Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
jsteele wrote:There were several good and interesting replies above and rather than single one of them out to which to reply, I'll start a new post.
I don't think that anyone in all the pages of this thread has denied a historical linkage of sex roles and gender identity. Nor has anyone denied that a connection continues today. However, while nobody has actually articulated it so far, I also don't think that anyone would deny that the linkage is somewhat loose. The gender roles of women may be intricately linked to child bearing, but I am pretty sure that nobody here advocates that an inability of an otherwise biological woman to give birth means that she is not a woman. I would therefore posit that an inability of trans women to give birth is similarly not disqualifying.
One poster above seemed to indicate support for expansive interpretations of gender such that they become almost meaningless. If men can wear dresses and women can hunt, then there is really no reason for a trans person to change gender (this is a vast oversimplification of the argument). I'd be interested in hearing a transperson's response to that idea.
To take that idea a bit further, how much of the movement toward non-binary identity might be a rejection of gender identity altogether? Could this be a movement among youth saying that they are dissatisfied with existing gender ideas and rather than reform them, are smashing them into a million pieces?
Finally, I generally accept the contention that men are more physically dangerous than women. But, how much of the fear of trans people or non-trans people taking advantage and entering women's spaces (bathrooms in particular) is based on reality rather than fear? Are there any stats about this? The one study I was able to track down is fairly dated but suggests that this is not factually supported:
Your comment about child bearing and a loose link to gender roles diminishes the importance of both male physical dominance and the influence of millennia of social and political dominance of males on gender roles.
You correctly point out that women who can’t give birth is still a woman. She is a women with a disability, abnormal condition, or illness. She is still a product of millennia of evolution which has caused her to have breasts and larger hips than males. She still has xx chromosomes. She still will not have muscle mass or bone density or lung capacity of a male. No male has ever had the capability to bear children. He is designed to produce sperm. He is the product of millions of years of evolution which gave him more powerful shoulders and slimmer hips than women. This is a reality of evolutionary biology.
Yes, but this is neither here nor there. You are stuck on sex while we are discussing gender. I think we agree that gender roles grew out of biological sex. I think we all agree that gender concepts are mutable. What was true in the past is not true now and probably not what will be true in the future when it comes to gender. The change in gender concepts is not solely due to biology, but drastically impacted by social development. Thanks to social change, we men are not out hunting sabertooth tigers and mammoths and the females here are not stuck in caves raising children that are unlikely to reach their first birthdays.
We are back to the fundamental disagreement over whether sex and gender are inextricably connected or whether they are separate. If you insist that the connection cannot be severed, there is really nothing to discuss. You are, in effect, denying the existence of an entire group of people whose existence I uphold. That is within your right, but that leaves nothing for us to talk about.
I agree with your statement that there is nothing to discuss with respect to indivisibility of gender and sex. However, your parting shot about people with whom you disagree on this subject could also be flipped to read “if you insist that man can become woman of his own volition (whether he legitimately feels this way or not), then you are denying the existence of an entire group of people who’s existence I uphold, namely women.”
Accepting the separation of sex and gender no more denies the existence of women than it denies the existence of men. I accept that there are individuals who were assigned the sex of male at birth but later discovered their gender is female. Similarly, there are those assigned female at birth who discovered their gender is male. Neither those assigned female at birth or those assigned male at birth whose genders match their assigned sex have ceased to exist.
Yeah, you lose me on the “cease to exist” language. Seems like a rhetorical trick to make you feel you have the high ground. If someone calls me something I don’t think I am (whether rightly or not) I do not cease to exist nor does the individual with whom I may differ with on transgenderism. Everyone needs to take a deep breath here.
Well, I think you are focusing too much on semantics. A poster claimed that by recognizing a separation between sex and gender I was denying the existence of women. Is that not another way of sayin that, in my mind, women have ceased to exist? Regardless, I am rejecting that notion. I obviously don't deny that there are those assigned female at birth and those assigned male at birth whose genders match. I am one of those and don't deny myself.
The point I was making earlier is that if we treat who we call “man” and “woman” as dependent upon a subjective reading of the definition of gender, then any man (read: assigned male at birth) can become a woman and claim for themselves the experience of women (from workplace discrimination, Title IX in sports, sports in general, all the way to pregnancy and childbirth) - which essentially erases women if there is no biological distinction. These to me are just some of the many reasons why modern gender theory is a bad idea and does not ring true. I do not doubt that an extremely small portion of the population struggles with their identity, I just don’t think it makes them what they biologically are not.
I can't speak for other women, obviously, but I don't base my gender identity entirely in biology. I am by no means very feminine, but most of what it means to me to be a woman has little to do with my body parts.
As far as I am concerned, call yourself whatever you feel like - doesn’t bother me. However, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is medical, society needs to have definitions for those who are biologically distinct - ie, those who are of the kind who give birth (women) and those who do not (men). If you want to call your self trans “x” then go for it. Society needs objective definitions to refer to people regardless of how they feel.
Well, of course there is trans-friendly language that does exactly that such as "pregnant people" and "people who menstruate". But, that causes mass head explosions.
"Women" sounds so much less offensive than "people who menstruate". This sort of language seems to reduce those of us formerly known as women to our reproductive capacity.
Wouldn't it be used in reference to menstruation/reproduction?
And no one has said you can't use the word "woman" anymore. Faux concern.
Nope. For millennia, the terms men and women have referred to biological sex, aka males and females. However, recently gender activists have attempted to change the definition of men and women to refer not to biological males and females, but gender identity, which is a belief based on their feelings.
So you are being disingenuous. While no one has said that you can’t say woman, what they are saying is that the meaning of the word woman has changed from a reference to observable human characteristics of a sexually dimorphic species, to a reference to individuals personal feelings and beliefs.
Not only that, these feelings and beliefs apparently cannot be explained or quantified. Up to this point no one has been able to explain what identifying as a woman actually means.
The feeling that you have a certain set of expectations/roles as defined by society. Maybe you don't actually conform to most or all of those, but those are the expectations/roles that you feel that you and others have for yourself.
I feel like a woman when people make sexist comments.
I feel like a woman when Republicans try to tell me what I can and can't do to my body.
I feel like a woman when people judge me on my gender conforming/nonconforming decisions.
I think these are all valid and well put. Do you see how these are related to your sex? They have gender expectations for you based on your sex. They make stereotypes based on sex. They try to tell you what to do with your reproductive organs. For you, being a woman has something to do with interacting with the world as a female.
No, most of the expectations and stereotypes are not based on sex; they're based on gender. Very few are actually related to sex organs. Expecting me to "not be bossy" at work is not related to my sex. Expecting me to wash dishes after an event is not related to my sex. I don't have a special rinse cycle in my vagina.
OK. Why do you think women are given less permission to be 'bossy' than men? Why do think that women are typically expected to do household chores like washing up? Why do these specific stereotypes exist?
Yes, those are (sexist) expectations in society, but they don't have a biological basis. Women are not inherently better at dishes than men. It's a social construct.
Right. I agree with you than women are not inherently better at dishwashing than men. So, let's assume that is true. Why do you think there a sexist societal expectation that you as a woman are more expected to wash dished than a man?
DP
I know the answer to that, and you know the answer to that, but you won’t get the PP to admit that these stereotypes are 100% rooted in biological sex. PP would love to pretend that these stereotypes came out of thin air, but they did not. They came out of centuries (millennia) of women having babies and taking care of the house while the men went out to hunt.
If they admit this, their entire argument falls apart.
No one has denied that they are related. But those stereotypes are formed by society; they aren't inherent physical abilities/characteristics.
Sex is typically physically observable at birth. Biology.
Gender consists of stereotypes/roles/expectations create by society. Construct.
Again, they are related, but not the same.
There is nothing in biology that dictates that I should do dishes. There are only the expectations/stereotypes that were formed by society.
Very few "roles" are actually based on sex/biology -- ovulation/insemination, pregnancy, breastfeeding. Everything else is fair game.
Another definition explanation.
This nonsense fails to acknowledge the reality about why society “genders” dishwashing as female. It is entirely rooted in biology.
It was indirectly related to biology many years ago, but there is no biological reason why women are expected to wash dishes today. Social expectations evolve.
Childbirth? Breastfeed? Sure. Those require specific sex organs/glands.
Wash dishes? No. My vagina doesn't give me some special ability to load the dish washer.
Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.
For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.
According to this definition my gender identity is man when I am hunting and doing other masculine stereotyped things like woodworking. But not necessarily when I cut my hair short or dress in masculine clothing or minimize my breasts. Is that right?
I dunno, even if you’re hunting at the moment, men will probably somehow be able to clock you and know you’re who they want to rape or murder, ya know?
It’s almost as if … women are oppressed and targeted by males based on their biological sex. Crazy talk.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
Because they are linked politically. When the people who screaming the loudest about "protecting women's spaces" are those who are actively trying to hurt women, then it's hard to separate them.
Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.
For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.
I’m confused. If gender identity is related to internal sense of self, why is sex re-assignment hormones and surgery a common path of treatment?
Anonymous wrote:Adult human female. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them sad, but physical safety is paramount to me. Truly sad that my definition feels exclusionary and makes people feel badly. But their feelings don’t trump women’s safety.
Limiting the definition of woman will not address your irrational fears.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman woman
an adult female human being:
an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth:
a wife or female sexual partner:
women in general:
My fears are not irrational.
Everyone who was born with a penis is not out to assault you.
Nah bro, but +95% of the people who want to assault us have a penis.
Go ahead dude, keep telling women how we should feel about our safety. Totally hysterical that we don’t want our female relatives to be incarcerated with violent males, right?
Unless you or your female relatives live in a red state, they are fine.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
Because they are linked politically. When the people who screaming the loudest about "protecting women's spaces" are those who are actively trying to hurt women, then it's hard to separate them.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to. Myself and many other feminists donate to planned parenthood. Just be honest that you are trying to find any reason to discredit and diminish our opinions.
Because deep down you know that we have a point and that evolutionary biology is real. It’s OK, many of us were in your shoes at one point. You will figure it out eventually. Take care.
Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.
For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.
I’m confused. If gender identity is related to internal sense of self, why is sex re-assignment hormones and surgery a common path of treatment?
Because there is a misalignment with some aspects of their gender identity and body parts.
Gender identity is one's own internal sense of self and their gender, whether that is man, woman, neither or both. Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not outwardly visible to others.
For most people, gender identity aligns with the sex assigned at birth, the American Psychological Association notes. For transgender people, gender identity differs in varying degrees from the sex assigned at birth.
I’m confused. If gender identity is related to internal sense of self, why is sex re-assignment hormones and surgery a common path of treatment?
Because it’s really distressing not to feel like your appearance matches your internal sense of self. I’m a woman with PCOS and my beard, receding hairline, and excessive body hair have literally made me suicidal. It doesn’t make me any less of a woman to have those male characteristics, but the dysphoria is intense.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
Because they are linked politically. When the people who screaming the loudest about "protecting women's spaces" are those who are actively trying to hurt women, then it's hard to separate them.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to. Myself and many other feminists donate to planned parenthood. Just be honest that you are trying to find any reason to discredit and diminish our opinions.
Because deep down you know that we have a point and that evolutionary biology is real. It’s OK, many of us were in your shoes at one point. You will figure it out eventually. Take care.
We've covered various aspects of how society and our government are addressing transgender "issues". Legislation, etc. It's all related.
Biology is sex organs. Everything else is a social construct.
Anonymous wrote:Adult human female. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them sad, but physical safety is paramount to me. Truly sad that my definition feels exclusionary and makes people feel badly. But their feelings don’t trump women’s safety.
Limiting the definition of woman will not address your irrational fears.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman woman
an adult female human being:
an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth:
a wife or female sexual partner:
women in general:
My fears are not irrational.
Everyone who was born with a penis is not out to assault you.
Nah bro, but +95% of the people who want to assault us have a penis.
Go ahead dude, keep telling women how we should feel about our safety. Totally hysterical that we don’t want our female relatives to be incarcerated with violent males, right?
Unless you or your female relatives live in a red state, they are fine.
Irrational fears.
Are you saying that women who were incarcerated with Diamond Blount are irrational?
Please continue the mansplaining, this is would almost be amusing if real people weren’t being harmed.
Anonymous wrote:Adult human female. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them sad, but physical safety is paramount to me. Truly sad that my definition feels exclusionary and makes people feel badly. But their feelings don’t trump women’s safety.
Limiting the definition of woman will not address your irrational fears.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman woman
an adult female human being:
an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth:
a wife or female sexual partner:
women in general:
“An adult who lives and identifies as FEMALE thought they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”
Identifies as a female. Which has a definition. So we’re circling back to a woman being female.
Gender concepts in society change over time. Language changes over time. Being overly rigid about them accomplishes nothing.
Words and meanings matter. Pointing out that a definition doesn’t make sense because it references itself is not the same thing as evolution of language.
They are inter-related so you can't completely separate the two.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
Because they are linked politically. When the people who screaming the loudest about "protecting women's spaces" are those who are actively trying to hurt women, then it's hard to separate them.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to. Myself and many other feminists donate to planned parenthood. Just be honest that you are trying to find any reason to discredit and diminish our opinions.
Because deep down you know that we have a point and that evolutionary biology is real. It’s OK, many of us were in your shoes at one point. You will figure it out eventually. Take care.
We've covered various aspects of how society and our government are addressing transgender "issues". Legislation, etc. It's all related.
Biology is sex organs. Everything else is a social construct.
No. Males are literally more powerful than females. This is not a social construct.
Anonymous wrote:Reading these posts it is plain to me why people are so terrified of the documentary “What is a Woman?” It is must watch.
While I found the documentary to be entertaining, it was really asking the wrong question. The real question is what is a trans woman or trans man.
How can you get to what a trans woman is with first defining “woman?” Pretty sure he was asking the right question.
Why not ask “What is a man?”
Because they aren't scared of trans men. They don't think that trans men are grooming children or that they're a danger to men and children. They do claim that trans women are grooming children and are a danger to women and children so they want trans women to use men's bathrooms.
Hm, I wonder why you think that “they” are scared of trans men but not trans women? What ever could the reason for that be?
transmisogyny. It’s a blanket fear of all trans women.
But why only trans women? If fear is the motivation here, Shouldn’t they be more fearful of trans men since men are more violent?
Are you being intentionally obtuse? They don't see trans men as men.
So your point is that they don’t see trans women as women? Why do you think that is the case?
Because they don’t like transgender people and don’t think they should be allowed to transition or participating in society.
There are six levels of quotations here referring to "they". While I appreciate the avoidance of gendered language, can someone explain who "they" is?
Also, today the Southern Baptist Church voted 88%-11% to kick out a church because it supported female pastors. It will be interesting to see if that gets even 1/10 of the attention that John Hopkins' web page did.
Why are you conflating two entirely separate issues?
I don’t care who evangelicals let preach, just like I don’t care who Muslims, Satanists, Hindus or Zoroastrians let preach.
I thought the issue was women's rights. As some have been arguing, the trans community has little power beyond the ability to yell at people. Anti-trans legislators, on the other hand, have real power to make laws which they have been using not only against trans people, but against women in general. This is another case where those with power, in this case a religious institution with considerable influence, has taken clear cut action against women's rights. Something with more impact than a webpage. I expected it might generate, at best, a yawn. But, I was overly optimistic since it actually resulted in me being admonished. Maybe I was wrong about women's rights being the main concern?
No. Your premise is false. The trans community has already demonstrated its power to deny females their rights to define themselves and have the ability have sex segregated spaces like prisons, sports, and rape crisis centers. That is not little power, no?
No one is trying to make females (or males for that matter) adhere to evangelicalism or Islam or any other traditional faith based system. The only faith based system that is being enforced through legislation is transgenderism and gender identity.
So it’s not about women’s rights for you?
Of course. Are you unable to look at an issue from multiple dimensions?
I’m able to tease out the important issues.
Such as?
Millions of women across the US have had their rights stripped away.
More important than the random definitions on a college DEI website.
This thread is talking about LBGTQ issues related to stripping female rights. I keep my thoughts on abortions to those threads. Why not try staying on topic and dropping the whataboutism. It is possible to care about many issues related to women’s rights.
Because they are linked politically. When the people who screaming the loudest about "protecting women's spaces" are those who are actively trying to hurt women, then it's hard to separate them.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to. Myself and many other feminists donate to planned parenthood. Just be honest that you are trying to find any reason to discredit and diminish our opinions.
Because deep down you know that we have a point and that evolutionary biology is real. It’s OK, many of us were in your shoes at one point. You will figure it out eventually. Take care.
We've covered various aspects of how society and our government are addressing transgender "issues". Legislation, etc. It's all related.
Biology is sex organs. Everything else is a social construct.
Anonymous wrote:Adult human female. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them sad, but physical safety is paramount to me. Truly sad that my definition feels exclusionary and makes people feel badly. But their feelings don’t trump women’s safety.
Limiting the definition of woman will not address your irrational fears.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woman woman
an adult female human being:
an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth:
a wife or female sexual partner:
women in general:
My fears are not irrational.
Everyone who was born with a penis is not out to assault you.
Nah bro, but +95% of the people who want to assault us have a penis.
Go ahead dude, keep telling women how we should feel about our safety. Totally hysterical that we don’t want our female relatives to be incarcerated with violent males, right?
Unless you or your female relatives live in a red state, they are fine.
Irrational fears.
Are you saying that women who were incarcerated with Diamond Blount are irrational?
Please continue the mansplaining, this is would almost be amusing if real people weren’t being harmed.
It's irrational to think you or your family is "at risk" because of one inmate.
Forum Index
»
Website Feedback
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}