Collective says what?
Oh goody, an open letter.
Open Letter: “Biological Sex” and Its Variants are Transphobic Slurs
Says Trans Advocacy & Complaints Collective, which I suppose is a person and a phone.
To our Public bodies, MPs, and Media outlets,
When considering the language we use to address a group, particularly a minority group, the most precise and respectful term is the language they choose for themselves. This is a widely accepted principle of respect, yet in recent years, it has been inexplicably overlooked when it comes to addressing transgender people and the trans community as a whole.
Is it? Is it? Is it really?
I don’t think so. The words “a group” can mean almost anything. Say you have a group of arsonists, or kidnappers, or Trump fans. Is it a widely accepted principle that we should let them decide what we call them? Nope, I don’t think it is.
Instead, we have witnessed a barrage of offensive terms being invented in recent years whose intention is to cause as much offence and harm to trans people and the trans community, whilst trying to appear authoritative or scientific. To educate those who otherwise might be using these words in good faith, we have decided to make our stance clear:
As much offence and harm as what? When writing an open letter or similar public-facing item it’s a good idea to keep track of your words until you get alllll the way to the end of the sentence.
Now, for the substantive point, no, that’s not what you’ve witnessed. What you’re seeing is reaction to the wild claims of a deluded flattered arrogant communniny hell bent on silencing women and taking all our stuff.
To educate those who otherwise might be using these words in good faith, we have decided to make our stance clear:
“Biological male” and “Biological Female” when referring to trans people, is an offensive slur.
Too bad. You have a biological sex, and when you start trying to take away everything women have fought for, we’re going to point it out.
A fundamental principle of dignity, respect and fostering good relations between those who have a protected characteristic and those who do not, is to refer to communities by non-offensive self-determined language.
Oh yeah? Then stop calling us cis women.
If our community is hurt by a phrase or term that has been externally assigned to us by those seeking to promote bigotry or erase our human rights, we have the right to call this behaviour out. It is up to no one but the members of our community to decide when something is offensive to us or when we choose to reclaim it. Currently, the trans community overwhelmingly consider the term/phrase “Biological Women” and “Biological Male” to be offensive and a slur.
Yuh huh and because I identify as a luxury yacht I consider the term/phrase “human being” to be offensive and a slur. What can I do about it? Not a damn thing, and the same goes for you.
As such, we call on Public bodies, MPs and Journalists to stop using and perpetuating this offensive term with immediate effect.
As such what? What as such?
And as for “with immediate effect” – well I call on you to go knit a bicycle with immediate effect.
As pretenders stuck with trying to reject biological reality. Eny fule cin seethat.
Case in point: no one would think of using the phrases ‘uterus haver’ ‘person with a cervix’ or ‘front hole’ for a woman, because it would be an offensive slur, and designed for the purpose of erasing women. No, no one would do THAT.
The obliviousness to anyone but themselves is strong in this one.
There it is, validation of what I have said for years. To take offence is a personal choice. Stop choosing to be offended.
How do they know? They don’t even have a good idea of who is and who isn’t in the trans community. Given the evasive definitions and the lack of any clear criteria (even subjective ones), there’s no way of figuring out whether someone is trans or not. Self-identification can yield both false negatives (closeted individuals, “internalized transphobia”) and false positives (e.g. “detransitioners were never really trans”).
Given that they’re talking about respecting minority groups, I’d say it’s rather ironic that they’re projecting their beliefs onto a minority group in order to further their political aims.
Religionists get offended when non-believers in their brand don’t go along with their commandments or demands to impose their principles on others. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would reply, “So you’re offended? So what?” The things that theists say to and about atheists are equally offensive, if not more so.
In the same way, the trans religion doesn’t get to dictate what others say about them. So what that you’re offended? Not everyone agrees with you.
Two more points:
1. The claim in this “open letter” puts the lie to one of the points of trans catechism: sex and gender are not the same thing! Don’t mix them up or conflate the two! (Of course, this point of dogma is bait-and-switched into an equivocation of gender [trans “women] and sex [women] = chant “Trans Women Are Women!!” such that repetition makes it true. Don’t you dare point out the contradiction between these two mantras of indoctrination. And the false syllogism of: “P1: I’m legally a female because it says ‘F’ on my driver’s license and passport. P2: I’m definitely a biological person. C: Therefore I [male] am a biological female,” is hubris and sophistry of the highest degree.)
2. T is utterly hypocritical about who can determine what can be said about someone else. You can’t call a trans identified male a “biological male.” It’s offensive and forbidden to call someone what they don’t call themselves. Except, of course, trans can use the offensive, insulting, and demeaning term “cis” for any woman they exclude from their club. They certainly know what a woman is when figuring out whom to call “cis women.” You can hear the malevolent hiss in “cis” women. Then there’s TERF. Even though it’s only ever used as a derogatory slur, T advocates say, “it’s not insulting; it’s an accurate description.” So they get to sling around the TERF epithet with impunity, regardless of what the women whom they thus insult may think or feel about it. The double standard also applies to the involuntary drafting of people with DSDs into the trans defense army. T advocates never asked people with DSDs how they felt about being used as pawns in the trans wars. Never mind that almost no trans identified males suffer from a DSD condition. In terms of who the T movement is intended to benefit, people with DSDs are not on the radar. In addition, T advocates don’t use the proper term, DSDs. They revert to the older — more offensive — term “intersex,” because it plays into their false narrative that “sex is a spectrum.” “Intersex” people must lie somewhere on a spectrum of sex, between male and female, right? Otherwise, why would it be called “intersex.” Right? I’ll bet there are plenty of people with DSDs who are sick and tired of being used as T’s battering ram against anyone who questions T dogma. Yes, the levels of hypocrisy is just astounding. So much for there being any “principle” of only ever calling someone what they themselves want to be called.
Too fucking bad. Demanding “inclusion” that violates women’s boundaries on the strength of an impossible, delusionary claim is unreasonable, dangerous, and rude. Saying that language used to highlight and assist matters of safeguarding is out of bounds interferes with women’s desire to be safe from opportunistic, predatory males. Women have a right to keep males out of their spaces. Because humans can’t change sex, trans identified males are not women, and don’t belong in female-only spaces or positions. Discouraging women from using language that makes the job of keeping themselves safe from men is unconscionable, and aligns with the interests of predatory males. Genderists know this because women have told them this is the case. Genderists are willing to let women pay this price, because they have forced women to do exactly that.
If “misgendering” gets in the way of correctly sexing males, then the former must give way. The former becomes a threat. Women’s safety is more important than men’s feelings. This shouldn’t require any explanation or justification to genderists; they can’t not know this, because women have told them. How can women view transactivists’ determination to plow ahead with this demand for proscriptions against clear language with anything but hostility and mistrust? This has gone far beyond mere “suspicion.” The suspicions were borne out long ago. This is just deliberate cruelty and malice. How can you defend yourself against a threat you are not allowed to name? More proof that shows just how necessary women’s need for male-free spaces is. Part of that is being able to use plain, honest language. There is nothing wrong with being male or female. But trying to hide from women the fact that you are male raises red flags, and rightfully so, particularly while invading women’s spaces.
Trans activism itself, with its insistence that “TWAW”, has brought about and necessitated the use of “biological male/female” in order for society at large, and women in particular to distinguish male and female in law and the apportioning facilities according to sex. So-called “transwomen” remain male, and there’s nothing they can do to themselves that will ever change that. Women have a right to have things for themselves without men invading, or taking them from them. Telling women they’re not allowed to name this distinction, for their own safety and comfort, is evil.
Trans activists are allowed to make and highlight the distinction between “trans” and “cis”, but women are not allowed to discriminate between women and men-claiming-to-be-women. The “biological” part is just too accurate for their liking. It highlights the fact that TiMs are not women. All the criteria they claim for their “womanhood” are non-biological, when women are defined completely by biology. Gametes, gonads, chromosomes, hormones, etc., are all bi-o-logical. They are all anatomical, physiological, and material. No ideation or imagination required. Beliefs and feelings in the head, while arising from a biological substrate, are not material, physiological entities, but are the only things that TiMs can ever have. They don’t count for anything outside their heads (or at least they shouldn’t). “Biological” is a dirty word because they can’t use it. They’ve brought an idea to a biology fight, trying to reintroduce Cartesian dualism to a decidedly materialist discussion. They think their precious ideas should trump the brute facts of human meat. If you want this kind of “mind over matter”, get in line with the psychics; they believe in lots of impossible things too.
It isn’t, and that’s the trick. By asserting a moral principle and claiming it to be “common sense” or “common decency”, they put people into an Emperor’s New Clothes kind of situation. Since most people don’t have a highly developed ethical system, they don’t have the tools to evaluate the claim, never mind argue against it. So they just accede to it. I’d bet that most people who repeat such talking points have never seen anyone actually defend the opposing view.
It’s common sense that euphemisms like “AFAB” are attempts to erase women, and just a continuation of traditional misogyny in a flashy new costume.
“with immediate effect”
I thought that sort of pseudo-legalistic fuckwittery only worked when posted on Truth Social.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER
“Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective” =/= “Bag of Dicks”
It’s always been this way, of course. Many of us had mothers who taught us to hide our intelligence so we didn’t make the men feel less. We were taught to ensure that men won games. I was shocked beyond comprehension when my supervisor, a modern male with a social justice conscience, told me I should ‘accommodate’ the dean who couldn’t handle having women smarter than he is (since all the women working in academic ed were smarter than he is, that must have been hell for him while he was associate dean for academic ed). I am used to adult human males telling women things like that, but I thought there were some males who understood and had moved past that. Guess not. So I wrote a poem about it, which ended with the line “Fuck you”.