So what was the fucking point of bringing it up now, then? Since as I’ve said, it’s zero evidence of transphobia and wouldn’t be such even today.
Naah, mate, the attempted gotcha was obvious. And feeble.
The law should butt out. Let social conventions and self-policing handle stuff like this. I’d really love for allies to put their TRA friends on pause and ask them something like, “I’m with you on TWAW in spirit, but let’s unpack what you think it means. Do you think it means any male should be able to access women’s spaces without being stopped or questioned? Or do you think this privilege should be reserved for males who present a certain way?” Allies should give themselves permission to disagree with these people if they get a response they don’t like. You can be courteous and kind with folks and still disagree with them.
To highlight how quickly attitudes have changed and the fact it wasn’t a controversial thing to say until recently.
You don’t have to assume the worst every damn time.
That exchange doesn’t indicate jack about changing attitudes - it wasn’t transphobic then, it isn’t now. So that whole “neither thought to question” is pure unmitigated bullshit.
And there’s usually a reason someone spouts strawman bullshit like that.
Next time you want to use me as an example of changing attitudes, check that it’s actually an attitude that changed, first. Preferably by PM, since you think being called out for constructing blatantly obvious scarecrows is so damn triggering.
This ignorance will only get worse by promoting the idea that transwomen are females. Prostate health materials are overwhelmingly focused on men, and it has become taboo to even mention transwomen in the same sentence as men. The same problem is seen with transmen and women.
The loss of clear health communication is a huge casualty of the gender movement. The blame for this goes to trans rights activists and their allies who defend this stuff, not just one individual doctor (who more than likely has been burned in the past by patients who do like what they are hearing).
Try repeating that sentence on Twitter and ask some TRAs if it’s transphobic.
And triggering is the wrong word. It’s not triggering to talk to someone who always assumes bad motives, just tiresome and unpleasant.
I think doctors need more education on this (and on many other changes in medicine, too). It’s just incorrect to think ‘inclusive language’ can solve the problem of keeping everyone informed, when the health needs of trans men and trans women differ from those of cis men and women, and differ on an individual basis, too.
Plus if we can reduce real prejudice, then trans people will be happier for their medical records to make it more obvious they are trans, which would help them be included in the correct screening programs by default.
The prejudice won’t go away if the trans community keeps perpetuating the idea that being trans is not good enough as is. To feel valid, they are encouraged to see themselves as something they are not.
I do think it would be better if the movement emphasised self acceptance instead of external validation. Both from a mental health point of view and in terms of the demands they are making on society. But maybe, for example, a transman would be more willing to accept he had a female reproductive tract if he wasn’t afraid it would lead to prejudice against him.
Do you find that happens to you a lot? Maybe try not being so liberal with your straw, then.
I could repeat “The world is a geoid” on Twitter and attract opposition, “people on Twitter” is not a standard I hold myself to.
Who would do so on the Dope though? Other than TERFs trying to score cheap debate points, that is.
It’s rich that you guys are decrying lack of clear health communication when it was Rowling decrying clearer health communication that started this whole sorry mess.
That’s not true though, is it? Rowling’s concern was that it was LESS clear. You might disagree, but it was obviously not her intent to advocate for unclear health communication.
I mean, it’s what, ten posts ago that you snorted at the notion anyone could take Trinopus’s use of the word “woman” to mean, well, what everyone used that word to mean way back in 2013, a biological female, saying
So if it’s clear what it meant, it’s plausible, surely, for someone to hold the position that in a medical context, it remains clear, and is an appropriate word.
Yes, it is.
Obviously I disagree, and her intent isn’t the issue. “People who menstruate” was the clearer language in that context, and she was decrying its use. Nothing I said was untrue.
“Clear” and “clearer” are not synonyms.
So many inconsistencies and incoherencies have to be juggled simultaneously for you to keep up your defense.
MrDibble: (paraphrase) There are transwomen that don’t even know they need prostate screening. They assume the wrong thing because they don’t get the right advice.
YWTF: (paraphrase) Gee, might that have something to do with erasure of sex-specific language that the gender movement is promoting? Call me crazy, but the loss of clear and specific health communication might lead to a whole lot of ignorant and confused people. The issue is bigger than doctors.
MrDibble: (paraphrase) It is Rowling who is decrying clear health communication!!
For folks at home, this is what JKR has to say on this subject:
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”
You make the call.
Just a reminder that I am not talking to people who accuse me of being a woman abuser…my post was in reply to DemonTree’s post.
It is unfortunate that you inferred that I was talking about you when I said men who abuse women engage in minimisation.
I see it happening a lot these days. Not necessarily to me, though. Look at that professor who got in trouble for saying a Mandarin word in his lecture, for example.
Are you comparing TRAs to Flat Earthers? Le gasp! (That was a joke.)
If only what was said on Twitter stayed on Twitter:
Or just look at the subject of this thread.
Oh ffs. Can’t you take it to the pit if you must do the ‘I’m not talking to you’ thing?
If a gang of misogynists wanted to take women’s rights back to the Stone Age, what would be the most efficient way to do that?
Make it a terminable offense for women to stake a claim to traits that men cannot own and control.
I do think it’s curious that transwomen are trying to expand what it means to be a woman, while the transmen seem to be fine with what it currently means to be a man. I don’t seem to recall hearing about transmen proudly expanding what it means to be a man by highlighting feminine characteristics like wearing a push-up “bro-stier” and bright red lipstick. I would almost characterize some of these transwomen behaviors as the equivalent of mansplaining, in that they are saying that they know more about what it means to be a woman than ciswomen.