As deplorable as all of this is, are you going to deny that, for example, Ash Sarkar isn’t subjected to the exact same?
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
You do know that trans women are subjected to exactly the same, right? It's vile regardless of who it's done to. But, what I described is the current tactic deployed by the American right against LGBQTIA+ people as a whole, while what you're describing are the actions of a minority. The fact that you're trying to handwave away the literal politics of a major party by referring to the actions of a small group of shitty idiots says a lot about you. As does the rest of your post. Try to be less of a vile person.
Well, the TRA position is that gender is a social construct and simultaneously, people are born transgender.. If you're born transgender, gender is surely biological, not a social construct? If by their own admission, gender does not exist outside of social and cultural influence, of which a new born baby has never experienced, then how could a baby have been born transgender? Going even further, presumably a baby still in the womb at 9 months is transgender? Even though gender is a social construct. That's kind of the issue with gender ideology, it's full of logical fallacies and contradictions. If gender is a social construct, you open yourself up to the idea that transgenderism has a social contagion aspect to it, which they would never want to acknowledge.
It doesn't really matter whether you think the difference in men or women's behaviour is biological or socially influenced, or both. The point is "terfs" don't want womanhood to be defined by stereotypes of femininity. They don't want a certain behaviour to be considered inherently female, a certain role in society be inherently female, because it reinforces stereotypical gender roles and makes them to defining aspects of womanhood. The whole point of identity in the first place was uniqueness and exclusiveness, of which biological sex achieves. There is nothing inherently unique to males or females about social aspects of being "feminine" or "masculine", it's simply more common in one or the other. If gender is a social construct imposed on us by the patriarchy, why would we want to reinforce it by making it a form of identity, and even more, our primary form of identity?
The fact you're as hard left as they come and you're still sitting on the fence around this surely tells you something about your true feelings on the issue?
And as for "Terfs" being right-wing adjacent and therefore not credible. The irony is if you disregard a radical feminists opinion because it happens to be shared by the "right wing", you then have to acknowledge that the left shares 95% of their political views with radfems. Does the left want to acknowledge that they agree on almost every political point with the hateful bigots that are radfems? What does that say about their credibility that they're aligning themselves with radfems on almost every issue (with the exception of gender ideology)?
Pogue is as hard left as they come?
Always knew he was a commie.
Is this the reverse of when Sweet Square was called an apolitical centrist?
But it's only the "Terfs" that are labelled as a hate-group. Feminists receiving thousands upon thousands of death threats and rape threats is simply seen a collateral damage, but it's "Terfs" who are seen as the dangerous and hateful ones.
You're trying to paint this issue as good vs evil when it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The fact is women are being intimidated and threatened for wanting to protect sex-segregated spaces and sports. And it is widespread, any woman involved in the community will tell you of the doxxing and daily threats and intimidation they face, and as you seen in the Manchester protest the other week, the intimidation spills over into real life.
The majority of violent threats towards trans people of course come from males, not radfems. Which ironically is kind of the point.
If we accept that there's poor behaviour on both sides then we'd actually have to argue the merits of gender ideology rather than dismiss these women as "tefs" and "bigots", which of course they don't want to do. They want women to shut up and be silent because it's easier.
You talk about taking away rights. That's exactly what the radfems who are being threatened and intimidated daily feel is happening to them. In many places they have lost their right to single-sex communal changing rooms, single-sex prisons, single-sex sports, the right to use a term that means same-sex attraction. They are fighting for what they believe should be their rights. Your attempts to claim one side is "the whole right wing" and the other "just a few idiots" is incredibly disingenuous. Radfems will claim the left's policies of their major parties are infringing on their rights, and they have all experienced persecution, stirring up hatred, and taking away rights from people the left. Maybe misogynists like yourself should be more concerned about supporting legislation to protect biological women rather than biological males?
Last edited:
Leaving aside everything else you've said here, I've long thought this was an excellent point and seems to me like a fundamental flaw in the trans-rights movement. In my mind, the goal is for everyone to be able to act/present however 'masculine' or 'feminine' they want, and the problem is that gender implicates how one is supposed to act, and gender norms generally get placed upon people based on their biological sex. But I feel like the way to solve the problem and reach the goal is not to create numerous new gender identities, but rather to work towards eliminate the importance society places on the construct of gender. Creating new gender identities seems to actually reinforce traditional societal gender norms - the need for people to redefine their own gender identities simply increases the perceived importance of gender roles in society, when really I think the goal should be eliminating all conceptions of gender norms and just let people act/be how they want to act/be.
To summarize, I think the way to go is disconnecting gender norms from biological sex and not forcing a biological 'male' or 'female' to feel the need to conform to their 'standard' gender identity or to redefine their gender identity. Eliminating the societal pressure for 'men' to be 'masculine' and 'women' to be 'feminine' seems like the ultimate end goal to me.
TRA's I believe have at least partly realised this flaw in the ideology in that they are reducing womanhood to a bunch of stereotypes. In reaction to this a lot of them have tried to disconnect gender identity from gender itself.
You would think gender identity would be identifying yourself as a woman in relation to social expectations and constructs that surround being female (or something along those lines). That kind of works as a definition, but it begs the question why we would have womanhood defined by social and cultural stereotypes, it's incredibly offensive. So woman has been re-defined to "a woman is simply anyone who identifies as a woman". Of course, this is circular logic and has absolutely no meaning. This circular non-definition is ideal for gender ideologues because with it you can't claim they're denying biology, and can't claim they're perpetuating stereotypical gender roles. But it also means we're all using a term that ultimately has no meaning.
It's also worth noting we have social and cultural influences surrounding all of our biological and objective forms of identity. Society doesn't expect a 5 year old and 80 year to dress the same, behave the same, fulfil the same societal roles, have the same interests. That doesn't mean we need a gender-equivalent term to describe the social aspects of being old/young that is separate from age because some people are non-conforming. Same can be said for species or race.
Last edited:
1. You gave only a qualified answer to the question, with a qualification that has nothing to do with the question itself. In any case there are no lesbian groups that I know of that don't recognise or acknowledge at least some rights of trans people - e.g. the the right to be treated courteously, just like anybody else. So your position seems to be that they are part of a "hate" group unless they accept every last bit of the absolutist form of trans-ideology, including the magical thinking that self-chosen gender identity renders irrelevant all genetic, physiological and life-experience aspects of womanhood.
2. If - as you say - society has the right to enforce that everyone must believe in all aspects each person's self-chosen gender identification - including that they are literally that gender, with no ifs or buts - then you are advocating for an absurd totalitarian state, one based on a magical thinking that ignores genetics, physiology and life-experience as a particular sex. And if a person who was born male, later self-identifies as female, and then later still self-identifies back to male, your proposed society-wide enforcement of beliefs becomes all the more absurd.
3. So without your admitting it, your answer to this question is "no" - all transwomen are not literally women in every single way that non-transwomen are women. But this latter proposition - that transwomen are literally women in every single way that non-transwomen are women - is part of the absolutist form of trans-ideology that I've been talking about. Moreover, it's not just about the genetic composition that you mention. It's also about physiology and life-experience as a particular sex.
Spurs love and a binary dealer to boot. Life as Gaston sucks ass.
Good post.
I'm heading to the memes thread, I hope someone has posted pogue as stalin by now.
Edit: it's che, fair enough, not sure if hard left enough, but ok.
Edit: it's che, fair enough, not sure if hard left enough, but ok.
Go do one, yeah?
That immediately came to mind to me.
People like that work off a script, they always do. About a year ago it was "we have to look at this issue from the perspective of lesbians, because when men talk about this issue they're automatically labeled as transphobic", even though he was entering a thread that had been going for loads of pages without that happening, and was also talking about how labeling people as -phobic is just shutting down discussion. Then, recently the tactic changed. He was going off in the Ricky Gervais thread because people were making fun of Gervais for being an unoriginal bore, calling people misogynists and lesbophobics left and right, if I remember correctly he even worked racism in. A completly new tactic and change of pace, not because of evolving views but because it suited the way to push his agenda.
It's the exact same song and dance when it comes to the actual topic, not just the rhetoric. Prime example is the social construction talk. Something being a social construct doesn't mean that it can't be influenced by biology, so someone saying that gender is a social construct isn't claiming that gender identity has nothing to do with one's genetic makeup. For someone not familiar this is an easy and understandable mistake to make, but for someone steeped in the issue it's a transparent lie for ideological purposes. Guy is talking about how "TRAs" are confused because they say both that gender is a social construct and that being trans is not a choice, but similarly biologists will agree that race is a social construct. The equivalent claim is that you can't both claim that race is a social construct and that people are born with skin colour, which is just moronic.
Pogue is what now?
Of course. You immediately resorted to calling me a "vile person" and when the script was flipped you don't like it.
Just stop, and go care about something that actually matters
Think someones been watching too much Jordan Peterson
This is complete rubbish. Society and social relations - and thus social constructs - existed long before genetics was even a part of scientific knowledge.
Moreover (from Wiki):
"Social constructionism ... asserts that reality exists as the summation of social perceptions and expression; and that the reality which is perceived is the only reality worth consideration. .... social constructionism rejects the notion that empirical facts can be known about reality ..." (my emphasis)
Genetic makeup is an empirical fact, proven beyond doubt by science. However, social constructivism rejects empirical facts. Hence its proponents within trans-ideology try to lead us down the rabbit hole of magical thinking, where merely self-identifying as a different sex to that recorded at birth somehow transforms a person - literally, in every sense, according to the absolutist version of trans-ideology - into being that different sex .... and anyone who dares to question this is accused of hate speech.
Last edited:
Because taking a fringe, minority view and presenting it as a mainstream idea on the left to counter the very real fact that a huge chunk of the American political establishment is waging open war on LGBQTIA+ people, whit a specific focus on trans people, is something a vile person would do.
Meanwhile, you won't find an instance of me being a misogynist.
Perfect
Once again, I love that you're on this particular side, Glaston. Please never stop posting, it's only a matter of time until you convert the whole world into "trans-ideology absolutists".
The Wikipedia article you're quoting is claiming that "social constructionism" emerged as a rejection to Ayn Rand and her objectivism. This is crazy on so many levels. First of all you're taking the concept of a social construct and making it into a movement, and then, to top it all of, you're saying it's a response to Ayn fecking Rand! This is the stupidest thing you've ever done on Redcafe, and that is saying a lot because you're you! Ayn Rand! The article then jumps to ... Steven Pinker! What on earth are you doing?
I know that you're you, and that this comes with some serious challenges, but come on. Even you, with all that means, cannot possibly believe that this is in any way related to Ayn Rand.
Last edited:
If you disagree with the definition of social constructivism given by Wiki, then take it up with the editors of Wiki. I'm sure they'll be interested in your objection to their definition, especially when you explain that you don't like it because it blows apart your claim that social constructs take full account of scientific facts like those concerning genetic make-up and biology.
Harry Potter is a classic though in fairness
You're saying that it's a response to Ayn Rand. Listen to yourself. You don't believe what you're saying, you cannot possibly. How do you even propose that this happened?
Just because you place so much trust in Wikipedia, here is what Wikipedia has to say about your article:
You also want me to take it up with Wikipedia editors. Do you want me to quote editors from the talk page? Before you reply, remember that you're relying on Wikipedia editors being authorities for your absolute bonkers claim that Ayn Rand is in any way involved here. If you disregard the quotes I will post then you're undermining what you've just said. Read this sentence again, just in case, because you have to understand.
Last edited:
I sure wish my professors in college placed the same faith in the academic authority of Wiki's editors, would make citations much easier.
Imagine being so obstinate that you find yourself making arguments that even you know are clearly nonsense, just to avoid having to admit you might have been talking out of your arse.
Well, that's expected from someone who's spent his life trolling on this site.
They aren't though. It's a delusional position to argue this. People who argue this aren't doing so within reason but because of sympathy for someone who has this belief. They don't believe it themselves and typically would never value a trans woman over an actual woman as a potential partner despite their virtue signalling.
Corrected that for you there buddy!
What's the definition of the word 'woman'? Maybe that'll clear up some things.
I think he's actually an Earl or Duke.
pretty sure Glaston has regurgitated every stock terf argument, and worse, done so as if he's bringing unique insight to the conversation.
Last edited:
Great post.