All it takes is education
They just are, that’s all. Why are you so stupid? If I say they are, then they are. There’s nothing more to it.
Klyne-Simpson says she understands some people can feel uncomfortable at first if they have never met a transgender person before.
“But all it takes is education. Once you understand trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary people are who they say they are, it’s as simple as that,” she said. “If you still feel uncomfortable after that, that’s on you, it’s not on me. I am who I am, it’s as simple as that. I just look different. That’s all.”
It’s so simple. You just say. Why are you so stupid that you don’t understand it? People are who they say they are. That’s how the world runs and how it has run for billions of years.
Kelli Paddon, B.C.’s parliamentary secretary for gender equity says situations like this highlight that it is important to continue working to advance transgender people’s rights.
“Trans people deserve to feel safe, welcome and affirmed for who they are. Trans women are women – period,”
See? She gets it. (Is a she, right? Men don’t spell their names with an i do they?) She says it, so it’s true. Period.
How dare anyone doubt or question something someone has said? It’s worse than murder.
So would Trump have avoided all this legal trouble if he’d identified as trans? We’d all have to believe that he is a stable genius, and that all of his properties are worth billions, right? It’s just that simple.
Russell Brand should rebrand himself as “Russi Brand”, stunning and brave in a blone wig and lingerie.
All the Laurie Penny types would then be too frightened to criticise Brand’s obnoxious behaviour for fear of being called the worst thing ever, a TERF.
I actually don’t see how it helps at all. Even if I KNEW (falsely, of course) that a bepenised person could be a woman it still wouldn’t help my safety, as a “woman” with a penis is at least as much of a risk as a man with a penis. Indeed, even if the penis has been removed, it’s hardly a guarantee.
Feminists used to have a rhetorical question: what does a rapist look like? The point being, it’s not made obvious – any man, regardless of how respectable or not he looks, could be, and that is sufficient to exclude all teen and adult males from spaces where women and their children are vulnerable (naked, toileting, in a refuge, hospital, prison etc). Because that achieves the desired aim: safety and the sense of safety.
This ideology demands we give up both the safety, and the sense of safety, by saying, in effect, “what would you know about your safety anyway? Bigot” while maintaining that they know all about their own safety.
It’s quite impossible for me to “understand” something that makes no sense and is flatly untrue.
By definition, only a man can be a “trans woman.”. The only thing it is possible to “understand” is that trans women are in fact men. It’s as simple as that.
That’s the gaslighting, right there. Of course women are “uncomfortable” with men in their single-sex spaces. When you lie to women about your sex, their discomfort is heightened, not diminished. Men who deliberately violate women’s boundaries are more likely, not less likely, to pose a risk to women. So, you’re wrong. You lying about your sex is on you; it’s not on the women you lie to. They are right to distrust you. You are a proven liar.
You merely look different — from ordinary ideas of masculinity for men. And that’s okay. It’s okay for men to be masculine or feminine. So, if “all it takes is education,” then you go and educate other men that some men look feminine; not all men ascribe to social standards of masculinity. After that, the men’s discomfort with non-conforming men in men’s spaces is on them. You’re directing your efforts at “education” to entirely the wrong people. Instead of lying to women that men can be women, go educate the men that not all men are masculine.
maddog, #4:
That’s one of the issues I was arguing about last night at PZ’s place. Two commenters offered genius [sic] solutions, sadly too late for me to respond to them as PZ had banned me by that point, which he always does when somebody making rational arguments makes his mob feel unsafe and threatened in their ‘safe space’- yet another irony he fails to see.
Solution one: Single sex spaces for women are unnecessary these days because reasons, so just make everything open to everybody, which was a nice way of saying that if women won’t let men into their spaces, take their spaces away. That’ll show the bitches who’s in charge.
Solution two: a more transcentric suggestion. The problem is the silly focus on sex, so stop calling them single-sex spaces. Instead, relabel them as single-gender spaces so everybody uses the space that matches their gender identity. How could anybody possibly object to that?
@Acolyte of Sagan;
Good grief — that was a dumpster fire.
Sastra, it was indeed, and it felt as though I was arguing with petulant children for the most part. I’ve just had another look at the thread; it’s amazing how many comments appeared on there slinging insults and making utterly ridiculous claims and challenging me to refute them – after I’d been banned. I’m sure they see that as a victory since I ‘failed’ to respond to them.
This, however, from Silentbob, had me almost crying with laughter:
Ninja transition goblins therefore trans women are women. The most convincing argument yet.
@Acolyte of Sagan #7:
That’s a variation of a thought experiment which is supposed to help us recognize we have an internal gender identity which doesn’t depend on what we look like. “If you woke up in a female body, AoS, would you be a man or a woman?” You’re expected to say you’re still a man — and have a light bulb moment. Our mental knowledge of self is what makes us a man or woman. It’s more than a “feeling” — you know.
Trouble is, most GC would go with the body on that one. A female sexed body would make you a woman — though one with a bizarre history. It’s like waking up “in the body of a mouse” and parsing whether you’re a mouse or not. It’s hard in both cases to figure out from the information whether all the subsequent genetic/hormonal influences on the brain would be applied — presumably not, so the thought experiment as a whole may be missing critical factors
I appreciated that Silent Bob spent more time specifically answering your objections (not as much spam on that one), if only because it gave additional insight into what Genderists believe, what they focus on, and what they don’t.
Sastra, he certainly wrote at length but I would have appreciated it more if he was actually addressing the points I made rather than his own bad faith interpretations of them. For example, in order to refute my statement that a trans man is a female, in spite of the literal implication in the ‘a trans man is a man’ part of the mantra, he took that to mean that I thought that trans men are saying that they were born with testes. He then went on to say that a trans man is a man who was born without testes – which he claims is what ‘trans’ means – and is a man in the same way that a ‘cis’ soldier who had his testes blown off is still a man. He was making nonsensical arguments against something I didn’t even say.
I made it very clear early on that while gamete production is a clear sex marker, so is having the body type associated with producing them regardless of whether or not the body is able to produce gametes. Yet he asked
.
He told me that my assertion that male and female sexes existed long before humans and will exist long after we’re gone was a homophobic statement, as was my description of transgender as being a psychological disconnect between the physical reality of the sexed body and the way the individual thinks about themself.
It was the same from his first comment to his last. He didn’t let the truth get in the way of a long rant.
Yes, after quoting you he misinterpreted pretty much down the line in a series of straw men and brought up non sequiturs. I only give him points because this seemed to be an improvement, and he at least went to the bother of spelling out his beliefs. We assign both sex (by rashly guessing from sex organs) and gender (by even more rashly guessing that being (possibly) female means someone is a girl.) I see.
Whereas the clever people know that girls are actually boys that were born without testicles.