You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Arguments’ tag.
So, you’ve made up your mind to reject the idea that men – because gender-feelings – can become women. Here are some of the arguments put forth when gender activists aren’t trying to assassinate your character, insult, or coerce you. Dr. Hoenderkamp makes a useful list to guide your argumentation.
1. I had a conversation with a gay friend yesterday about the Trans debate and was reeling by the end of it. I wanted to address some of the commonly used arguments he used with confidence and which are often used;
2. “Trans women do not attack women in their spaces”.
Firstly there are no official figures to prove this because the police do not record biological sex, not because it doesn’t happen. There are lots of individual news reports. BUT its a moot argument because not all men are rapists but some are and we just don’t know who they will be so we solve that with protected spaces.
Firstly there are no official figures to prove this because the police do not record biological sex, not because it doesn’t happen. There are lots of individual news reports. BUT its a moot argument because not all men are rapists but some are and we just don’t know who they will be so we solve that with protected spaces.
3. “So you would force a woman to go in to the mens toilet?”
This is not a problem for women to solve. We are just defending ourselves and protecting women and girls. It is not our job to solve the issue that trans people face. Just those we face.
4. “Are you also worried about lesbians raping women then”
This is another silly argument. Lesbians dont have a penis and so CANNOT rape a woman and a lesbian is just a woman who is sexually attracted to another woman, not a woman claiming to be a different sex that perpetuates 91% of rapes and against women.
5. “this is the same argument as that was against homosexuality in the 70’s”.
NO. It isn’t. Gay people just wanted to be free to love someone of the same sex. They were not asking to infringe the rights of another massive (half the population) group in society. They were not asking to enter spaces protected for very good safeguarding reasons.
5a. They were not mutilating their bodies, cutting off healthy genitals, taking medications that left them with irreversible side effects such as infertility, osteoporosis cancer risk and encouraging our children to do this.
5b. They were not asking women to accept their entry into women’s sports categories and forcing them to share changing space with them in pursuit of that sport and then lose to a naturally bigger, stronger, faster opponent.
5c. They were not insisting on entering female prisons, often making the change from male to female after offending, often a rape offence where the victim is forced to refer to her male rapist as she.
5d. They were not insisting that language change so that the word woman is removed from services specifically aimed at women. That the language around activities that can only be done by women, breastfeeding, childbirth, pregnancy be changed to include men.
5e. They were not insisting that our very small children be taught about their contested gender ideology and their sexual preferences be defined and taught to them.
5f. In actual fact, the only way that this whole debate is similar to the homosexual debate is that Trans ideology IS homophobic. It is essentially the new conversion therapy; as gay children are convinced that they are not gay, just in the wrong body. I have been witness to this happening.
5g. It is so transphobic that it hates lesbians, it tells them they must accept women with penises as their partners. They insist that lesbians must accept men in their spaces, on their dating sites, in their organisations and bullies them to try and achieve it. SO, its the opposite of the homosexuality debate/section 28 times.
6. “Its just about being kind and inclusive’
It isn’t. It isn’t kind to women, or children. It isn’t inclusive, its actually excluding. If the trans ideology was any of those things they would listen and understand women and not insist that women ‘just be kind’.
7. “It is just affecting a tiny proportion of people”
It isn’t. It is affecting 51% of the population. Women. For whom trans men have no empathy, consideration of compassion.
9. I finished the conversation with:
“Do you actually believe that a man can fully become a woman”
and I got the answer YES. So here is the problem. This is like trying to debate that the earth is round with someone who insists it is flat. They are so wedded to a concept that IS false that the debate cannot progress until they let go of that false belief.
Strip away the activist hyperbole over the opposition to DQSH and get a very reasonable argument.
Another interesting snippet from the conversation over at VW’s:
Arbourist: “Humans, like most mammals are sexually dimorphic.”
VW: This is a discriptive label we use in an attempt to best explain what represents the majority or general experience. That’s not my opinion – it’s a fact. Sexual dimorphism in humans is not a law, and it’s not even true for every individual, is it?”
Arbourist: A man expressing typically feminine traits is still a man. ”
VW:Yes, of course. And a man who feels they were assigned the wrong sex and therefore gender at birth, based on nothing more than casual observation of their external genitalia, now has the freedom within many of our societies to become a woman.
I just happen to be reading a short essay called On Language and Erasure by Hypotaxis and this passage jumped out at me”
“But since this is a post about the notion of “erasure” and “thought policing,” I wanted to point out a couple of excerpts from the article – which was, in fact, written by a female:
Sex is based on the body, but biology is a branch of science and science is also a social construct and really what I’m saying is that your sex is essentially a label a very educated person slapped on you at birth using as many contextual clues as they could garner at the time about your DNA. Sex is not immutable or unchangeable or somehow “intrinsically” defined by our bodies; it’s more that science and medicine have put words in place to define sex and thrust it upon us – and that they’re often inadequate at capturing the full spectrum of diversity swimming around in the big ol’ sea . . .
This is the kind of bullshit, circuitous, narcissist-logic, swamp of nothingness fuckery being sold to women on behalf of males who would prefer we not acknowledge reality. The attempt to convince women – or anyone for that matter – that science is a “construct,” in the same way gender is a “construct,” in a world where most are bat-shit insane idiots because we are no longer allowed to express a rational thought, is dangerous. And how is this any different than the crazy people who run around denying evolution? Or climate change deniers? The incentive for Creationists to deny evolution, and for those who deny climate change is the same as the incentive for the trans/queer/gender worship lot who claim science is merely a construct: the scientific principles inconvenience them, hurt their feels.
“But if Jesus didn’t live with dinosaurs then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU EVOLUTION ISN’T REAL!”
“But if my gas chugging SUV that I really, really like is bad for the environment then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL!”
“But if my penis isn’t part of female anatomy and I really, really would like to be a girl then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU BIOLOGY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!”
Gender Studies is anti-intellectualism dressed up in academese for the benefit of males. Period.
And yes, science and medicine have put “words in place” to define things. Scientists and doctors use words particular to their disciplines, they have language that means specific things like “molecule” and “cancer” and “female” and thank fucking god for that. A doctor’s job is not to acknowledge every special nuance of your unicorn self. A scientist’s job is not to placate your fragile feelings.
Reflected in the Autostraddle is also the way in which trans/queer/gender-speak has reframed true feminism – now considered “radical” – to be “trans-exclusionary” (i.e. does not prioritize males/make religion of gender). Radical Feminists – referred to in the modern gestalt by the pejorative “TERF” – are those who are concerned with the welfare of women and girls, who are interested in the liberation of women, the end of gender, and the dismantling of patriarchy. Trans/queer/gender studies speak has appropriated the word so that it means, “don’t be mean to males”; trans/queer/gender studies has taken the tools of the oppressor – gender roles, pornography, prostitution and called them “empowering.” Trans/queer/gender studies folk work tirelessly to ensure women cannot speak truthfully about their lived realities, for fear it might alienate males.”
What twinged the comparison for me during my conversation with Violet is what seems to be the willingness to slip into a very liberal relativist reading of facts that do not agree with her position on human sexual dimorphism. The strategy seems to be to get away from facts and go to the idea that everyone has their own equally important set of facts and the disagreement between these two ‘world views’ is where the argument should be – as opposed to actually arguing the original fact based argument.
It makes so hard to find any sort of common ground when everything seems to be relative and words mean different things to different people. :/
The real meaning when it is said that secular arguments can hold water, unlike their religious counterparts. :)
Maybe a touch hyperbolic, but on certain days, it feels like it
Popularity? Posting “too much” on the feminism tag? Do I give two shits? Things don’t change if people don’t know about it, so off we go – a few things that feminism is actually fighting for. Oh and go read the whole post on “If I Admit That “Hating Men” is a Thing, Will You Stop Turing It Into A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?”.
(ed. Italics mine for highlighting the theme of what feminism is actually fighting.)
”Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of either gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.
Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.”
QS tackles some debate basics, but makes the argument that our society is progressing to the state where we can challenge the claims of those who subscribe to the supernatural. Enjoy.
This is a technical look at religious arguments, both for and against the way way in which religion describes our experience. I suggest you skim the preview of the paper for more understanding, but the video is an adequate primer for answering the following question – Are your beliefs, theistic or non-theist,ic causing you to beg the doxastic question?
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…