Let’s take a peek at what goes on in conversations where transactivists are talking about feminist ideology. This is a comment that has quoted another, and thus the OP are in italics.
“I have actually said that ‘man = adult male human’ and ‘woman = adult female human’ are the current meanings as determined by common use.”
That’s a circular definition. Words “adult” and “human” might have clearer definitions, but how the hell do you define “male” or “female.” For example, I’d say that a trans woman is female.
“But the alternative is to use ‘woman’ to mean ‘person who matches / willingly embraces female cultural expectations’ or perhaps ‘person who considers themselves to be a woman’. The former I reject on the grounds that it necessarily requires and maintains cultural expectations placed on the sexes, the latter on the grounds that it is self referential and thus meaningless.”
When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.” Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman. If instead you chose a list of other criteria, your definition would end up being bigoted and discriminatory. You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”
Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”
When we classify the human species, we do so along the lines of physical sex. Someone has a the big gametes and someone has the small gametes. This delineation exists independently of what any human thinks about it. It also happens to be one of the major axis of oppression in the world, because if you happen to be the XX, or the large gamete bearer, you are given the short end of the stick. This is because most societies in the human sphere are patriarchies and spend a good deal of social capital in controlling female bodies and female reproduction for the benefit of the male class. This social discrimination is based on your immutable physical sex. No amount of attempting to ‘identify” out of your sex class will work.
Let’s look at the first paragraph. A bad start already.
Man = Adult human male
Woman = Adult human female
These definitions are concise with no circularity at all. Circularity comes into play with transactivist definitions of the word ‘woman’, as their standard reply goes something like this:
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. (But what is a woman? – note the circularity)
I’ll need to quote specifics here:
“When human beings are grouped in any way, the only non bigoted version for how to define some group is “a person who considers themselves to belong to said group.” For example, how do you define a “soccer fan”? The only non bigoted definition would be “a person who calls themselves a soccer fan.”
Really? Is it bigoted to call people with brown hair a member of the class of people who are brunettes? Is the term ‘blonde’ bigoted for describing people with lighter yellowish hair?
It would seem that Andreas is fucking allergic to material facts. Please also consider the notion that facts do not care about your feelings Andreas, especially ones that give rise to the fatuous reasoning on display here.
“Let’s imagine some arrogant and elitist self-proclaimed soccer fans wanted to exclude some other people they dislike from soccer fandom, then they would come up with some different definition that required a “true soccer fan” to conform to a list of criteria. This would be bigotry and discrimination. The only reasonable and inclusive definition for “a soccer fan” is “whoever calls themselves such.” The same goes also for words like “man” and “woman.” A woman is a person who considers themselves to be a woman.”
Categories exist. Human sexual dimorphism exist. You can’t handwave this away because of your personal feelings on the subject, furthermore after you misidentify an actual definition of what a woman is, you make a shitty analogy and end with a circular argument. Jesus.
“You cannot define a woman as “a person who has a vagina, XX chromosomes, little testosterone in her body, breasts, uses female pronouns, uses make-up, has long hair, removes body hair from her legs, wears skirts or dresses, loves pink, enjoys cooking, is submissive to her husband, is a stay-at-home mother, never attended a university.”
Once you start listing characteristics, whatever they may be, your definition is bound to become bigoted and discriminatory. Even if you pick just one criterion, like having XX chromosomes, you are bound to unfairly exclude some intersex women who have XY chromosomes but who are otherwise women and follow all the other potential criteria for what defines “a woman.”
Ahhh…yes, yes you can. Adult human female works great. Also, newsflash, categories are not fucking inclusive. Otherwise they would not be categories. Calling a box of apples and oranges -“apples”- is nonsensical. But here, here is the power we give to males and the male power of naming in society, because of male gender feels we are at the stage now where we have rules in place to call a box of oranges and apples ‘apples’ because the oranges *REEEEALY FEEL* like they are apples.
Delusional fucking insanity.
II. On Gender, Sex, and Material Facts.
“TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.” I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be. If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination. Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”
The amount of wrong packed into these paragraphs requires them to be picked apart and responded to piecemeal, but its good(?) to see the entire thought first.
“”TERFs seem to oppose gender stereotypes. According to them, an AFAB person ought to be free to wear pants, drink beer, work as a firefighter, remain childfree by choice, or be a butch lesbian. Nonetheless, TERFs still keep on enforcing gender stereotypes and promote the discrimination of AFAB people by saying “you can be this unfeminine, but don’t take a single step beyond this line we have drawn.”
Radical feminists do oppose gender stereotypes, they are norms and expectations that are corrosive to the females and males that have to live with them in society. Furthermore, gender is a system that works to disadvantage females in the social sphere and lessen their contributions to society solely because they are female.
Oh another bullshit genderist term you are going to run into quite frequently is AFAB or AMAB which stand for “A Female Assigned At Birth” and “A Male Assigned At Birth”. This is linguistic fuckery because the sex of a newborn child is observed at birth, nothing more. Genderists/Transactivists like to play these word games in attempt to cast doubt on material reality and to bolster their unsupportable arguments.
The line that radical feminists draw is one based on biological material fact, you are born in the vast majority of cases either unambiguously male or female. Humans cannot change their sex, and this is the line -based on fact- that is drawn.
“I happen to be an AFAB person who dared to say: “I completely renounce womanhood and femininity in its entirety, I refuse to follow the female gender role, I prefer male pronouns, I consider myself a guy, I will live as a guy, I am not a woman.” By insisting that I must be a woman, Holms is insulting and abusing me, Holms is subjecting me to gender discrimination. If a feminist truly wanted to end gender discrimination, they should give AFAB people complete freedom to be as stereotypically feminine or masculine as each AFAB person desires to be.”
But you are a woman. Your female sex was observed at birth. Renounce all you’d like, but that doesn’t change your sex. It can’t happen. This is the crux of the matter right here, Andreas prefers male pronouns, and considers themselves a guy. And you know what? That’s fine. However, expecting others to play along with your delusion is not fine, especially to the level of reordering the laws of society (as what has happened in Canada) around your personal subjective gender feelings. To this, you can fuck right off, deviating away from running society based on the world of fact and into personal gender subjectivity is not good for society as a whole.
So Holms is not insulting and abusing you, he is just not going to participate in the fantasy you have woven for yourself.
The last sentence is particularly telling as it is an admonishment to let people indulge in the toxic gender stereotypes to whatever degree they wish. You do you, be the best stereotypical male you can be. What you do not get to do is silence radical feminist critique of gender and the harmful patriarchally approved stereotypes it proscribes for men and women, especially the criticism that transgender ideology reinforces patriarchal stereotypes.
“If instead some TERF insists that “all AFAB people are ‘women,’ they must use female pronouns, they must have a female gender identity,” then that’s gender discrimination”
No. Most radical feminist would suggest that being gender non conforming would be the state of affairs that would be most preferable. Gender and its prescriptions are all bad, just being you is much better, regardless of your sex. This is another part of the tangled web of transideology, it so very individualistic, to such an extent that most of its adherents are blind to how group dynamics work in society and, more specifically the ineffectuality of individual solutions to fix societal problem. So yeah, radical feminists would categorize you as a female and therefore to be included in the feminist movement.
Plain and simple. Last time I checked, feminists were supposed to oppose gender discrimination. Incidentally, I don’t care whether the person who is trying to enforce female gender identity upon me is a Catholic priest or a self-proclaimed feminist—both of them are abusing me.”
Feminists do oppose gender discrimination. How does playing along with your personal gender-feels = discrimination. The rest of the world is under no obligation to join you in your Topsy-turvey view of how gender works.
III. On Narcissism
Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.” Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. TERFs consider trans men to be women. They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.
“If you meet someone, a cursory glance is almost always accurate — a surmise on incomplete data is not a bad start. In those instances where the person says otherwise, I’m not particularly wedded to the idea of calling someone what I believe them to be over their protest, even if I privately think of them as man/woman.”
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way. Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity. Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”
“Ironically, TERFs call me a “woman” against my will, because they consider all AFAB people “women.”
Facts still don’t care about your feelings.
“Simultaneously, TERFs abuse and discriminate me. Sorry but you don’t get to call yourself a “feminist” if you only care about some AFAB people who choose lifestyles that you endorse and you are perfectly happy to abuse all the other AFAB people who choose to live as men. I consider trans men to be men. “
So, naming biological reality is ‘abuse and discrimination’. Also, ironic as in the very next sentence a prescriptive sentiment on how one is supposed to be a feminist. This is self serving narcissism at its very core. My identity and beliefs are sacrosanct and you all out there had better comply.
Fuck. That. Noise.
“They don’t get to simultaneously do all the following: (1) call trans men “women,” (2) call themselves “feminists” and proclaim that they fight for women’s rights, (3) undermine the rights of trans men.”
1. We will continue to call ‘trans-men’ women, because it is reality.
2. We shall continue to fight for female liberation from the patriarchal strictures of society, so sorry you’ve gone full handmaiden for the gender-gods, but so be it.
3. Which rights specifically are you talking about? The ‘right’ to control how others perceive you? The ‘right’ to demand others fall in line with your subjective gender-identity? No, thank you, not today my gender totalitarian friend, women shall not take the knee to gender-feels, not today.
“Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you! You don’t get to privately believe whether I am a man or a woman based upon your visual impression of my body. If I tell you that I am a guy, you don’t get to privately think of me in any other way.”
Totalitarian thought control is never a good look.
“Fuck you! If other people’s observations about some person are more important than their own words about who they are, do I get to force the identity of an “asshole” upon you? I have made an observation that Holms is an asshole. Even if Holms doesn’t see themselves as an asshole, my observation still must be more important in determining Holms’ true identity.”
We’d have to take a look at the qualities that make up an asshole and see if Holms fit in. You know, checking out the facts and evidence to draw a conclusion… kinda like biological sex informs the role we are forced into in society. How Holms identifies is irrelevant to what Holms actually is, because Holms’s subjective feelings on the matter may be unreliable.
To summarize, in gender-feelz land if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then obviously its a (identifies as an) ostrich.
…
“Thus Holms is an asshole, and if Holms protests and insists that he is not an asshole, well that doesn’t matter. What matters here are the observations of an outside observer rather than how Holms personally self-identifies.”
Yep. Pretty much. Because society is about interactions between people and outside of repressive forces, these interactions are a two way affair. Get used to it.
The fact that the US is still entangled in Afghanistan has all but left the news media in the United States. I certainly hope that powers involved here can keep their agenda focus and actually produce some results. The status quo quagmire needs to end.
“The Afghan state minister for peace affairs, Abdul Salam Rahimi, announced on Saturday that the Afghan government was preparing for direct talks with the Taliban. “The government will be represented by a 15-member delegation. We are working will all sides and hope that in the next two weeks the first meeting will take place in a European country,” Rahimi said.
Oslo has been mentioned as the venue for the crucial meeting. The Taliban have not yet budged from their longstanding demand that a deal must be forged with the US first. Possibly, a deal will be announced after the ninth round of US-Taliban talks in Doha in the coming week.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani inspects a guard of honor during the first day of the Loya Jirga in Kabul on April 29. Photo: Rahmat Gul / AFP
Indeed, we are witnessing an utterly fascinating spectacle of diplomatic pirouette being played out between and among five main protagonists – Trump, who is demanding an expeditious US withdrawal from Afghanistan, assuming Imran Khan will deliver on his promises; Khan, in turn, going through the motions of persuading the Taliban to be reasonable while expecting generous US reciprocal moves to accommodate Pakistani interests; Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, seeing the writing on the wall that US withdrawal is unstoppable, while still hoping to secure a second term in office; Khalilzad pushing the reluctant Afghan government to fall in line with a Taliban deal, while also negotiating with the Taliban for an orderly US withdrawal, albeit with a weak hand; and the Taliban on a roll, sensing victory.
There are caveats galore. But the compass has been set.“
I am you are me. That’s what I said.
I am you are me. Don’t you see?
It’s seems like I’m over here and you’re over there.
But there is somethin’ between us that’s greater than air.
See thru the confusion; it’s not hard to do,
It’s just an illusion; it’s me and you.
I am a part of you, you are a part of me
And so together we are one body.
I am inside your head, you are inside my heart.
We fit together perfect from the start
Gerome Irwin writes on Canada’s fateful choice to continue down the path of environmental ruin.
“It’s a trite cliché to say the time has long since past the critical tipping point when humanity can no longer have it both ways. Every human must, sooner or later, once and for all, choose which side of the debate they’re on and then accept the consequences of whichever side is chosen.
One prime example is Canada’s decision to continue to choose this fatal addiction to oil and fossil fuels by its latest decision to continue building a Trans Mountain pipeline from the Tar Sands of Alberta to the coastal waters of British Columbia. Canada’s decision to increase the flow of toxic bitumen – one of the dirtiest of all substances known to exist – to a world hopelessly hooked on yet its next fix of the deadly black stuff flies in the face of whatever constantly re-adjusted Paris Accord Agreement or proposed grandiose Green Environmental Plan to help humanity once and for all kick this fatal attraction. Every new scheme in this direction, whether it’s a so-called aboriginal/First Nation ‘Reconciliation’ Pipeline, to get them their own ‘tiny cut of the economic pie’, or whatever other spinoff plan of the same thing boils down to a falsehood of perpetually trying to have one’s cake and eat it, too.
it’s always a curious fact to note that oil is what remains as a by-product of one of Earth’s most primitive epoch’s in its evolutionary journey yet also is perhaps the main cause of what scientists now refer to as the Anthropocene Epoch in geological history that is in the process of repeating yet the sixth great extinction of all of life on earth.
Human society must keep reminding itself that it’s by-products like bitumen that are fueling this epoch extinction and literally every aspect of the human world’s modern civilization, and that such decisions are bringing about, if not speeding up, this fatally destructive geologic epoch that, to continue to do so, must knowingly and willingly consume and destroy ever-greater amounts of the earth’s precious, finite natural sources like water that, literally and figuratively, is the very essence of life.
Water is the only real lifeline that sustains all of earth’s living things as we all travel together safely through time and space on our tiny, resilient blue orb through an incredibly harsh, unforgiving, hostile universe. One could even go so far as to say that the ancient waters that daily course through all our bodies is a holy communal fluid full of the actual hosts of ancient ancestors of all manner and kind going back to the very beginning of creation. Therefore, no matter how else one may put it: Water is the Most Sacred Substance of all that not only Protect’s but Inspires the Journey we’re on Together.”
Kinda mystical toward the end of the quote, but the crisis we are not facing is on scale that is hard to imagine. Our limited capacities are working against us on this issue and must be overcome. Yesterday.
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 