To Seem, Rather Than To Be? (Trans Ideology)

[TLK Valentine]

And I shouldn’t have agreed with you that I am reducing women to egg carrier.

Clearly you meant lactating egg carrier... How that helps your argument is an utter mystery.

I just meant that I’m zeroing in on this one characteristic of women, for the sake of argumentation. Again, a characteristic which is generally true of women.

And irrelevant, as you are about to show:

That doesn’t mean that if they don’t have this behavior, that they are not women.

...and there it is. Your point falls flat.

The point is that what is generally true of women, when it comes to biological distinctives, that’s never true of men.

So what?

Men don't carry eggs. Some women don't carry eggs.
Women lactate. Some men lactate.

Clearly neither of these characteristics -- by presence or absence -- are useful in defining men or women.

Let me repeat the question: so what?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It means that someone has to admit their deep seated tradition is wrong and that is something a certain subset cannot abide because of authoritarian tendencies they REALLY need to confront. Because if they don't, they can get radicalized to crypto fascism and go down that rabbit hole

Worse, they have to discover that such traditions aren't universal...

 

[muichimotsu]

Worse, they have to discover that such traditions aren't universal...

Especially if they're not white colonialist; can't forget how that is an unfortunate aspect of history going back to the British empire's early days, if not before that

 

[muichimotsu]

Excuse me for my misstep, I mean: men don't have milk ducts. That much I understand-- so there is no purpose in attempting chest-feeding. That would be irresponsible. So no, I'm not trying to effect more knowledge than I poses.

So galactorrhea isn't a thing? Mammary glands are a thing in the male and females of many mammal species, we see it in non human animals and it occurs in human males too, albeit it would suggest hormonal imbalances like I speculated already.

 

[Tanj]

So let me see if I’m getting this straight. My truth claim is that most women can menstruate.

Well, you got it wrong out of the gate. Your false claim was that only people that do menstruate are women.

I don’t want you to miss the point I’m making: while it is true that some women menstruate, men never do. If you will, I’m asking, do you think biological men can become biological women? And if so, how?

You and other like minded people are the only ones who say this. If you stopped repeating this fantasy, no-one would be saying it.

 

[zippy2006]

Problem is you're conflating sex and gender, which shows you're only half paying attention to the discussion to fit your essentialist reductive narrative where you don't have to consider something that's been a thing for centuries...

Oh dear. I would encourage you to educate yourself. Here's a good place for you to start: Richard Dawkins' article, "Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty [Darn] Binary."

Among other things, Dawkins says, "Gender theorists bypass the annoying problem of reality by decreeing that you are what you feel, regardless of biology." It was statements like these that led trans activists to strip Dawkins of his 1996 "humanist of the year" award.

The idea that trans people are only interested in gender is a falsehood. But you would already know that if you had taken the time to read my first post.

 

[zippy2006]

Because it's messy semantically, and the two terms can be used interchangeably. It thus behooves us to use them in a more precise manner to avoid really silly discussions that revolve around what Webster's dictionary says, or, as the OP did, defining women entirely as egg carriers

I would submit that if you read the OP as saying the following:

• "If someone is not currently producing eggs and menstruating, then they are not a woman."

...then you are involved in a strawman, and are not really interested in the discussion topic of the OP.

 

[muichimotsu]

Oh dear. I would encourage you to educate yourself. Here's a good place for you to start: Richard Dawkins' article, "Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty [Darn] Binary."

Among other things, Dawkins says, "Gender theorists bypass the annoying problem of reality by decreeing that you are what you feel, regardless of biology." It was statements like these that led trans activists to strip Dawkins of his 1996 "humanist of the year" award.

The idea that trans people are only interested in gender is a falsehood. But you would already know that if you had taken the time to read my first post.

Ah, because Richard Dawkins can't be wrong or myopic in his focus. Sex is far more a binary, no one is suggesting it's not built on that concept of male and female, you're strawmanning now.

Again, you show how reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit when it comes to your regressive reductive tradition being challenged. No one is remotely saying that they are the opposite sex, they fully acknowledge their biological traits in the basic reality that they are such. That's not the same as their gender identity, which is not purely a whim of feeling like Dawkins mischaracterizes it as, showing he hasn't even tried to understand gender identity except with his myopic focus on biology, as if that represents all human experience

When Dawkins misrepresents how gender identity works, he doesn't deserve that award, because he's become too comfortable in his perspective that he cannot be wrong, that he's perfectly rational and not a product of his time


Wow, it's like you think the mere acknowledgement of sex as pertinent means they're fixated on that instead of it being incidental because of societal norms that act like genitals equate to gender identity as a matter of course. Familiarity breeds contempt as the saying goes and that contempt is directed at those that don't fit into the comfortable box where people think if you have certain genitals, you must identify as the gender society has "traditionally" associated to those genitals.

No one under 30 uses transsexual if they've even taken a few minutes to consider whether it's a relevant term and that reflects simple generational gaps of understanding that still need to be addressed. Transgender is accurate because that's what is primarily at concern, even if sex happens to be a subject involved in the overall discussion, which becomes quibbling pedantry if you don't consider that moving forward from a reductive essentialist viewpoint might actually help society at large

 

[muichimotsu]

I would submit that if you read the OP as saying the following:

• "If someone is not currently producing eggs and menstruating, then they are not a woman."

...then you are involved in a strawman, and are not really interested in the discussion topic of the OP.

Problem is womanhood should not and arguably rarely is reducible to simply biology rather than societal norms and ideas we have that can apply even to a woman that is barren and yet, *gasp* can raise children and be a mother figure, encouraging those kinds of lessons and virtues to a child even if she has no biological link to them and has no blood children of her own.

 

[zippy2006]

Men don't carry eggs. Some women don't carry eggs.
Women lactate. Some men lactate.

Clearly neither of these characteristics -- by presence or absence -- are useful in defining men or women.

The absurdity and irrationality of such claims is beyond the pale. The unscientific balderdash required to uphold these trans ideologies is eye-popping. Here's a little sprinkling of science for you:

"Animals, including mammals, produce gametes (sperm and egg) through meiosis in gonads (testicles in males and ovaries in females)."
(Wikipedia | Mammalian Reproduction)​

 

[TLK Valentine]

The absurdity and irrationality of such claims is beyond the pale. The unscientific balderdash required to uphold these trans ideologies is eye-popping. Here's a little sprinkling of science for you:

"Animals, including mammals, produce gametes (sperm and egg) through meiosis in gonads (testicles in males and ovaries in females)."
(Wikipedia | Mammalian Reproduction)​

That's nice. Make a point?

 

[Tanj]

[Staff Edit]

Take it up with TLK. Clearly he has a different opinion on the matter.

I may be making obvious truth claims

Mostly obviously false opinions. I haven't seen you make a true one yet.

 

[didactics]

And then I suppose I would have to argue based on what is normative, namely that women usually menstruate, but trans women never have eggs.

You're taking me out of context. You didn't read this following statement.

@Tanj

 

[didactics]

@muichimotsu You know, when you bring up this idea that your gender identity doesn't have to match your sex, you're in a way hinting at the existence a soul. Would you believe that your soul, which associates with a gender, doesn't have to match your sex? That's no different than saying that God made a mistake. God doesn't make mistakes.

 

[zippy2006]

That's nice. Make a point?

Let me make it easier for you to understand: Female mammals produce eggs by definition.

 

[TLK Valentine]

[Staff Edit]

Address the post, not the poster... Assuming you have something to say.

Because here’s the point I need to make to him

As you need to make this point, I highly recommend you do so... Preferably soon.

—I’m not just talking about menstruation, but a characteristic behavior that has cycles,

You're not talking about menstruation, but something that happens in cycles... say, every 28 days or so?

which allows for the conditions of life to begin. Now I could be a little inaccurate with that biological claim.

Let's try for relevance first -- accuracy can come later.

I’m reading a snippet here from a quick google search—“Getting pregnant is related to ovulation.”

It's also related to sex, which is on occasion related to what I believe the younger generation refers to as "Netflix and Chill..." Make a point?

I may be making obvious truth claims,

You may be making a recipe for Hungarian goulash, but you're not.

but it's because I'm told this distinctive doesn't matter.

Insofar as gender is concerned, it doesnt.

Or, I get this speculative reply that somehow things biological reality will be different in the future. That's what I call a fantasy.

And 50 years ago, if someone told you that the sum total of human knowledge could be accessed on a device that fits in your pocket, you'd have called that a fantasy.

And yet here we are. Imagine what else smart people can accomplish.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let me make it easier for you to understand, since science is obviously not something you have encountered before: Female mammals produce eggs by definition.

That's nice. You just defined biological sex in a thread about gender.

You brought your baseball bat to a hockey game, hoping to score a touchdown.

 

[zippy2006]

That's nice. You just defined biological sex in a thread about gender.

You brought your baseball bat to a hockey game, hoping to score a touchdown.

Ah, the "bait and switch." Here is what you said in post #41:

Men don't carry eggs. Some women don't carry eggs.
Women lactate. Some men lactate.

Were you talking about sex or gender there? If you were talking about gender, then according to your strange theories your statements were false. If you were talking about sex, then we have proof that your fallacious "bait and switch" failed.

 

[didactics]

Okay TLK, I’m told I’ve got to take it up with you. You’re telling me I’m living in a fantasy by making obvious truth claims? I tell you, some women menstruate. Some women don’t. Does my latter statement contradict my former statement? Of course not. Now see if you can get this next one—men don’t menstruate. Men never will.

 

[didactics]

Problem is womanhood should not and arguably rarely is reducible to simply biology rather than societal norms and ideas we have that can apply even to a woman that is barren and yet, *gasp* can raise children and be a mother figure, encouraging those kinds of lessons and virtues to a child even if she has no biological link to them and has no blood children of her own.

There may be a lot I don’t agree with you on, but you do have some good insight on this one thing at least. I can’t help but think you must have had the story of Naomi in mind.