Nobody is doing that.
Bullshit I did. To do so would need a specific act of will on my part and I did no such thing. I explained those point in a previous post to you and people are free to read the exchange and decide for themselves. If you’ve taken it that way there is little I can do about it now other than state categorically that it was not my intention.
What I gave was an opinion on the hardening position of Stonewall, that I think that it is unhelpful and that reasonable dissenting opinions are being targeted as hate speech. That is something that I have experienced outside of this article and outside of that thread.
As I said, my experience and exposure to Stonewall goes beyond this article or this subject.
Are you sure that there are no biological women arguing that? On the contrary I would say that it is a very mainstream idea and one that is enshrined in law fairly widely.
That was the whole point of my original comments in the Stonewall thread.
Any dissention from wholesale acceptance of their position risks attracting the accusation of bigotry and transphobia. Even when by any reasonably objective standard none exists.
The net is cast so wide and the terms used so loosely that there is only one course of action that will save people from it.
Are you sure? Do we have widespread laws that specify privacy due to biological sex, with them written to specify that? Or do we have laws regarding “men and women” that some assume apply to biology rather than gender? I’m not a legal expert but I do not recall ever hearing of laws being specific about biology, and after a cursory search I haven’t found any. (Though that might be my failing.)
You may well be correct about the specific wording of the laws, It is probably the case that Men/Women/Male/Female are defined in wooly and ambiguous ways or with the rather older assumption that women/man means “biological female/male”.
But I’m sure that there are plenty of biological females who do seek to have a spaces that are free of biological males, prisons, rape centres, sports etc.
Fair enough.
Yes, of course there are. The question is threefold:
- Does the benefit to those ciswomen of excluding transwomen from those spaces outweigh the harm to transwomen?
- Do the enforcement provisions have ugly side-effects (e.g., “feminine-appearing” ciswomen will have a free pass, whereas “masculine-appearing” ciswomen will get harrassed), and if so, are those outweighed by the benefits?
Both of those matters can be discussed, IMO, without opponents being bigots, even though we’re discussing whether the discrimination is warranted.
- Are the arguments marshalled in favor of these discriminatory policies themselves bigoted? (“There was this one transwoman once who attacked ciswomen in a prison! TRANSWOMEN ARE PREDATORS!!!”) This is the place where it usually falls down. In the article the bigot DemonTree started her latest trashfire of a thread with, the author deliberately misgenders transwomen (“Men who self-identify as women”), and that’s some bigoted shit right there.
FWIW, I’ve yet to see a compelling argument for prioritizing biological sex over gender identity in almost any socially-constructed places. At best, there may be a place for a specific combination of biological and gender: a space specifically for transwomen to connect with one another, for example. But just as a Black student center can make sense when a White student center doesn’t, just as Gay Pride is a reasonable parade whereas Straight Pride is not, I’m not super convinced by calls for a space specifically for cismen or ciswomen.
No, you did not explain anything. I quoted the one explanation you gave, where you made a factually untrue claim that the two claims were unconnected. I showed that to be incorrect, as they were part of the same comment chain. You were replying to someone who replied to you. That means your comments were connected. Q.E. fucking D.
People know how conversations work. LHOD claimed something was transphobic. You asked “what’s transphobic about __.” There is only one possible interpretation of that, and that is that you were claiming he said ___.
Now you have changed your claim again. Before, you claimed you were talking about what Stonewall did. Now all of the sudden you claim is that you’ve heard these things from elsewhere. You changed your claim once it was shown to be wrong, rather than admit that you were incorrect. That is dishonest.
Talking about what some random people said instead of what Stonewall said doesn’t even make sense in that thread. The topic was whether Stonewall’s approach was a valid one. And that is what you claimed you were talking about—over and over.
I don’t get it. All you would have had to do is say “I’m sorry. I misunderstood what Stonewall said.” Or say “Oops, I guess that wasn’t LHOD’s point.” But, no. You’d rather pretend that you were really saying something else all along.
Nothing makes me madder than seeing this shit. It’s insulting to the intelligence of others when you try these clear disingenuous tactics. It’s like you think we’re too stupid to be able to look at what you said before and look at what you are saying now, and see that they are not possibly the same thing.
The thread was about what Stonewall said. You claimed they said something they didn’t. LHOD argued with you. You claimed he said something didn’t. I argued with you, and you pretend you said something you didn’t. It’s just ridiculous.
And you’re on track to getting the original thread shut with lies like claiming anyone at any point in that thread said:
I was honestly expecting you to be kicked out of the thread for taking it beyond what the mod said was the allowed topic.
The irony is that I actually thought there was a valid topic of discussion there, but I can’t stand discussing important topics with those who want to pull this bullshit. That’s why I created this thread.
Would it help to clarify things If I suggest that my second post could be made clearer by my adding the word “also” to the following sentence
What transphobia is present in the concept of biological sex being something distinct from gender identity? That seems to be entirely uncontroversial and yet also somehow worthy of condemnation and labelling as “hate speech”.
I thought that it was clear from the context and the flow of the conversation but do you see now what I was saying?
I never claimed anyone said those words. They were part of a clearly fabricated conversation that was prefaced by calling it a “no true scotsman scenario” how much clearer do you need it to be?
here it is in full context
It is a no true Scotsman scenario.
“we won’t engage with bigots”
***“OK, lets hear your proposals”
“here are our proposals”
***“I have some reservations about your proposals”
“Only a bigot would refuse to agree with us fully”
***“But I disagree with some aspects of your proposals and I’m not a bigot”
“bigot! we will not engage with your hate speech”
Under no circumstances could anyone mistake that as an attempt to report actual speech within the thread.
Even worse, when LHOD states that no-one in the thread said that, what was my response? Why here it is
That is my impression of the position that Stonewall seem to be taking
Again, how much clearer do you need it?
Would you care to retract your “lies” accusation? Or are you standing by your assertion that I purposefully created that conversation scenario as a serious attempt at representing an actual quote by a poster in the thread? Does not the preface and the follow-up make things crystal clear?
still might happen. Novelty Bubble is posting outside of the guidelines more than any other poster in the thread.
To the best of my knowledge I have stayed on topic as much as any other poster in that thread. I have certainly tried to. If that were not the case I’d expect to get some guidance or a direct note from a moderator, is that not how it works?
The term “transgender” literally means “having a gender identity not matching the identity assigned to one at birth.” Birth gender identities almost always correspond to biological sex. Using the term “transgender” recognizes that biological sex is something distinct from gender identity. And all that is aside from the fact that nonhuman animals and plants have biological sex.
No trans activist I’ve ever encountered, online or offline, directly or indirectly, has ever claimed that there’s no difference between gender identity and biological sex. It’s an absurd idea, and I think you’ll find, if you go looking for it, that it doesn’t exist, or else exists in a truly minuscule number of people.
Well, this post
If we are agreeing to disagree here (please) you need to accept that most posters in this thread believe it is transphobic to exclude trans women from most places meant for women. And they will, of course, look at the policy from that perspective
Was a direct response to you (although Discourse obscures that.)
But i should apologize, you’ve been careful since that note. So, sorry for vaguely threatening you here.
Meanwhile DemonTree keeps showing her hand, trying to expand the thread back into a discussion of how awful those terrible trans activists are.
A situation where biological sex matters greatly is in medicine. I can’t see anyone who is transgender walking in and insisting that their gender identity is their biological sex, and expecting a medical professional to assume that for diagnosis and treatment.
Although they often don’t have exactly the response that’s typical of their sex assigned at birth, either. Trans status is important in medical treatment.
Right: this article talks about care questions, and how transgender patients are fine with telling health care providers what gender they were assigned at birth. (And most cisgender patients are also).
Not a problem, I didn’t realise that was directed at me. I know you have an almost impossible job in threads like that and I don’t wish to make it any harder. I’ll bow out of it now.
Ah, that’s the classic “the argument must be bogus because it’s used so often”. See forth: the problem of evil.