By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MrWayne said:
o_O.Q said:

i don't get this stance...

 

"If I talk to a transgender woman, aka a biological man who identifies himself as a woman and tries to be seen as a woman, I would definitely address her as a woman."

ok fair enough you accept their identity here

"It's debatable if transgender women should be allowed to participate in women's sports leagues"

but deny their identity here

why is it ok to throw out the biological basis for sex in one instance but not another?

because these are very different situations.

If the instance is heavily tied to the physiology of the women body or to being born and raised as a women, women and transgender women have a different view and experiences but there are many cases where it's not important what's between you legs or how your parents raised you.

So I would say feminism isn't a movement for transgender women but they definitely benefit from it, so it's pretty logical for them to be feminists..

btw Feminism is a movement for women but you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

"but there are many cases where it's not important what's between you legs or how your parents raised you."

but wouldn't that invalidate the whole proposal?

if this subsection which is about the common experiences of men and women is primary then why is there a need for a switch between either group?

surely the issue at hand is those experiences which are not common across the groups?

isn't the argument from trans people that their experience of life differs so much to their current gender that they must make the switch to feel whole?

 

"So I would say feminism isn't a movement for transgender women but they definitely benefit from it"

well if we throw away what it means to be a woman then i suppose they will initially...

 

my response to you was not about feminism btw, it was about the dismissal of biology under some conditions and its use under other conditions to erase the identity of trans people... my point is that you cannot logically do both



 

At first I thougt you were offering the serious option and te hilarious option (imagine someone offering the prostitution solution back to her), but actually a good question.  Will employers acting like big broand firing employees for thinking about incel reult in less incidents?  Prolly not in the short run.

So, of course the incel problem doesn't have an easy solution. My main opinion is it's none of the employer's business.



o_O.Q said:

"but there are many cases where it's not important what's between you legs or how your parents raised you."

but wouldn't that invalidate the whole proposal?

if this subsection which is about the common experiences of men and women is primary then why is there a need for a switch between either group?

surely the issue at hand is those experiences which are not common across the groups?

"Also normally one can not know how many X and Y chromosomes an unknown person has, one can only assume on the basis of their appearance, so transgender women are strongly affected by the social norms for women."


that is from my first post, I meant the everyday life situations where transgender women and biological women behave the same. .

o_O.Q said:

my response to you was not about feminism btw,

it was about the dismissal of biology under some conditions and its use under other conditions to erase the identity of trans people...

my point is that you cannot logically do both

why?

I think we should treat transgender people how they want to be treated but there are  situations where we have to make a exception.

I think I explained pretty well where and why I would make those exceptions.

How do you think we should treat transgender people?



numberwang said:

Former reddit CEO Pao:

What's the implication here? That because I can't attain sex I should lose my job?

Granted, I don't work in a "big tech company" but still...



curl-6 said:
numberwang said:

Former reddit CEO Pao:

What's the implication here? That because I can't attain sex I should lose my job?

Granted, I don't work in a "big tech company" but still...

Well, maybe it's more to do with self-described "incels", as if that's their defining trait or something.



VGPolyglot said:
curl-6 said:

What's the implication here? That because I can't attain sex I should lose my job?

Granted, I don't work in a "big tech company" but still...

Well, maybe it's more to do with self-described "incels", as if that's their defining trait or something.

Well, you can be involuntarily celibate without being a violent woman-hating psychopath. I can't say I've ever felt the urge to engage in an act of terrorism.



curl-6 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, maybe it's more to do with self-described "incels", as if that's their defining trait or something.

Well, you can be involuntarily celibate without being a violent woman-hating psychopath. I can't say I've ever felt the urge to engage in an act of terrorism.

And you can also be involuntarily celibate without using that as part of your identity and giving yourself the title of an incel.



VGPolyglot said:
curl-6 said:

Well, you can be involuntarily celibate without being a violent woman-hating psychopath. I can't say I've ever felt the urge to engage in an act of terrorism.

And you can also be involuntarily celibate without using that as part of your identity and giving yourself the title of an incel.

Well, I don't see it so much as my identity so much as a descriptor; I'm incel in the same way that I'm blonde, tall, or employed. It's merely one facet, one trait, that currently applies to me.



MrWayne said:
o_O.Q said:

"but there are many cases where it's not important what's between you legs or how your parents raised you."

but wouldn't that invalidate the whole proposal?

if this subsection which is about the common experiences of men and women is primary then why is there a need for a switch between either group?

surely the issue at hand is those experiences which are not common across the groups?

"Also normally one can not know how many X and Y chromosomes an unknown person has, one can only assume on the basis of their appearance, so transgender women are strongly affected by the social norms for women."


that is from my first post, I meant the everyday life situations where transgender women and biological women behave the same. .

o_O.Q said:

my response to you was not about feminism btw,

it was about the dismissal of biology under some conditions and its use under other conditions to erase the identity of trans people...

my point is that you cannot logically do both

why?

I think we should treat transgender people how they want to be treated but there are  situations where we have to make a exception.

I think I explained pretty well where and why I would make those exceptions.

How do you think we should treat transgender people?

"I think we should treat transgender people how they want to be treated but there are  situations where we have to make a exception."

you think they should be treated how they want to be treated until you don't... that's my point

 

"How do you think we should treat transgender people?"

with respect, but that does not mean that the notion that men can simply become a women or vice versa through "identity" completely disregarding the biological basis from which we derive genders is the way to go

its an obvious mistake to do so... as jaicee has mentioned in this thread, one obvious consequence is that in doing so we run the risk of eliminating male and female as categories

and then why should mike tyson not be able to go head to head with rhonda rousey if the concept of man and woman don't mean anything?

why should we bother to advocate for women's issues when women don't exist?

.... i mean i don't really get how people cannot see what is at stake here



o_O.Q said:

"I think we should treat transgender people how they want to be treated but there are  situations where we have to make a exception."

you think they should be treated how they want to be treated until you don't... that's my point

But that's the way our society works. This also applies to you and me.
It is a constant balancing of various interests. Personal freedom ends where it threatens the freedom of others.

I think the option for transgender women to participating in a women's sports league threatens biological women's opportunity to have a fair competition and in this case i value fair competition higher. Honestly this is actually the only exception i can think of.

o_O.Q said:

"How do you think we should treat transgender people?"

with respect, but that does not mean that the notion that men can simply become a women or vice versa through "identity" completely disregarding the biological basis from which we derive genders is the way to go

its an obvious mistake to do so... as jaicee has mentioned in this thread, one obvious consequence is that in doing so we run the risk of eliminating male and female as categories

and then why should mike tyson not be able to go head to head with rhonda rousey if the concept of man and woman don't mean anything?

why should we bother to advocate for women's issues when women don't exist?

.... i mean i don't really get how people cannot see what is at stake here

Your answer is rather vague. What do you mean with respect?
What pronoun do you use when talking about a transgender person? should they choose which toilet they use? should sex changing operations be allowed? should a transgender couple be allowed to marry and adopt children? etc.

I also don't get your concept of categories. Where do you use those categories? In medicine, work life, everyday life,..?
And what are those stakes you are talking about? do you think we will throw away our knowledge about the female body or women rights?(wasn't the strong segregation between men and women the reason why women were treated so badly in the past)

Btw some people are born neither male nor female so there are more than 2 categories from the beginning.