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.

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.

"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"

but i'm not getting this reasoning... aren't you ignoring biology when it comes to accepting a biological male identifying as a woman to begin with?

don't you see that you can't deny biology to accept their identity while at the same time deny their identity to accept biology? its inherently contradictory

"Your answer is rather vague. What do you mean with respect?"

the same level of respect i do with other people but that includes establishing boundaries against what i consider to be ridiculous ideologically motivated requests

"What pronoun do you use when talking about a transgender person?"

here's a question for you... if i stated that i identify as king and that my pronouns are rex and king, would you really go along with that? 

"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?"

didn't you mention one earlier when you raised your concern about transgender women competing against biological women? 

"Btw some people are born neither male nor female"

and some people are born with 8 limbs... do they stop being human as a result? or do we acknowledge that there are outliers in the process of reproduction and still retain the category that humans 99.9999999% of the time will exhibit characteristics such as having 4 limbs?

categories are a generalised grouping, they are not perfect and are susceptible to exceptions

I'm not denying biology, I've always said that transgender women aren't biological women but biology is not the end of all things.
Your identity isn't solely determined by biology, if that would be the case twins would have the same identity.
How we behave in public and how we engage with other people isn't determined by biological rules or our DNA, it's based on culture and society.

If you think being a transgender is ideologically motivated you should look up the meaning of the word ideology again. transgender people never chooses how they feel about their body.

your counterquestion is also pretty foul. first of all king is a social standing, gender isn't a social standing at all. secound, transgender people struggle their whole life with there body, someone mentioned before that the suicide rate is a lot higher amongst them, so if using female pronouns helps transgender women I will use them. That's what I call respect.

yeah, I raised that concern but we don't have to go the full way, It's doesn't have to be either 0% or 100%, we can also choose 85%.

Categories don't exist without context, so please provide context, I gave you a few examples.

Transgender people maybe also exceptions from your two categories or we need a new category for them.  

Meh. I never liked that expression "as a" woman or some other identity. It doesn't really mean anything  because people aren't monolithic in general. It doesn't even work "as a feminist" because as you explained, there's different kinds. Anyway, I like conversations  like this believe it or not. They're entertaining and mentally stimulating. I'll check out that vid as I'm going thru my daily podcasts and what not.

I don't think I'm projecting. I think that the vast majority of women and men want to get along and for there to be equality. I think the vast majority of women and men (people in general) want to have sex with, form lasting relationships, have a family with eachother. For the most part, western feminism/the MGTOW movements are antithetical what people want and poisonous to relationships. If anyone is projecting their interests, it's feminists onto women and MGTOWs onto men.

Collectivism and the collective good aren't mutually exclusive. I get what you're saying about rad fems being more interested in the collective good but I disagree about liberals  of today and the conventional left being more individualistic. They are obsessed with collectivism but only with certain groups in society being a part of their umbrella group. Everyone else they demonize. There's also alot of sex negative fems in there. The way you're using liberal in context with feminists makes me you're talking about sex postitive fems. I don't consider them liberal. This ties into the marxists and I agree with ya on them in general. 

I agree on with ya on the born gay thing but likely for different reasons. I think that people make the choice and not their impulses. Alot of people don't like this because it means that people are ultimately the one responsible for their choices and not something that's convenient to blame. Some might misinterpret my stance on that because they think that I'm religious because I'm right leaning. I just think that a person's choice is a very powerful thing and a person gets to choose most of their life and not some god or their impulses. My stance on "born gay" ties into my interactions with lesbians and my opinion on choice.

I agree with you on lesbians in general. I used to be friends with alot of them (shared interests). I get along with them well except for the man haters and the ones who became one because of sexual abuse/sponsal abuse. I was introduced to and became friends with lesbians thru dating bisexual women. Lesbians kinda think like guys when it comes to women. Conversations were pretty intriguing, entertaining and enlightening for me. I realized fairly quickly that lesbian is more of a mutable term rather than a absolute one. 

I think the non-binary stuff is nonsensical but hey people can do what want but therein lies my problem with them, they or their advocates want to dictate thru law how others refer to them. I'm just not okay with that authoritarian shit. I'm fine with using the intended gender of trans women and men when look like that gender because it falls in social norms to some extent but again they shouldn't force people thru law. 

Yeah, sometimes I enjoy these types of conversations too, as long as they don't get too bitter. It's a challenge, you know, trying to communicate productively with someone you disagree with almost entirely, but precisely for that reason, it can feel good to succeed and I think we have to some degree here. It makes for a worthwhile learning experience!

Anyway, you say that "there are a lot of sex negative feminists out there". Really, because I've seen exactly one self-described sex-negative feminist lifetime total so far (this one five years ago), and she wasn't exactly a radfem, or for that matter anti-sex or particularly unreasonable at all. She was simply someone who felt that society should not actively promote sex as a life goal, but rather should be publicly neutral on.

"Sex-positive" or "pro-sex" are what I like to call posturing terms. They're terms that some liberals use to imply that anyone who brings a feminist critique to the conduct of the sexual arena (e.g. opposing sadomasochism and other so-called kinks or the commercialization of women's bodies or polygamy or supporting age-of-consent laws, or maybe even just supporting #MeToo) is just simply uncool. Of course radfems don't actually oppose sex! Or the inclusion of sexuality in media or whatever for that matter. We just feel that sex should be egalitarian and that makes us unsexy in the eyes of a sexist society.

I think that for you the "sex-negative" moniker here probably just means that you didn't like Anita Sarkeesian's critiques of sexual objectification in games or something. That's not the same thing as actually opposing sex or the inclusion or sexuality in mainstream media.

Okay, I've gotta go to work now. Had a few, figured I'd finally get around to responding.

Anti-incel

I don't think she's necessarily saying that all men are the problem, or that women do nothing wrong, more that the system as it currently is more advantageous to men than it is to women. However, I do think that men who want to help the cause should definitely be allowed to participate; granted we cannot truly understand the difficulties that women face, however we can at least try to help recognize things that we could do differently in order not to perpetuate the oppressive system. Where she and I definitely do come to a disagreement though are thoughts on sexual orientation and transsexualism, I do not think that women can essentially free themselves by choosing to become homosexual, as from personal anecdotes I've tried to "become" bisexual/pansexual through a desire to have a more open mindset, however no matter how hard I'd try I could only achieve limited sexual attraction towards men. As for transsexualism, Jaicee is of the belief that it does not truly exist, while my belief is that transsexuals are real and that not accepting them into their desired gender is very harmful and potentially lethal.

I see that, but what would you prefer I use? If you want a self-identified term, I'll use it, but I'm definitely not going to agree with your thoughts on transgender issues. I also don't understand this argument:

"Understanding that gender is imposed, and is oppressive/exists to create a hierarchy between men and women."

How can you simultaneously say that gender is imposed, and refuse to accept those who refuse to have the sex that they don't associate with imposed on them?

@Jaicee also, in response to your claims that transwomen attempt suicide at a lower rate than ciswomen:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
42% of transwomen attempt suicide, 46% of transmen do, the overall number is 4.6%, you cannot tell me that it's higher for ciswomen than transwomen.

Also, thinking more about it, I'm baffled as to how the term TERF can be compared to the terms bitch, cunt and slut. The latter three refer to the sex of the individual, and those are obviously slurs, however the term TERF is not referring to the sex of the individual, but rather to the person's ideology/beliefs.

" I've always said that transgender women aren't biological women but biology is not the end of all things.
Your identity isn't solely determined by biology"

for transexual people it appears to be quite important since they are attempting to transition from one sex to another... often going as far as using surgery and drugs to do so

what you are not acknowledging is that if biology wasn't an issue then there would be no transexuals... their problem is directly rooted in biology

"How we behave in public and how we engage with other people isn't determined by biological rules or our DNA, it's based on culture and society."

why do you assume (incorrectly) that culture and society are not influence to a great extent by expressions of our biology?

earlier you drew attention to the fact that its a societal rule that men do not go into direct physical confrontation with women... why? because due to biology men are stronger than women and as a result we formed cultural rules as a result of biological differences

culture and biology are very very tightly linked and obviously that's because we are biological organisms... how could the differences and limitations that we have as a result not be expressed in our culture?

"If you think being a transgender is ideologically motivated"

i didn't specify what i believed to be ideologically motivated... it was actually the ever expanding list of pronouns that are being formed and the demands that they be taken seriously in communication

"your counterquestion is also pretty foul."

its actually not it cuts right to the heart of the problem

"first of all king is a social standing, gender isn't a social standing at all."

irrelevant... if i choose that as my identity then its my identity right? 

"secound, transgender people struggle their whole life with there body"

that's unfortunate, but everyone has their own personal struggles, i have mine and you have yours

"someone mentioned before that the suicide rate is a lot higher amongst them, so if using female pronouns helps transgender women I will use them. That's what I call respect."

that's not at all surprising given their situation and its your right to do so

"Categories don't exist without context, so please provide context, I gave you a few examples.

Transgender people maybe also exceptions from your two categories or we need a new category for them.  "

the context is that psychologically transgender people say they are the opposite sex so their aim is to change their physical state to match... this explicitly means that a fundamental aspect of this is the acceptance of male and female and that they are different enough to warrant a transition between them

because otherwise... what would be the point?

o_O.Q said:

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