Nope. I give up. You have no interest in debating at all. I talk about the impact of pregnancy when it comes to sports and you accuse me of being “creepy” and talk about the “constant policing of women’s bodies,” completely ignoring what I said. Do you acknowledge that pregnancy and periods make a difference in sports? I kinda thought that should be something everyone would agree on, TBH - I put it out there as something we all know has an effect, though many men don’t understand how much. But no. I’m creepy and trying to control women.
And then you do your usual quotemaggedon thing.
You just want to hear your own voice. Hope the echo is tuneful.
You could have just said that transgender women don’t have to deal with pregnancy nor periods. But you went well beyond that. I’ll let your posts speak for themselves.
I think you are the third person in this thread to say “I kinda thought that should be something everyone would agree on”, which kinda misses the point.
I don’t think you are creepy. But those posts I quoted? I think they were creepy.
Do you know whose voices I would much rather hear than my own?
The voices of transgender people.
I miss Una. I miss her passion, her dedication to fighting ignorance. I hardly ever spoke to her while she was here and I wish that I did. I wish that I had been more vocal on this issue years ago. I can see why they don’t want to be here. And if you think debating with me is a frustrating experience imagine how frustrating and infuriating it would be for them to try and debate their very existence with people who really just didn’t care.
I don’t want to be here. This isn’t about me. I’ve said I’m not an expert. In real life I muddle through these issues doing the best that I can. Imagine what an echo chamber this thread would be if people didn’t decide to argue with me.
I don’t think most people would agree that the posts you quoted were creepy. I don’t think Una would call them creepy. I was talking about how pregnancy and periods can affect performance in sports, and I didn’t go into detail about anything to do with periods or pregnancy.
Please report me if you think I’m “creepy” because that’s a reportable level of behaviour.
It looks like male privilege manifested through trans advocacy. Because their reality is different than ours, men can shrug off biology as no big deal. Or sit back and smugly demand for the obvious to be cited. Sex characteristics don’t make them weaker or vulnerable, and biology doesn’t mark them as a target for predation. Biological female women can’t “identify out” of this reality, and this is why biology matters. Shrugging this of is impossible for us.
You’d think we could get even a nominal “yeah, I see what you’re saying. Testosterone does give an edge that can’t be swept under the rug.” But nope. Much easier to be dismissive than acknowledge that sexual dimorphism exists and that identifying as a certain gender doesn’t magically erase that dimorphism.
I appreciate you speaking up. This is not the time for trans-supportive women to be shamed into be silence out of fear of being call transphobic. Discussions like this are useful before it’s shining light on beliefs and attitudes that might otherwise have flown under the radar or given the benefit of the doubt. The blog that monstro cited was an informative take on trans women in sports. It’s a good read for anyone who questions whether this a valid issue to be concerned about.
Apparently it is verboten for us to even talk about the fundamental differences in biology between cis and transwomen because doing so is inherently creepy (creepy to who? The same demographic that always goes “ew gross!” whenever ciswomen discuss their body functions in front of them? HOW FUCKING SURPRISING THAT IS!)
I can endure some mansplaining, but some dude downplaying the importance of periods and pregnancy by calling these things “creepy”, even though they are signature experiences in most woman’s lives, is just too fucking much.
Your post reminded me of this excellent Always commercial.
Women are dying. Black people are dying. Children are dying. Transgendered people are dying.
What does dying have to do what the logic in dismissing biology? It’s an attempt to distract and derail using emotional manipulation. No one doubts that transgendered people are suffering. He’s answering a question that no one is asking.
Do you agree that rates of death from causes like suicide and murder are more significant than actual numbers? Do you agree that suicide and murder kill far more trans people, proportionately, than they kill cis women, cis black people, and cis children?
“Red herring” is a logical fallacy. It is used to describe an irrelevant, often provocative piece of information that is thrown out to divert a discussion from the original question. An appeal to emotion is a kind of a red herring fallacy. I would consider “THEY ARE DYING!!” to be an appeal to emotion.
Yes, transwomen have a higher risk of being killed than ciswomen. But this fact is not relevant to a discussion focused on whether they interchangeable with ciswomen in terms of biology, socialization, and experience. The transwomen death rate is completely irrelevant to whether the differences between cis and transwomen are as negligible as Banquet Bear seems to think they are.
It’s obvious to me he keeps throwing out “THEY ARE DYING!!” to steer the conversation to something that no one here would dare argue against. That is some bullshit, and you with the face is right to call him out.
I’m sorry, have your forgotten the question: “Transgender activists are fighting for what?” Banquet Bear’s answer is to that question *you *asked- they are fighting to stay alive.
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones (“argument from passion”) is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions in order to win an argument,** especially in the absence of factual evidence**
The demographic with one of the highest suicide rate in the country right now is white men over the age of 65. If we were debating whether white men have a different set of life experiences than Southeast Asian women do in terms of socialization, opportunities, and outlook, would you see the relevance of someone bringing up the former’s higher suicide rate?
Because it would be hard for me to not see that as an attempt to be intentionally provocative so that the reasonable question being posed never gets addressed.
I agree that transgendered people are dying at alarming rates. Whether those rates exceed other groups, I can’t say without the stats in front of me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are higher.
Still not seeing how this information follows from the question I posed. Here, let me post it again.
See the sentence in bold? “Living in peace” includes not being murdered and suicidal. This is what I’ve long assumed would be of chief concern to trans activists. What I haven’t assumed would be their concern is negating biological differences between males and females and shaming people for having the temerity to perceive gender using phenotypic cues of sex chromosomes. But reading ** Banquet’s** posts would make one think otherwise.
If he’s not speaking as a transgendered person himself, I wish he’d stop because he’s not helping them at all.
So…I’m confused. Are people arguing that John/Jane Doe should be treated as the gender they identify as, regardless of how they present? Or that they literally are the gender they identify as, regardless of how they present? Or something else?
I confess that BB’s style of posting is unreadable for me. I scroll past any post that’s snip-and-respond. In that respect I may have lost the thread of conversation. The bit I quoted from ywtf seemed to be dismissing the fact, not merely the relevance, that trans folks are dying from suicide/murder at far greater rates than cis folks are. If that wasn’t the intention, I apologize.
As far as I can tell, they were talking about transwomen in sports and what “activists are really fighting for” and Banquet Bear thought suicide statistics were what he should bring up. That was kinda out of the blue, imho.