The placid sense of male entitlement just takes my breath away sometimes.
Saying that someone would *choose* that is even more ridiculous than saying that you *choose* to be gay. If they define themselves as women, no uterus-carrier (here's a new name idea for the group you can form) will convince me otherwise.
There is this guy, Desmond Morris. He is a zoologist, but he made his splash back in the 60s with a book titled “The Naked Ape”, followed by another titled “Manwatching”. His idea was to describe human behavior the way we would describe any other species: watch the individuals and write down what you see.
Fair enough, but I read one of them (I don’t remember which) and I was struck by the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about. Despite living among humans, and–in fact–being a human, he had no insight into many common human behaviors. Lacking insight, he filled in the gaps with stuff that he just made up, and it was risible–laughably off-the-mark.
Some guy claiming that the essence of being female is to be found in the experiences of trans people in NYC 30 years ago rather than in the fact of having a uterus strikes me the same way.
Entitlement, combined IMHO with good old honest-to-Godness rationalisation born of aspiration. But also, when the human mind wants something that the human body says it cannot have, the body gets overruled and rationalisation kicks in big-time. It’s like the kid at the lolly counter throwing a tantrum and coming up with a list of reasons as to why parental refusal amounts to a war crime, and should be dealt with in the Hague.
“Hey women, if you want to know what a *real* woman is, watch this fictional depiction of male drag queens in the 80s!!!”
I actually have no doubt that Pose is an accurate depiction of the lives of “trans” people (nevermind that they didn’t call themselves that or think they were literally the opposite sex…) in the 80s and 90s. It still has *nothing* to do with the lives of 99.999+% of women even in just NYC in the 80s and 90s. The level of arrogance required to think that a group that was at most a few thousand (male!) people should be considered the default and literally billions of women have to accept being defined by them or else they’re bigots is mind blowing. Just say you’re a misogynist and be done with it, Michael.
It’s worth pointing out that the question from Eliza Mondegreen that prompted this outburst, was:
What is it that transwomen and women share that neither shares with men or transmen? That is, under your definition of “woman,” what makes women a distinct group?
And therefore did not mention uterus-having in the first place. The guy continues in this vein and Eliza rightly calls him out for it: putting words in people’s mouths so he can spit his canned responses, regardless of whether they answer the question. Then he spits his dummy and off he goes.
I get this a lot. We’ve discussed the heavy-lifting the so is doing in “so you’re saying..” before, but I’m not sure we’ve covered the canned answers part. It’s really annoying. Some guy will throw these things into the middle of a thread and his friends will all like it like crazy, making it seem as though an important point has been won.
There is this guy, Desmond Morris. He is a zoologist, but he made his splash back in the 60s with a book titled “The Naked Ape”, followed by another titled “Manwatching”. His idea was to describe human behavior the way we would describe any other species: watch the individuals and write down what you see.
Fair enough, but I read one of them (I don’t remember which) and I was struck by the fact that he had no idea what he was talking about. Despite living among humans, and–in fact–being a human, he had no insight into many common human behaviors. Lacking insight, he filled in the gaps with stuff that he just made up, and it was risible–laughably off-the-mark.
Some guy claiming that the essence of being female is to be found in the experiences of trans people in NYC 30 years ago rather than in the fact of having a uterus strikes me the same way.
Entitlement, combined IMHO with good old honest-to-Godness rationalisation born of aspiration. But also, when the human mind wants something that the human body says it cannot have, the body gets overruled and rationalisation kicks in big-time. It’s like the kid at the lolly counter throwing a tantrum and coming up with a list of reasons as to why parental refusal amounts to a war crime, and should be dealt with in the Hague.
“Hey women, if you want to know what a *real* woman is, watch this fictional depiction of male drag queens in the 80s!!!”
I actually have no doubt that Pose is an accurate depiction of the lives of “trans” people (nevermind that they didn’t call themselves that or think they were literally the opposite sex…) in the 80s and 90s. It still has *nothing* to do with the lives of 99.999+% of women even in just NYC in the 80s and 90s. The level of arrogance required to think that a group that was at most a few thousand (male!) people should be considered the default and literally billions of women have to accept being defined by them or else they’re bigots is mind blowing. Just say you’re a misogynist and be done with it, Michael.
It’s worth pointing out that the question from Eliza Mondegreen that prompted this outburst, was:
And therefore did not mention uterus-having in the first place. The guy continues in this vein and Eliza rightly calls him out for it: putting words in people’s mouths so he can spit his canned responses, regardless of whether they answer the question. Then he spits his dummy and off he goes.
I get this a lot. We’ve discussed the heavy-lifting the so is doing in “so you’re saying..” before, but I’m not sure we’ve covered the canned answers part. It’s really annoying. Some guy will throw these things into the middle of a thread and his friends will all like it like crazy, making it seem as though an important point has been won.
I run into this one a lot. He could be saying:
1.) If transwomen are born with the conviction they’re women, then this means they are women.
2.) It is easy to separate a trait you’re born with from one you developed in an early environment.
3.) It is easy to separate a trait which developed in an early environment from a choice.
4.) No one would ever choose to be in a group that gets harassed.
5.) If someone is harassed for acting like a woman, then that means they are a woman.
All of those are dubious.