Bias Against Transgenders

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Walker »

Nick_A wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 4:14 am This war against transgenders never stops. Jessica Yaniv is a man who calls himself woman so is woman. You are what you say you are

She lives in Canada and has been refused bikini wax by several salons. Why would anyone object even if she has male genitalia? Jessica has said that he is a woman and to question it is sexist which is politically incorrect and too insulting to consider. Granted he looks like Gorgeous George but he is entitled to a bikini wax because he has said he is a woman. Think progress and it will all make sense.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trans-w ... 20806.html
Gotta eat right to carry that load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmtkNrufSwQ
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

''Eureka supports body positivity and has nicknamed themself "The Elephant Queen". Huggard cites Divine as an influence to their drag aesthetic.

On April 19, 2019, Eureka announced via Twitter that their mother had died after a long battle with cancer on April 18.''

Believe it or not this garbled gobbledygook is actually referring to one person (the 'their' and 'themself'( wtf??) in this load of indecipherable tripe).

Idiots.

And why are drag queens referred to as 'she'? Isn't the whole point of a drag queen the fact that it's a male entertainer dressed up as a (sort of) woman?

Idiots.

Of course this is all entirely consistent with symptoms of the rapidly spreading cancer of Political Correctness that has an endless food supply provided by the good ol' USA. The same USA that risks dislocated limbs from the lengths it goes to for its hypocritical 'virtue-signalling' while at the same time applauding its military murderers and their noble attempts at genocide in the ME.

PC rule 76 concerning gender fluidity: Blowing up gender-fluid per__s in their own countries is perfectly acceptable. Totally unacceptable is to cause 'offence and distress' to a gender-fluid per__ by using the wrong pronoun.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:02 am We have learned that there is really no difference between men and women. If a woman decides she is a man she must be considered a man. If a man considers himself a woman they are now women. You are what you decide you are.
Let's look more carefully at that argument.

On the one hand, it denies what is called "essentialism": namely, the belief that a person is "essentially" one thing or the other. It says, "You are not essentially a man; you can become a woman. It denies the necessity of biological determination.

So far, so good?

But secondly, it also affirms essentialism, and does so in the strongest terms it can. It says, "You HAVE to become a woman; you are essentially that, and you'll be inauthentic if you don't transgender to that." In other words, it affirms the necessity of psychological determination.

You are both not-compelled to remain a man, but now are totally-compelled to become a woman...and only on the basis of how you think you feel.

But why is this?

What makes psychology more determinative than biology? It's surely more easy to become deluded psychologically than it is to change one's DNA, is it not? That's one problem.

But here's a second: if there's essentially no such thing as necessarily being a man or woman, then there's no such thing as becoming essentially a man or a woman. You can't "need to be a woman" if being a woman is not an essential, stable thing. You can't "need" something that has no objective existence.

So which way is it? Is "womanhood" essentially a real thing? Or is it whatever you make of it?

Here's a third thing: how does someone who has all his life been a DNA man know what it is to want to be a woman? How does he know his desire is authentic? How does he know that what he is longing for is the same experience as is had by a woman who was born a woman? Is it not just as likely that what he wants is a third thing, one shaped from his own imagination -- that is, he does not know what it means to BE are real woman, but he does know what HE THINKS IT MIGHT BE LIKE to be a woman?

So how do we know the desire for transgender transformation is, itself, a rational want? I don't mean that we have to doubt it's felt, and felt urgently, perhaps; I mean, how do we know that that feeling corresponds to what it means to actually be a woman?

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally. Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so? Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?

These are some major problems with the idea that transgendering is a kind of right or necessity.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:13 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:02 am We have learned that there is really no difference between men and women. If a woman decides she is a man she must be considered a man. If a man considers himself a woman they are now women. You are what you decide you are.
Let's look more carefully at that argument.

On the one hand, it denies what is called "essentialism": namely, the belief that a person is "essentially" one thing or the other. It says, "You are not essentially a man; you can become a woman. It denies the necessity of biological determination.

So far, so good?
We are essentially human. Gender is a side issue. It is complex, somewhat fluid. Homosexuality exists in all mammals and it is clear that sexual organs do not determine sexual desire, why should they be used to determine gender preference?


What makes psychology more determinative than biology? It's surely more easy to become deluded psychologically than it is to change one's DNA, is it not? That's one problem.
Biology? Is a study of life. It cannot determine.
These are some major problems with the idea that transgendering is a kind of right or necessity.
Not at all. It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:46 pm We are essentially human. Gender is a side issue.
If so, you need to resolve this question: Is being male or female a real/objective/essential thing, or is it not? You cannot rationally have it both ways, and you cannot possibly claim a "right" to something that is not objectively possible.

Not at all. It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.
And yet...you didn't even attempt to answer even one of the basic questions posed above.

If they were so easily resolved as you imply, you would. That would put an end to the debate, and do so decisively.

So let's reintroduce them. They were:

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:46 pm We are essentially human. Gender is a side issue.
If so, you need to resolve this question: Is being male or female a real/objective/essential thing, or is it not? You cannot rationally have it both ways, and you cannot possibly claim a "right" to something that is not objectively possible.
Who is to say what is and what is not essential? I say not. And I do not care to impose upon other's viewpoint. If what looks like a man wants to be "female" there is not a problem

Not at all. It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.
And yet...you didn't even attempt to answer even one of the basic questions posed above.

If they were so easily resolved as you imply, you would. That would put an end to the debate, and do so decisively.

So let's reintroduce them. They were:

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?
Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

And since you will agree that some ordinary men are more or less masculine, and ordinary females are more or less feminine, you should also accept that gender is a series of spectra, and not absolutes.

You are confused. Why can't to be more tolerant?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:53 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:46 pm We are essentially human. Gender is a side issue.
If so, you need to resolve this question: Is being male or female a real/objective/essential thing, or is it not? You cannot rationally have it both ways, and you cannot possibly claim a "right" to something that is not objectively possible.
Who is to say what is and what is not essential? I say not. And I do not care to impose upon other's viewpoint. If what looks like a man wants to be "female" there is not a problem

Not at all. It is only a problem in your mind; a mind hell bent on imposing its moral standards on others.
And yet...you didn't even attempt to answer even one of the basic questions posed above.

If they were so easily resolved as you imply, you would. That would put an end to the debate, and do so decisively.

So let's reintroduce them. They were:

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?
Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

And since you will agree that some ordinary men are more or less masculine, and ordinary females are more or less feminine, you should also accept that gender is a series of spectra, and not absolutes.

You are confused. Why can't to be more tolerant?
Actually it's just misogyny in a different guise. To say that a big, strapping male in a wig and a dress is a woman just because he 'feels like one' (not sure how he would know what it 'feels like') is frankly insulting. They are mentally unstable and should 'embrace it' ( :roll: ) and accept themselves as such. Mentally balanced people don't 'feel' anything in particular when it comes to their gender--it just 'is'. To obsess over it is a sign of mental imbalance.
Some males are obviously more effeminate than others, but an effeminate man does not a woman make. By the same token, an ultra butch woman is still a woman.
And the modern PCtrend of 'teachers as social engineers', where 5 year olds (and even younger) are used as political tools and 'taught' about things like 'gender fluidity', needs to be exposed for the child abuse that it is. Brainwashing children with (moronic and overly-simplified) adult political concepts and fads is treading very dangerous ground indeed.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Sculptor »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:41 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:53 pm
If so, you need to resolve this question: Is being male or female a real/objective/essential thing, or is it not? You cannot rationally have it both ways, and you cannot possibly claim a "right" to something that is not objectively possible.
Who is to say what is and what is not essential? I say not. And I do not care to impose upon other's viewpoint. If what looks like a man wants to be "female" there is not a problem

And yet...you didn't even attempt to answer even one of the basic questions posed above.

If they were so easily resolved as you imply, you would. That would put an end to the debate, and do so decisively.

So let's reintroduce them. They were:

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally.

Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so?

Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?
Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

And since you will agree that some ordinary men are more or less masculine, and ordinary females are more or less feminine, you should also accept that gender is a series of spectra, and not absolutes.

You are confused. Why can't to be more tolerant?
Actually it's just misogyny in a different guise. To say that a big, strapping male in a wig and a dress is a woman just because he 'feels like one' (not sure how he would know what it 'feels like') is frankly insulting. They are mentally unstable and should 'embrace it' ( :roll: ) and accept themselves as such. Mentally balanced people don't 'feel' anything in particular when it comes to their gender--it just 'is'. To obsess over it is a sign of mental imbalance.
Some males are obviously more effeminate than others, but an effeminate man does not a woman make. By the same token, an ultra butch woman is still a woman.
And the modern PCtrend of 'teachers as social engineers', where 5 year olds (and even younger) are used as political tools and 'taught' about 'gender fluidity', needs to be exposed for the child abuse that it is.
Only fair to tell you.
vegetariantaxidermy, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:58 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:41 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Who is to say what is and what is not essential? I say not. And I do not care to impose upon other's viewpoint. If what looks like a man wants to be "female" there is not a problem


Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

And since you will agree that some ordinary men are more or less masculine, and ordinary females are more or less feminine, you should also accept that gender is a series of spectra, and not absolutes.

You are confused. Why can't to be more tolerant?
Actually it's just misogyny in a different guise. To say that a big, strapping male in a wig and a dress is a woman just because he 'feels like one' (not sure how he would know what it 'feels like') is frankly insulting. They are mentally unstable and should 'embrace it' ( :roll: ) and accept themselves as such. Mentally balanced people don't 'feel' anything in particular when it comes to their gender--it just 'is'. To obsess over it is a sign of mental imbalance.
Some males are obviously more effeminate than others, but an effeminate man does not a woman make. By the same token, an ultra butch woman is still a woman.
And the modern PCtrend of 'teachers as social engineers', where 5 year olds (and even younger) are used as political tools and 'taught' about 'gender fluidity', needs to be exposed for the child abuse that it is.
Only fair to tell you.
vegetariantaxidermy, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Only fair to point out the strangeness of someone getting so enraged that they block someone simply because their nemesis has the (by far) better argument. Typical arrogant and childish male behaviour :wink:
Nick_A
Posts: 5215
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:13 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:02 am We have learned that there is really no difference between men and women. If a woman decides she is a man she must be considered a man. If a man considers himself a woman they are now women. You are what you decide you are.
Let's look more carefully at that argument.

On the one hand, it denies what is called "essentialism": namely, the belief that a person is "essentially" one thing or the other. It says, "You are not essentially a man; you can become a woman. It denies the necessity of biological determination.

So far, so good?

But secondly, it also affirms essentialism, and does so in the strongest terms it can. It says, "You HAVE to become a woman; you are essentially that, and you'll be inauthentic if you don't transgender to that." In other words, it affirms the necessity of psychological determination.

You are both not-compelled to remain a man, but now are totally-compelled to become a woman...and only on the basis of how you think you feel.

But why is this?

What makes psychology more determinative than biology? It's surely more easy to become deluded psychologically than it is to change one's DNA, is it not? That's one problem.

But here's a second: if there's essentially no such thing as necessarily being a man or woman, then there's no such thing as becoming essentially a man or a woman. You can't "need to be a woman" if being a woman is not an essential, stable thing. You can't "need" something that has no objective existence.

So which way is it? Is "womanhood" essentially a real thing? Or is it whatever you make of it?

Here's a third thing: how does someone who has all his life been a DNA man know what it is to want to be a woman? How does he know his desire is authentic? How does he know that what he is longing for is the same experience as is had by a woman who was born a woman? Is it not just as likely that what he wants is a third thing, one shaped from his own imagination -- that is, he does not know what it means to BE are real woman, but he does know what HE THINKS IT MIGHT BE LIKE to be a woman?

So how do we know the desire for transgender transformation is, itself, a rational want? I don't mean that we have to doubt it's felt, and felt urgently, perhaps; I mean, how do we know that that feeling corresponds to what it means to actually be a woman?

In summary, then: are we essentialists, or not? We cannot be both essentialists and non-essentialists rationally. Are we sure that biology is more negotiable than psychology, and why would we think so? Then, how does a man know what "being a woman" is?

These are some major problems with the idea that transgendering is a kind of right or necessity.
The essential point is that you and I are no longer capable of defining the difference between man and woman. We lack the intelligence to do so. That is why the state must decide for us as described in George Orwell's 1984. If the state says that 2+2 is now 5, who are we to argue? If the state declares that we create our own reality in matters of gender, who are we to argue?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:58 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 6:41 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm
Who is to say what is and what is not essential? I say not. And I do not care to impose upon other's viewpoint. If what looks like a man wants to be "female" there is not a problem


Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.

And since you will agree that some ordinary men are more or less masculine, and ordinary females are more or less feminine, you should also accept that gender is a series of spectra, and not absolutes.

You are confused. Why can't to be more tolerant?
Actually it's just misogyny in a different guise. To say that a big, strapping male in a wig and a dress is a woman just because he 'feels like one' (not sure how he would know what it 'feels like') is frankly insulting. They are mentally unstable and should 'embrace it' ( :roll: ) and accept themselves as such. Mentally balanced people don't 'feel' anything in particular when it comes to their gender--it just 'is'. To obsess over it is a sign of mental imbalance.
Some males are obviously more effeminate than others, but an effeminate man does not a woman make. By the same token, an ultra butch woman is still a woman.
And the modern PCtrend of 'teachers as social engineers', where 5 year olds (and even younger) are used as political tools and 'taught' about 'gender fluidity', needs to be exposed for the child abuse that it is.
Only fair to tell you.
vegetariantaxidermy, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
ps. If men can become women, then why has the 'trans community' come up with a rather contemptuous term for what they refer to as 'biological women': 'Cisgenders' ? So which is it dearies? You claim to be women, yet you have come up with a term to distinguish and distance yourselves from the women you claim to be.... :? Talk about confused and mentally unbalanced :roll:
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

from way the hell up-thread (with addendum)

Post by henry quirk »

Joe wears a dress: what is he?

A man in a dress, of course.

*

Joe believes he is female: is he?

No, he's a deluded guy.

*

Joe submits to extensive chemical, hormonal, surgical procedures to turn himself into a woman: did he become a woman?

No, he mutillated himself in service to a delusion (he's still a guy).

*

Everyone treats Joe (now Josephine) as a woman: is he a woman?

No, he's a deluded, mutillated man surrounded by deluded, weak-willed, or misinformed people.

*

If you think I'm wrong, answer...

If you're a straight guy: will you date a transgender woman (a guy who sez he's a broad)?

If you're a straight woman: will you date a transgender man (a gal who sez she's a dude)?

-----

Finally: a little gasoline to spark things up...

https://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?t ... ransgender...

...if you can gut your way through, you may find it informative.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9157
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Image

They might if he looked like this. Rupaul's drag race is a fascinating study on the nature of female beauty. Is 99% of modern beauty just makeup + smoke and mirrors? Many of the competitors on that show have the kind of bodies that males drool over and which don't even exist in the world of actual women ( and because they are males, no pesky wobbly bits, stretch marks, or unsightly dents).
Women simply don't have teeny tiny waists (which is why corsets were invented) coupled with perfectly rounded buttocks and hips. That's an exaggerated male fantasy. I had no idea there was such a thing as 'padded undergarments' that mould the contours to give drag queens and celebrity women alike that 'graceful curve' from the waist.
Take a naturally pretty person with even features and good proportions, and with makeup you can turn them (male and female) into something spectacular. But is it 'real'? What is 'real'?

Image

Image

A pretty man is just as pretty as a pretty woman and both can look equally spectacular with a bit of skill.

Image

Image

Is Jessica Rabbit a woman or a drag queen?

Image

Image Image


Image

I mean, how many American 'beauties' look exactly like the 'woman' on the right?

I imagine the Rupaul show would cause a lot of confusion and mental blow-outs in the male population :lol:
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:23 pm Being "female" and biologically male; or being "male" and biologically female- is the essence of transgenderism.
That was not the question. We know what the ideology says: what we want to know is if maleness is essential, and femaleness is essential...or if they mean nothing at all.

Got an answer?
Why can't to be more tolerant?
I haven't said what I will "tolerate," and what I will not. You're jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

However, since you refer to the vanilla virtue of "tolerance," it is worth pointing out that this begs the question of what one is "tolerating." :shock:

People in Cambodia "tolerated" massacres, and people in Germany "tolerated" Hitler. I doubt you'd say that either was a good thing. On the other hand, "tolerating" things that are right is good.

The question is, "Is this right or wrong?" not "Is it being tolerated?"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9228
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Bias Against Transgenders

Post by Immanuel Can »

The essential point is that you and I are no longer capable of defining the difference between man and woman. We lack the intelligence to do so. That is why the state must decide for us as described in George Orwell's 1984. If the state says that 2+2 is now 5, who are we to argue? If the state declares that we create our own reality in matters of gender, who are we to argue?
Ah, I see...you're using irony. Gottit.

It's hard to do that on a site like this. People -- even sympathetic ones -- have a hard time telling, because there's no voice-tone, and no facial evidence of irony.

You're probably better to speak less ambiguously, Nick, for fear of being taken to be advocating the opposite from your intention. Irony's a blunt tool, when done by email.
Post Reply