Question about the homophobia thread

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

Please share an example or link to her anti-trans beliefs, which unrelated to the scientific reality of male biology vs female biology, which we all have agreed is real and matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I thought this was an interesting clip that is relevant to this discussion:

Thanks for sharing. A thought-provoking clip to be sure. The idea of gender dysphoria has been around for quite a long time. Interestingly historically it has been much more diagnosed in boys. I don't think many people here would debate you that gender dysphoria exists and can really harm children (and adults). I think there may be some debate on if and how gender dysphoria relates to biological sex, which makes the subject difficult to talk about. Regardless, since gender dysphoria has been around for awhile, so there is quite a bit of research on this topic. Overwhelmingly, the research shows that a very significant percentage of of children grow out or desist from their gender dysphoria. Here is a link to a recent study.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full

Hence why some people believe that gender-affirming therapies which impact biological sex (cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers) and can have long-term damage should be replaced by treatments such as counseling or therapy which can help them address the gender (not biological sex) issues that they are struggling with.

Ah yes, the study of boys with gender identity disorder, with 51 of the 139 boys not meeting the criteria to have gender identity disorder. That doesn’t seem like enough to base treatment plans on, especially making treatment plans illegal.

Also, you suggested replacing hormone therapy with therapy. I’m not sure why you think people transitioning aren’t receiving therapy as well as medical interventions. At my son’s clinic, you have to have a therapist sign off before you can be prescribed hormones.

Adults can get on HRT, or even a surgical referral letter, after a single virtual consultation.

https://www.folxhealth.com/

Is that what we’re talking about? How easy it is for adults to get HRT?

It's very much on point that people can transition without any therapy or mental healthcare. What are you confused about?

I thought we were discussing a study about children growing out of their dysphoria and that being the reason people oppose gender affirming care, which is different from the topic of what care is available to adults.

Quote: "I’m not sure why you think people transitioning aren’t receiving therapy as well as medical interventions. At my son’s clinic, you have to have a therapist sign off before you can be prescribed hormones." Then I pointed out that adults aren't required to receive therapy to transition, just a single telehealth appointment. You can't change the subject and then pretend that others can't respond to your comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

Please share an example or link to her anti-trans beliefs, which unrelated to the scientific reality of male biology vs female biology, which we all have agreed is real and matters.

Nearly all tweets are self-described “gender critical”. Very few posts are about actual biology.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

Please share an example or link to her anti-trans beliefs, which unrelated to the scientific reality of male biology vs female biology, which we all have agreed is real and matters.

Nearly all tweets are self-described “gender critical”. Very few posts are about actual biology.

OK. Please share an example of a "gender critical" post which is "hateful"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Well, in that case, could you please quote the part that makes the claim to which you are referring? I see one section discussing class membership which might be what you mean. If so, I think you are misunderstanding it.

Below is a reference with a screenshot to the original claim which I am referencing. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to search legal documents; or examine of the document has been changed if the author realizes their claim is ridiculous.

https://reduxx.info/aclu-claims-males-females-do-not-exist-court-docs/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another example of how women’s safety is at issue, held up by federal courts. This will force the employees of the spa (primarily poor female Asian immigrants) to provide services to naked people with penises or the spa will face further legal action.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/06/women-only-naked-spa-lacks-constitutional-right-to-exclude-transgender-patrons-with-pensises/

I do think this is an overreach. The requirement that transgender customers have gone through bottom surgery is reasonable.

How is this an overreach? If you are one of the trans rights advocates in this thread who believes that gender and sex can be entirely separated and people can choose the identity they want, then the outcome above is precisely the outcome you want. The judge ruled correctly in this case, in accordance with Washington law. This is exactly what trans rights advocates in this thread want. Otherwise, your assertion that transwomen are women under the law falls apart. If self-identified transwomen are women, then they need full access to women’s spaces. Trans rights advocacy groups assert over and over that surgery is in fact not needed for identification as a woman. They are in fact celebrating this decision, and I agree that the decision is precisely in accordance with WA law around self-identification. You, maybe Jeff, and the other trans rights advocates should be very happy about this outcome and very happy to force vulnerable spa workers into rooms by themselves with people with penises. It’s what you have been fighting for.

What I want to know from all of you who wanted this outcome is this: what does a poor, vulnerable, probably not English-speaking, immigrant with possible visa problems working in the spa now do when she is faced with a person with an erection alone in the room with her? This is the outcome you and the other trans rights advocates in this thread want. What are the options you provide for the spa worker now? What should that worker do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

+ a million.

What is hateful is to attack facts, biology and billions of people who acknowledge facts and biology.

Example of someone hatefully “attacking” facts, biology, and billions of people?

I'm not the PP, but I will weigh in. I think that we have all agreed that biological sex is different than gender identity, and that humans are indeed a sexually dimorphic species as understood in biology, and there are biological differences between males and females. Is that fair?

Recently, transgender activists have used legal proceedings to make unscientific claims that humans are not sexually dimorphic, nor have distinguishing biological sexual characteristics. Needless to say, this is not supported by evolutionary biology. It may not be an "attack" but it is indeed science denialism and it is dangerous.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f232ea74d8342386a7ebc52/t/627ae90d50d43d059255d661/1652222223090/Intervenor+Proposed+answer.pdf

That is a legal complaint from “self-described radical feminists who oppose transgender rights and gender identity legislation.”

Stop deflecting. It doesn't matter if a complaint was filed by radical feminists, gay men, or male supremacists. It is a fact based statement that the suit alleges that “males” and “females” do not exist. Which is in fact a denial of science.

That is a response to a complaint. Do you have a link to the actual complaint? It is impossible for me to tell what that document is saying because it constantly references the original complaint.

I am not an attorney and do not know how to search for legal databases or motions. I am also unclear if attorneys have the ability to retract, edit, or amend legal documents if they realize that their complaint asserts ideas which are unscientific and easily disprovable based on evolutionary biology.

My point is that people, including respected American political institutions, are asserting that biological sex differences do not exist and do not matter.

Citation?

Here is just one example of and person denying the reality and science of biological characteristics between men and women. There are many and I'm tired of being told that this isn't happening.
https://twitter.com/IWF/status/1641468030721961984?s=20

Holy mother of god I can’t even with that. He actually said no?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sometimes think this entire discussion is a fascinating look into worldwide hierarchies of privilege. For most women around the world, they don’t have the privilege of thinking about identity; they are trying to survive the sex-based violence to which they are subjected every day. Gender identification apart from sex is a privilege in most of the world, a luxury for the impossibly rich and already-powerful. Gender identity is the privilege of the rich, a privilege granted to those who already take their physical safety and basic needs for granted.

There is an Ivorian artist, Laetitia Ky, who uses her hair to create feminist artistic work. She is a fierce promoter of women’s sex-based rights because of her experience of growing up as an African girl. She comes to her criticism of gender ideology by growing up in a world where girls are still subjected to FGM, killed for being girls, and forced into marriage at 9.

Every time she posts her art on Twitter or TikTok (and it is spectacular) she is targeted by western trans rights activists. She is called the n-word, they have sent rape and death threats, they harass her. She posted a picture of her hair shaped like an ovary showing strength and got messages wishing ovarian cancer on her. I can’t do her words justice, so I will link her own words below.

The chasm between her reality and the entitlement of the trans rights activists that target her is wide. She describes a world where sex-based violence is routine; they send her sex-based threats for daring to voice that reality.

This to me is emblematic of the debate and why it is so fraught: it’s happening on different levels. On one hand you have women who have lived with the threat of sex-based violence their entire lives. On the other you have trans people who are markedly wealthier and whiter than the women. It is simply not happening between people with equal levels of privilege.

Laetitia Ky’s thread below:

So she’s openly attacking transgender people?

That doesn’t excuse their behavior but why doesn’t she keep her hate to herself?

It is not hateful to acknowledge that there are differences between biological males and biological females.

Depends on what, how, where you say it.

What did she say? I’m not on Twitter.

1 + 1 = 2 regardless of what, how, where you say it.

If something is true or not, hateful or not, depending on "what, how, where you say it" ... you're just a Nazi trying to police science and freedom of speech for some political agenda.

Must have been really hateful that it’s blocked by Twitter and you won’t share it here.

??

You must realize there's more than one poster here and that I have no idea about whatever Twitter post, just stating a general principle?

You know what principles are, I hope?

Context absolutely matters.

Must be bad if you’re this determined to deflect.

Laetitia is awesome, but this is a bit of a derail. The context here is that Laetitia was previously banned from twitter for asserting that biological females are different than biological males. The context is that she frequently shares her lived experiences as a young african woman and how she faces oppression due to her biological sex (not gender) in her culture. Here is a link if you sincerely want to check it out: https://twitter.com/laetiky?lang=en

That’s not representative of the few unrestricted posts that I could see which show that she’s very vocally and publicly anti-trans.

You are a good example of what I meant by competing hierarchies of privilege. She is an African woman who is focused on the very serious sex-based issues faced by African girls (FGM, child marriage, etc.). You are worried about lockstep validation from everyone around the world. They are different levels of problems.

Seems like she’s more focused on how to fight transgenderism and stan Rowling.

Why are you mocking a woman who is fighting to end FGM, child marriage in her culture? Are you a male supremacist or just supremely entitled and uninformed about the nature of sex-based oppression of women in some cultures?