thing
It’s kind of impossible to be neutral about. Not only because the downstream effects that everyone talks about (the sports issue, bathrooms) but because the philosophy undergirding it is extremely novel, strange and more dangerous and radical than I think even many who are supportive of the trans cause realize.
Transgenderism relies on the idea that gender itself is a spectrum, not a binary (it kind of then contradicts the idea that there’s any significance in transitioning from one gender to the other, but there you have it). If this is true—that gender is this rainbow color spectrum and not the either/or of man or woman—then that is necessarily true for everybody, not just those who claim the trans label. It’s not just for sensitive blue-haired kids. It’s also for the Jimmy Stewarts and the Grace Kellys of the world. It means you. It means me. It means your kids and your parents and everyone you know.
If this is true, then that means that the transgender movement is something else entirely than your standard civil rights movement. “Women’s rights” depends on a stable and publicly-recognized category of “women.” “Gay rights” depends on the idea that some people are innately attracted to others of the same sex, which necessarily means that “sex” must be a given in nature, not merely a social construct. Transgenderism does away with that foundation. It has to. It’s the only way it can make any sense. It’s all a social construct.
It also means that, assuming that gender is known not from the clues given by the body (basically whether an individual has a potential to get pregnant, or alternatively, to get someone pregnant—contrary to gotcha claims about “intersex” people, there is no record of anyone in history who possesses BOTH of those potentialities), but that gender is only known through this innate, felt, entirely interior “sense” that can never be verified, questioned, or contradicted. Again, that cannot only be true for a small minority. It has to be true for everyone—”cis” included—or not true at all.
As I’ve said before, it’s not merely a matter of letting a marginalized group have their hard-won rights. It’s a deep suspicion of reality, of our bodies.
I think the woman in the video below provides the answer at the end of her speech.
After blasting back at the male-supremacist agenda that blokes like prickle are trying to force the female half of the population to submit to even - or especially - against our will, she says:
"nothing enrages a misogynist more than a woman saying 'NO!' while insisting she knows her own mind."
Ha ha ha ha, there goes Verbosa conflating his wannabe hurt feelings with those of all womankind.
I quite like strong-minded intelligent women and men, thank you. Just not Dunning Kruger chowderheads whose mouth is bigger than the logical abilities of their mind.
It provides a sliver of meaning to the lives of the white knight incels over here. The women they think they are fighting for don’t actually care as much about the issue though.
The coflounders are also transphobes and are complicit in rejigging this topic to generate traffic.
I’m a woman and I care. Not even primarily because of bathrooms and sports, although that’s egregious enough, and illustrates in a particularly obvious way the ludicrousness of the trans movement (see also the “trans widows” phenomenon, parents who have lost their children to the state for not complying with their “gender identity,” etc.), but because I care about the truth and falsity of the philosophy that undergirds this hideous postmodern hydra, the ugliness of which no amount of sanctimonious, meaningless bromides about “letting people live their truth,” and “let people be themselves” can hide.
I think the woman in the video below provides the answer at the end of her speech.
After blasting back at the male-supremacist agenda that blokes like prickle are trying to force the female half of the population to submit to even - or especially - against our will, she says:
"nothing enrages a misogynist more than a woman saying 'NO!' while insisting she knows her own mind."
Ha ha ha ha, there goes Verbosa conflating his wannabe hurt feelings with those of all womankind.
I quite like strong-minded intelligent women and men, thank you. Just not Dunning Kruger chowderheads whose mouth is bigger than the logical abilities of their mind.
Transgenderism relies on the idea that gender itself is a spectrum, not a binary (it kind of then contradicts the idea that there’s any significance in transitioning from one gender to the other, but there you have it). If this is true—that gender is this rainbow color spectrum and not the either/or of man or woman—then that is necessarily true for everybody, not just those who claim the trans label. It’s not just for sensitive blue-haired kids. It’s also for the Jimmy Stewarts and the Grace Kellys of the world. It means you. It means me. It means your kids and your parents and everyone you know.
I think this is a strawman argument. Saying that "there are shades of purple" is not the same as "red and blue do not exist. Everything is a shade of purple."
If our society were not built on the binary ideology, then people in the purple could stay there. But our society forces us to choose between blue and red. And some purple people end up picking the color that people already in camp red or camp blue would not want to welcome. But some in camp red say, "I don't want those people in our camp. But camp purple should not exist. Therefore, they should be put into camp blue." Wouldn't it be easier if we let them stay in camp purple so that they will not try to enter camp red?
I think this is a strawman argument. Saying that "there are shades of purple" is not the same as "red and blue do not exist. Everything is a shade of purple."
If our society were not built on the binary ideology, then people in the purple could stay there. But our society forces us to choose between blue and red. And some purple people end up picking the color that people already in camp red or camp blue would not want to welcome. But some in camp red say, "I don't want those people in our camp. But camp purple should not exist. Therefore, they should be put into camp blue." Wouldn't it be easier if we let them stay in camp purple so that they will not try to enter camp red?
This doesn’t work, for the simple reason that purple as a color exists (so does blue and green and red, etc) but because gender is actually not a spectrum (unlike colors), there is no third category (or fourth or fifth or hundredth). There really are only boys/men and girls/women. There is nothing beyond or between these two, not because society has constructed this binary either out of social necessity, or fear or ignorance or discomfort or whatever, but because nature has made it so. Not simply in the way we look, in the way we feel, but in what our procreative capacities are. Women have the potential to get pregnant, whether or not they ever actually do. Men have the potential to get someone pregnant, whether or not they actually do. The continuation of the human race is dependent on the sexual binary—not primarily in culture, but in nature, which is inescapable.
Even where it seems we have technologically surpassed this through IVF, it still requires the union of an egg and a sperm to create a new human.
I know, I know, what about intersex people? The word itself is misleading. “Intersex” is a name given to individuals (a very small fraction of the population), whose secondary sexual characteristics can make their sex appear ambiguous to varying degrees. It doesn’t follow that it is actually ambiguous. Only one can produce sperm. Only the other can produce eggs. There is no record in history of anyone able to produce both.
In short, transgenderism as an ideology depends on the idea that everything regarding sex and gender is socially constructed. The mechanics of procreation is not socially constructed. It is a given in nature.
I think this is a strawman argument. Saying that "there are shades of purple" is not the same as "red and blue do not exist. Everything is a shade of purple."
If our society were not built on the binary ideology, then people in the purple could stay there. But our society forces us to choose between blue and red. And some purple people end up picking the color that people already in camp red or camp blue would not want to welcome. But some in camp red say, "I don't want those people in our camp. But camp purple should not exist. Therefore, they should be put into camp blue." Wouldn't it be easier if we let them stay in camp purple so that they will not try to enter camp red?
This doesn’t work, for the simple reason that purple as a color exists (so does blue and green and red, etc) but because gender is actually not a spectrum (unlike colors), there is no third category (or fourth or fifth or hundredth). There really are only boys/men and girls/women. There is nothing beyond or between these two, not because society has constructed this binary either out of social necessity, or fear or ignorance or discomfort or whatever, but because nature has made it so. Not simply in the way we look, in the way we feel, but in what our procreative capacities are. Women have the potential to get pregnant, whether or not they ever actually do. Men have the potential to get someone pregnant, whether or not they actually do. The continuation of the human race is dependent on the sexual binary—not primarily in culture, but in nature, which is inescapable.
Even where it seems we have technologically surpassed this through IVF, it still requires the union of an egg and a sperm to create a new human.
I know, I know, what about intersex people? The word itself is misleading. “Intersex” is a name given to individuals (a very small fraction of the population), whose secondary sexual characteristics can make their sex appear ambiguous to varying degrees. It doesn’t follow that it is actually ambiguous. Only one can produce sperm. Only the other can produce eggs. There is no record in history of anyone able to produce both.
In short, transgenderism as an ideology depends on the idea that everything regarding sex and gender is socially constructed. The mechanics of procreation is not socially constructed. It is a given in nature.
I think if you go too far to the extreme, you lose your argument, unfortunately.
I mean, if you pretend the difficult cases do not exist, your argument winds up failing logically.
Intersex cases are rare, but unfortunately, they exist. People can grow up associating with a gender that is different from what you want to class as their biological sex--through no fault of their own! How can we blame the poor person who had no idea they had unexpected internal sex organs?
But people like to scream and yell about "wokeness" and run off-track...
So, if we are honest, it is obvious that there are complicated cases in the middle. But they are rare. And us people being who we are, it is uncomfortable to have large disturbances to our assumptions and traditions driven by increased awareness of these problems.
And I think it is fairly obvious that the whole issue of "gender dysphoria" is being applied in a MUCH broader way than just people who are physically intersex--WAY, WAY broader.
Should it be? That is a complicated question.
Should we handle the absolutely unavoidable gender dysphoria cases, arising from physically detectable causes in the same way as the apparently much more prevalent cases where it is... whatever it is... psychological?
I don’t believe that trans women should be in sports, not even primarily because of the fairness issue, but simply because trans women don’t exist. They are men who think they are women.
It’s not “fear” that causes me to think this, just agreement with reality.
You just admitted to trans women existing after declaring them nonexistent. You don’t seem to understand the difference between nonexistence and finding something personally unacceptable.
I think this is a strawman argument. Saying that "there are shades of purple" is not the same as "red and blue do not exist. Everything is a shade of purple."
If our society were not built on the binary ideology, then people in the purple could stay there. But our society forces us to choose between blue and red. And some purple people end up picking the color that people already in camp red or camp blue would not want to welcome. But some in camp red say, "I don't want those people in our camp. But camp purple should not exist. Therefore, they should be put into camp blue." Wouldn't it be easier if we let them stay in camp purple so that they will not try to enter camp red?
This doesn’t work, for the simple reason that purple as a color exists (so does blue and green and red, etc) but because gender is actually not a spectrum (unlike colors), there is no third category (or fourth or fifth or hundredth). There really are only boys/men and girls/women. There is nothing beyond or between these two, not because society has constructed this binary either out of social necessity, or fear or ignorance or discomfort or whatever, but because nature has made it so. Not simply in the way we look, in the way we feel, but in what our procreative capacities are. Women have the potential to get pregnant, whether or not they ever actually do. Men have the potential to get someone pregnant, whether or not they actually do. The continuation of the human race is dependent on the sexual binary—not primarily in culture, but in nature, which is inescapable.
Even where it seems we have technologically surpassed this through IVF, it still requires the union of an egg and a sperm to create a new human.
I know, I know, what about intersex people? The word itself is misleading. “Intersex” is a name given to individuals (a very small fraction of the population), whose secondary sexual characteristics can make their sex appear ambiguous to varying degrees. It doesn’t follow that it is actually ambiguous. Only one can produce sperm. Only the other can produce eggs. There is no record in history of anyone able to produce both.
In short, transgenderism as an ideology depends on the idea that everything regarding sex and gender is socially constructed. The mechanics of procreation is not socially constructed. It is a given in nature.
You seem to lack the logical ability to distinguish facts or definitions from your personal beliefs. Trans folk exist; you yourself are able to describe them with your uncharitable characterizations. Gender by definition is a spectrum. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in these statements. All this has already happened in the universe.
Transgenderism as well as sports have very little to do with reproduction. If athletics were a race to find the best mate on people were going to public bathrooms to reproduce, things would be different.
I think this is a strawman argument. Saying that "there are shades of purple" is not the same as "red and blue do not exist. Everything is a shade of purple."
If our society were not built on the binary ideology, then people in the purple could stay there. But our society forces us to choose between blue and red. And some purple people end up picking the color that people already in camp red or camp blue would not want to welcome. But some in camp red say, "I don't want those people in our camp. But camp purple should not exist. Therefore, they should be put into camp blue." Wouldn't it be easier if we let them stay in camp purple so that they will not try to enter camp red?
This doesn’t work, for the simple reason that purple as a color exists (so does blue and green and red, etc) but because gender is actually not a spectrum (unlike colors), there is no third category (or fourth or fifth or hundredth). There really are only boys/men and girls/women. There is nothing beyond or between these two, not because society has constructed this binary either out of social necessity, or fear or ignorance or discomfort or whatever, but because nature has made it so. Not simply in the way we look, in the way we feel, but in what our procreative capacities are. Women have the potential to get pregnant, whether or not they ever actually do. Men have the potential to get someone pregnant, whether or not they actually do. The continuation of the human race is dependent on the sexual binary—not primarily in culture, but in nature, which is inescapable.
Even where it seems we have technologically surpassed this through IVF, it still requires the union of an egg and a sperm to create a new human.
I know, I know, what about intersex people? The word itself is misleading. “Intersex” is a name given to individuals (a very small fraction of the population), whose secondary sexual characteristics can make their sex appear ambiguous to varying degrees. It doesn’t follow that it is actually ambiguous. Only one can produce sperm. Only the other can produce eggs. There is no record in history of anyone able to produce both.
In short, transgenderism as an ideology depends on the idea that everything regarding sex and gender is socially constructed. The mechanics of procreation is not socially constructed. It is a given in nature.
You may want to learn the difference between sex and gender. While sex is biologically defined, gender is essentially socially constructed.
In your different posts you are often mixing the two concepts, which makes your reasoning difficult to follow.
I think if you go too far to the extreme, you lose your argument, unfortunately.
I mean, if you pretend the difficult cases do not exist, your argument winds up failing logically.
Intersex cases are rare, but unfortunately, they exist. People can grow up associating with a gender that is different from what you want to class as their biological sex--through no fault of their own! How can we blame the poor person who had no idea they had unexpected internal sex organs?
But people like to scream and yell about "wokeness" and run off-track...
So, if we are honest, it is obvious that there are complicated cases in the middle. But they are rare. And us people being who we are, it is uncomfortable to have large disturbances to our assumptions and traditions driven by increased awareness of these problems.
And I think it is fairly obvious that the whole issue of "gender dysphoria" is being applied in a MUCH broader way than just people who are physically intersex--WAY, WAY broader.
Should it be? That is a complicated question.
Should we handle the absolutely unavoidable gender dysphoria cases, arising from physically detectable causes in the same way as the apparently much more prevalent cases where it is... whatever it is... psychological?
Read carefully what I wrote. “Intersex” people, despite the inaccurate label, are not people who are actually “between” the sexes. Depending on the type and severity of their specific condition, their secondary sex characteristics may appear ambiguous, especially in infancy. This appearance of ambiguity does not create a third category beyond or between male and female. A man with Klinefelter syndrome for instance, is still a man. Difficulty discerning a reality on the part of the observer does not change that reality.
The “complicated cases” become much clearer when you look at it from the standpoint of procreative potential (which gametes they produce—there are only 2 kinds!) of each person, and not secondary characteristics, much less dress, hair length, etc.
Nor do I believe it’s the “fault” of people who have these conditions that they do. Of course it’s not their fault, no more than someone who has any other genetic disorder.
As for the case of “gender dysphoria”—of course that’s a real thing. It describes people who, for whatever reason, do not feel “on the inside” aligned with their sex “on the outside.” The prefix “dys-“ here is appropriate, as it accurately implies the mismatch between the inner and the outer. However, it does not follow that the “inner” actually overrides the reality of the “outer.” It means that what the person feels is not accurate to to the objective reality. This does not in any way imply that such a feeling/experience is somehow the “fault” of that person.
As for the idea that we resist these “complicated cases” because they disrupt our traditions and cultural expectations, etc, sex is a properly rooted in nature, not attached to any particular tradition or culture, and is thus not lost, or destroyed, or escaped from, when and if a culture dies. You cannot escape nature.
You just admitted to trans women existing after declaring them nonexistent. You don’t seem to understand the difference between nonexistence and finding something personally unacceptable.
“Trans women” do not exist. They are men who think they are women. Whether or not I find this phenomenon personally acceptable or not is a secondary concern.
You seem to lack the logical ability to distinguish facts or definitions from your personal beliefs. Trans folk exist; you yourself are able to describe them with your uncharitable characterizations. Gender by definition is a spectrum. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in these statements. All this has already happened in the universe.
Transgenderism as well as sports have very little to do with reproduction. If athletics were a race to find the best mate on people were going to public bathrooms to reproduce, things would be different.
Gender is not, by definition, a spectrum. The notion of gender being a spectrum is an idea that transgenderism needs as philosophical basis. The intellectual origins of the idea, as much as it is unquestionable dogma to its adherents, is novel and hardly ironclad.
Read carefully what I wrote. “Intersex” people, despite the inaccurate label, are not people who are actually “between” the sexes. Depending on the type and severity of their specific condition, their secondary sex characteristics may appear ambiguous, especially in infancy. This appearance of ambiguity does not create a third category beyond or between male and female. A man with Klinefelter syndrome for instance, is still a man. Difficulty discerning a reality on the part of the observer does not change that reality.
The “complicated cases” become much clearer when you look at it from the standpoint of procreative potential (which gametes they produce—there are only 2 kinds!) of each person, and not secondary characteristics, much less dress, hair length, etc.
Nor do I believe it’s the “fault” of people who have these conditions that they do. Of course it’s not their fault, no more than someone who has any other genetic disorder.
As for the case of “gender dysphoria”—of course that’s a real thing. It describes people who, for whatever reason, do not feel “on the inside” aligned with their sex “on the outside.” The prefix “dys-“ here is appropriate, as it accurately implies the mismatch between the inner and the outer. However, it does not follow that the “inner” actually overrides the reality of the “outer.” It means that what the person feels is not accurate to to the objective reality. This does not in any way imply that such a feeling/experience is somehow the “fault” of that person.
As for the idea that we resist these “complicated cases” because they disrupt our traditions and cultural expectations, etc, sex is a properly rooted in nature, not attached to any particular tradition or culture, and is thus not lost, or destroyed, or escaped from, when and if a culture dies. You cannot escape nature.
I think this is a regressive world view. It is also misogynistic to reduce women to being baby making machines. It is even misandristic to reduce men to sperm spreading machines.
Human specie would not survive if no one procreated. That does not mean procreation is the most important function for every person. It does not mean those who cannot or do not procreate lead inferior life. We are all parr of natural variation as a specie. We all have our place in this universe, whether we are straight or gay, endosex or intersex, cis or trans, or whatever else.
You just admitted to trans women existing after declaring them nonexistent. You don’t seem to understand the difference between nonexistence and finding something personally unacceptable.
Where did I admit to “trans women” existing? I said that “if the gender spectrum idea” on which transgenderism is based is true, then everyone is on that spectrum. I don’t think that it’s true that gender is on a spectrum.
I think this is a regressive world view. It is also misogynistic to reduce women to being baby making machines. It is even misandristic to reduce men to sperm spreading machines.
Human specie would not survive if no one procreated. That does not mean procreation is the most important function for every person. It does not mean those who cannot or do not procreate lead inferior life. We are all parr of natural variation as a specie. We all have our place in this universe, whether we are straight or gay, endosex or intersex, cis or trans, or whatever else.
I never said that procreation was something everybody “should” do. I said that procreation is something everyone can *potentially* do. There was no normative words in my post.
I am merely describing what is, whether we like it or not, whether we try to run from it or not, whether we live in a society or culture that chooses to align with it or not.
Read carefully what I wrote. “Intersex” people, despite the inaccurate label, are not people who are actually “between” the sexes. Depending on the type and severity of their specific condition, secondary sex characteristics may appear ambiguous, especially in infancy.
You may also want to learn what “secondary sex characteristics” are. Typical secondary sex characteristics such as enlarged breasts in female or Adam’s apple in males do not appear before puberty.
You may also want to learn what “secondary sex characteristics” are. Typical secondary sex characteristics such as enlarged breasts in female or Adam’s apple in males do not appear before puberty.
Yes, you are correct in pointing out my typo. A genetic disorder that may cause the secondary sex characteristics to appear abnormal once puberty hits, or the genitals which are seen at birth and can be difficult to discern, or that do not square with prenatal testing (like in the case of Alicia Roth Weigel), nonetheless do not make someone a person who exists “between sexes,” since that person will only ever be able to produce eggs OR sperm. Not both.
The age at which this difficulty to discern arises (whether in infancy or puberty, or both) does not change the fact that one is either one or the other.