So … yes?
GHWB = great humor whooshing by 
It does refer to Bush the Elder - another poster earlier typed “JFK” instead of “JFC” and a few of us were riffing off that.
JCC, that’s already been explained!
JQA, that’s what I get for not reading the thread all the way through before posting.
Wow, seems like I really touched a nerve. Apparently, progressive white racists are really sensitive about their racism. It never dawns on them to stop being racist.
Well, enjoy your circle jerk.
I thought you left. Did it bother you that people started talking about DemonTree instead of you?
Trolls need attention. It’s why they exist. If they don’t get it, they will either throw around more shit in an attempt to draw it, or get bored and leave. I suppose we’d hoped for the latter but ended up with the former.
You know what else really touched a nerve? The poison ivy oil that I brushed up against a few days ago and that’s given me a nasty rash on my shin.
In your defense, you’re nowhere near as irritating as that poison ivy. It its defense, it’s far better at constructing a cogent, evidence-based argument than you.
I’m not white you willful racist ignorant wolf humper.
Does that remind you of your crackhead days?
Well, that is what racist trolls like you intend, so…good job, you?
Yeah, your pathological insistence that your opponents are White is part of that insecurity I mentioned before.
That, or the senility is kicking in again, since more than one of us has mentioned being PoC.
I’ll stop right after I stop beating my wife.
Oh, somehow I don’t think we were the ones fapping … at least at the start of this.
Now that your open racism is more common knowledge, I somehow doubt you’ve retained the required rigour, though.
It’s pigeon chess, man. Just wipe the shit off the board and keep playing without him.
Concern troll is concern trolling.
As I’ve said in other posts, this thread wasn’t intended to just for the two specific posters I’ve mentioned in the title. I’ve encountered another disingenuous post on the topic from someone else. I’m not yet sure the poster is bigoted, but I am restricted from responding in that thread.
That’s not what you argued. This is what you said:
This is you arguing that it should be okay for trans women to be discriminated against and excluded from groups made up of “biological women,” not merely asserting that that there is a difference between sex and gender identity.
It is disingenuous to pretend you argued one thing when you actually argued another. Even worse, it’s exactly the tactic that gender critical feminists use: they pretend they are just arguing that “sex is real,” but the reality is that they are arguing for discrimination. These are two different arguments.
Remember, those are the subject. Stonewall was attacking gender critical feminists. They may say they’re only arguing that “sex is real,” but what they actually argue is that trans women don’t count as women, and that trans men are just brainwashed women. They exclude both trans women and anyone who looks male from their spaces. They only want ciswomen there.
That is what Stonewall likened to antisemitism. We have members of a majority (cis women) asserting that a minority who has never harmed them (trans women) is some sort of threat, and wanting to be “safe” by excluding them. That’s not okay, any more than having a “Gentiles only” group would be okay as a “safe space” from Jewish people.
The debate is not whether or not sex and gender identity are the same thing. It is whether or not it is acceptable to discriminate against women for being trans. Trying to pretend one is the same thing as the other is disingenuous. Please do not continue making that argument.
[edit: nevermind, hilarious typo fixed]
Huh. I edited mine as soon as you edited yours. Figured you’d TCoB similarly.
I said both things and I stand by both things, no pretence or disingenuous intent on my part at all. They were two comments in two different posts and referring to two different levels of commentary that attracted the same level of response and condemnation from Stonewall.
I suspect you simply don’t like the fact that I don’t fully subscribe to Stonewall’s position. (I’m sure they’d call me a transphobe for having even the mildest of reservations on their approach)
I do think biological sex and gender are different things,
do you?
I also think there are circumstances where biological females might have a reasonable expectation to maintain boundaries for certain single-sex areas.
do you?
Stonewall’s push for simple self-identification as being sufficient for access to any single-sex area seems something that it should be possible to argue against without being labelled a transphobe or being compared to an anti-semite. If not, well the terms end up meaningless.
One question for you.
Do you think that there should be any spaces ring-fenced on the basis of biological sex?
“If I’m included in a term for bigotry, I’ll respond by declaring the term meaningless, that way I don’t have to wonder if I’m adopting a bigoted position” is a classic defensive maneuver. Well played.
No. This is being disingenuous again. These were not completely unconnected posts, but a reply to a poster who was talking about your previous post. Here is the entire conversation thread.
Click to read quoted posts
You pretended that LHOD had said that “the concept of biological sex being something distinct from gender identity” is transphobic. He never said anything like that. He replied to your post, which was saying discrimination against trans women is okay in “biological female” spaces.
You are, as you were told in the thread (and in my post), wrong about what Stonewall said. They attacked gender critical feminists, aka trans exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, for being transphobic, and said that their transphobia was equivalent to antisemitism.
At no point has anyone claimed that “the concept of biological sex being something distinct from gender identity” is transphobic. By arguing that, you were creating a strawman—a classic disingenuous argument tactic.
Neither is anyone actually arguing that “biological women” need a space separate from “biological men.” You don’t see any of these groups arguing that both cis women and trans men should be able to exclude cis men and trans women. As I pointed out ,GCFs exclude trans men as well, because they refuse to accept that they are men in any sense.
GCFs are themselves being disingenuous when they claim their argument is about “sex is real” or “wanting a safe space for biological women.” They were condemned for what they actually do.
The KKK of transphobia were condemned. They tried disingenuous arguments, and were condemned again. There is nothing wrong with that.
And If I widen the term “bigot” to include anyone who doesn’t hold the same opinion as me I can discount any dissenting position as bigoted and so avoid having to engage in the substance of any argument.
That’s the classic defensive maneuver of the intellectually incurious everywhere. You’ve saved yourself a lot of time there