Misogynistic and Selfish, Edinburgh's Rape Crisis Centre's CEO is a trans-woman, i.e. a man !

[icehorse]

You're right, it's about you deliberately misrepresenting individual cases in order to create the false impression that they indicate a trend, all while constantly trying to suggest YOU'RE the one looking at the "big picture".

Big picture contradicts you.

/thread

Your mind reading skills remain quite poor. Care to guess again?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your mind reading skills remain quite poor. Care to guess again?

You're right. Literally stating things you have done is "mind reading".

Stay mad at trans people for existing.

/thread

 

[Magic Man]

that evidence was in the other RF thread I linked to.

And which parts do you think support your claims?

Not if you support trans activism.

This would be easier if you stopped using loaded language. I support trans people and not discriminating against them. That makes me a normal, reasonable person.

You mistake misunderstanding with disagreeing. I think I understand how "gender" and "gender identity" are be used and abused in the world quite well. I query other posters on these ideas because what I see quite often is that people who parrot such ideas can't actually defend thm when push comes to shove.

No, you keep talking about sex, rather than gender. You keep saying it's "lying" to properly gender people, because it "goes against what your eyes see". That's misunderstanding transgenderism.

You have displayed here that you do not understand the terms gender and gender identity. You have asked about them here, and then when given perfectly clear and simple definitions, you dismiss them as "word salad", so I have to doubt it's other people not being able to defend them. It's you not understanding them.

As far as "the woke", as I said, I'm open to learning a different term for those people who - among other things - support trans activism.

Again, you can just call us regular reasonable people.

First, I've offered to call Mridul "zee" and "zer" - many trans people would approve of those, or some other trans-specific pronouns.

You don't "offer" to do that. You either do it or don't. Currently, you use male pronouns, while calling her a man. Also, whether many trans people would approve of those is irrelevant.

But I don't agree with the concept of "misgendering" - at least not until I hear cogent definitions for "gender" and "gender identity". As far as I'm concerned "misgendering" is an idea that's built on sand. It is not transphobic to want to understand what a term means, before agreeing with it

It's not for you to agree or disagree with. You're misgendering people. That's a fact. You've been cogent definitions for both of those terms. I know because I gave them to you. You chose not to engage with them.

It's not transphobic to want to understand what a term means before agreeing with it. That's not what you're doing. These terms have been explained to you. You should understand them by now, but you refuse to.

I think you're mistaken. JKR supports feminists and gays and trans people. She does NOT support trans activism which is frequently misogynistic and homophobic.

Nope, you're mistaken. She is anti-trans and associates with misogynists. She only supports feminists who are also anti-trans. Trans support is not misogynistic or homophobic.

If you think JKR supports misogyny, you'll have to provide some evidence of that.

I have to look up the names. I'll get that to you.

 

[icehorse]

You're right. Literally stating things you have done is "mind reading".

Stay mad at trans people for existing.

/thread

guess again!

 

[icehorse]

And which parts do you think support your claims?

This is in reference to my claims about failings in care for kids with gender dysphoria, correct? This is a big, complex topic and it's been thoroughly debated in several recent threads on RF. I brought it into this thread because it's relevant. If you're not current on this topic, the quickest route I know for you to get an overview is what I've already said: skim the Cass report and skim the WPATH files.

Some of the posters on this thread have put hours and hours of study into understanding "trans medicine". It's not on us to get you up to speed on this topic. If you don't know much about it, then find out and refrain from opining on it until you have a basic understanding, thanks.

This would be easier if you stopped using loaded language. I support trans people and not discriminating against them. That makes me a normal, reasonable person.

I think a lot of "normal" people support trans activism without really understanding the implications of its agenda. That's why I make threads like this. It probably seems like trans activism ought to be a positive force, we know trans people have a rough go of it. But sadly, the trans activist agenda often has political aims beyond supporting trans people, and this agenda often ends up hurting trans people and being misogynistic and homophobic. And part of the trans activist strategy is to try to stake claim to some common linguistics. Demanding that society warps the use of pronouns to "support" trans people is not a benign demand. It is a zero-sum, misogynistic demand.

My language isn't loaded, trans activist language is loaded. And sadly, it's gained wide spread adoption. So what I see in our debate is you - in good faith - using trans activist language, without realizing its downsides.

You don't "offer" to do that. You either do it or don't. Currently, you use male pronouns, while calling her a man. Also, whether many trans people would approve of those is irrelevant.

Henceforth I will refer to Mridul as zee or zer when it comes up. No worries.

And why would it be irrelevant if many trans people approved? Do you have the "correct" answer and trans people the "wrong" answer?

It's not for you to agree or disagree with. You're misgendering people. That's a fact. You've been cogent definitions for both of those terms. I know because I gave them to you. You chose not to engage with them.

It's not transphobic to want to understand what a term means before agreeing with it. That's not what you're doing. These terms have been explained to you. You should understand them by now, but you refuse to.

Again, being forced to refer to a trans woman as "she" is not a benign, win-win, compassionate act. I fully understand how you'd like me to talk, but I don't think you understand the implications of your demands. This is NOT about me misunderstanding, it's about us disagreeing.

I think you're well intended, but I don't think you realize that your linguistic demands are dangerous.

Nope, you're mistaken. She is anti-trans and associates with misogynists. She only supports feminists who are also anti-trans. Trans support is not misogynistic or homophobic.

She is not anti-trans, she is anti-trans-activism (or at least the malignant aspects of this activism). This is the same for most of the other so-called "TERFS" who are only trying to defend women's rights against misogynistic trans activists.

You really cannot have meaningful conversations on this topic until you can make the crucial distinction between most trans people, who are not political, and trans activists. These two groups often do not agree. It is often the case that trans activists are not really speaking for trans people, they are promoting a separate agenda.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I think a lot of "normal" people support trans activism without really understanding the implications of its agenda. That's why I make threads like this. It probably seems like trans activism ought to be a positive force, we know trans people have a rough go of it. But sadly, the trans activist agenda often has political aims beyond supporting trans people, and this agenda often ends up hurting trans people and being misogynistic and homophobic. And part of the trans activist strategy is to try to stake claim to some common linguistics. Demanding that society warps the use of pronouns to "support" trans people is not a benign demand. It is a zero-sum, misogynistic demand.

My language isn't loaded, trans activist language is loaded. And sadly, it's gained wide spread adoption. So what I see in our debate is you - in good faith - using trans activist language, without realizing its downsides.
...

You literally contradict yourself in 2 sentences following each other, though spaced by different text pieces you answer.
As for this: "It is a zero-sum, misogynistic demand." I would like actual evidence and not your opinion as a single data point. Can you live up to that?

 

[Magic Man]

This is in reference to my claims about failings in care for kids with gender dysphoria, correct? This is a big, complex topic and it's been thoroughly debated in several recent threads on RF. I brought it into this thread because it's relevant. If you're not current on this topic, the quickest route I know for you to get an overview is what I've already said: skim the Cass report and skim the WPATH files.

No, this is in reference to your claims that kids are being maimed and sterilized, and that cruel treatment is being used on them. I'm current on the topic, which is why I'm asking you to support those bold claims.

Again, just giving terms for me to look up and research is not evidence. You need to provide the actual support for your claims. I've already read about the Cass report, and it does not at all support your claims. Hence, why I'm telling you to support the specific things you've said.

Some of the posters on this thread have put hours and hours of study into understanding "trans medicine". It's not on us to get you up to speed on this topic. If you don't know much about it, then find out and refrain from opining on it until you have a basic understanding, thanks.

1) You refuse to acknowledge basic concepts here like gender and gender identity. When give explanations of them, you dismiss them for no actual reason. Maybe instead of accusing others of not knowing much about the topic, you could spend more time actually learning about the topic yourself.

2) Take your own advice and stop opining on the subject until you have a basic understanding.

2) I know a good bit about the topic. You don't need to get me up to speed. You need to support your claims. Giving a couple terms for others to research on their own isn't supporting your claims. Give specifics that support the specific things you've claimed. Again, the Cass report doesn't support anything you've said here, which is my point. Just saying "the Cass report" doesn't work.

I think a lot of "normal" people support trans activism without really understanding the implications of its agenda. That's why I make threads like this. It probably seems like trans activism ought to be a positive force, we know trans people have a rough go of it. But sadly, the trans activist agenda often has political aims beyond supporting trans people, and this agenda often ends up hurting trans people and being misogynistic and homophobic. And part of the trans activist strategy is to try to stake claim to some common linguistics. Demanding that society warps the use of pronouns to "support" trans people is not a benign demand. It is a zero-sum, misogynistic demand.

Again, this is a lot easier if you stop using loaded language. "Trans activism" isn't helpful. We're talking about supporting trans people, their rights and respect for them. The implications of that support are that trans people gain acceptance in our society and aren't discriminated against or made to feel lesser. It is a positive force.

The idea that "the trans activist agenda often ends up hurting trans people and being misogynistic and homophobic" is simply false. It's fearmongering by TERFs like JKR.

Again, those you disagree with are "demanding" things according to you, while people you agree with are simply acting reasonably. It's another example of loaded language. No one is demanding that society warps the use of pronouns. What we are saying is that you should properly gender people. If the person is a woman, refer to her as a woman and use female pronouns. That's all.

My language isn't loaded, trans activist language is loaded. And sadly, it's gained wide spread adoption. So what I see in our debate is you - in good faith - using trans activist language, without realizing its downsides.

"Trans activist" is loaded. It carries the connotation of someone being radical or asking for something beyond the norm. I'm not using "trans activist language". I'm explaining transgenderism, gender, gender identity and why it's proper to correctly gender people. There are no downsides to explaining this.

Henceforth I will refer to Mridul as zee or zer when it comes up. No worries.

That's fine, but the proper thing would be to call her a woman and use female pronouns. Doing anything else is being transphobic.

And why would it be irrelevant if many trans people approved? Do you have the "correct" answer and trans people the "wrong" answer?

Because "many trans people" is not a majority, for one.

Again, being forced to refer to a trans woman as "she" is not a benign, win-win, compassionate act. I fully understand how you'd like me to talk, but I don't think you understand the implications of your demands. This is NOT about me misunderstanding, it's about us disagreeing.

1) No one is forcing anything on you. Again, this is loaded language. Just like "demands".

2) Advising you to respect trans people and properly gender them is a benign compassionate act. I fully understand the implications of it.

3) This is about you misunderstanding.

I think you're well intended, but I don't think you realize that your linguistic demands are dangerous.

I think you are way too far under the influence of TERFs and transphobes like JKR and so you believe the lies about how "dangerous" basic respect for trans people is.

She is not anti-trans, she is anti-trans-activism (or at least the malignant aspects of this activism). This is the same for most of the other so-called "TERFS" who are only trying to defend women's rights against misogynistic trans activists.

She is anti-trans. It's the same for all TERFs. They couch their views in ways that dupe people like you into thinking their not anti-trans.

You really cannot have meaningful conversations on this topic until you can make the crucial distinction between most trans people, who are not political, and trans activists. These two groups often do not agree. It is often the case that trans activists are not really speaking for trans people, they are promoting a separate agenda.

Here's the thing. As with any group, there are going to be extremists who say extreme things. The problem is your use of "trans activists" doesn't only cover extremists. It covers anyone supporting trans people.

 

[icehorse]

You literally contradict yourself in 2 sentences following each other, though spaced by different text pieces you answer.
As for this: "It is a zero-sum, misogynistic demand." I would like actual evidence and not your opinion as a single data point. Can you live up to that?

Let me try to be clear with you.

I've already admitted that I cannot convince a relativist of anything. Relativism seems to me to be a way to "win" any argument, on any topic. So debating a relativist is something I will not do outside of the philosophy forum.

 

[icehorse]

No, this is in reference to your claims that kids are being maimed and sterilized, and that cruel treatment is being used on them. I'm current on the topic, which is why I'm asking you to support those bold claims.

Again, just giving terms for me to look up and research is not evidence. You need to provide the actual support for your claims. I've already read about the Cass report, and it does not at all support your claims. Hence, why I'm telling you to support the specific things you've said.

I'd be happy to debate you concerning how "trans medicine" or more commonly "gender affirming care" (GAC), maims and sterilizes confused kids with gender dysphoria. But that debate would be a massive interruption to this thread. If you've really studied the Cass Report and the WPATH files, and still think GAC isn't a scandal, then you ought to start coming up with explanations for why you supported maiming kids, because GAC is a huge medical scandal that's falling apart at the seams as we speak.

Start a thread on GAC and I will debate you there.

If the person is a woman, refer to her as a woman and use female pronouns. That's all.

A trans woman is NOT a woman, and it is misogynistic to argue zee is

==

As for the rest of your post, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think trans activism is needlessly zero-sum, you do not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A trans woman is NOT a woman

Yes, they are.

/thread

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If defending women and girls and gays against their haters makes me a bad man, then I'll own it.

Virtue signalling nonsense.

You've defended no one. You've just attacked trans people.

End this thread already.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stay mad at trans people for existing.

That about sums the record of such threads.

 

[Magic Man]

I'd be happy to debate you concerning how "trans medicine" or more commonly "gender affirming care" (GAC), maims and sterilizes confused kids with gender dysphoria. But that debate would be a massive interruption to this thread. If you've really studied the Cass Report and the WPATH files, and still think GAC isn't a scandal, then you ought to start coming up with explanations for why you supported maiming kids, because GAC is a huge medical scandal that's falling apart at the seams as we speak.

Start a thread on GAC and I will debate you there.

I'm not asking to debate you. You made claims in this thread. I'm asking you to support those claims. And yes, gender-affirming care is the proper term. "Trans medicine" is not.

A trans woman is NOT a woman, and it is misogynistic to argue zee is

A trans woman is a woman. There's no misogyny there. You've been taught that by TERFs.

==

As for the rest of your post, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think trans activism is needlessly zero-sum, you do not.

I understand that you will refuse to understand and acknowledge the facts on the issue, but again, this is not an issue of agreement. I'm explaining the subject, and you're refusing to listen, instead going by what you've heard from various transphobic sources.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If defending women and girls and gays against their haters makes me a bad man, then I'll own it.

You're not defending women and "gays."

 

[icehorse]

Virtue signalling nonsense.

You've defended no one. You've just attacked trans people.

End this thread already.

Get yourself educated.

 

[icehorse]

You're not defending women and "gays."

The opinions I express here are in keeping with all my gay friends and with groups like the LGB alliance. And frankly those groups have a lot more credibility than the unknown posters on this forum. I'm happy to stand with the LGB Alliance.

 

[Soandso]

The opinions I express here are in keeping with all my gay friends and with groups like the LGB alliance. And frankly those groups have a lot more credibility than the unknown posters on this forum. I'm happy to stand with the LGB Alliance.

According to journalist Gaby Hinsliff, "The Alliance is seen by many in the LGBT sector as a fringe organisation at best, and at worst a hate group."[77] It has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, Pride in Surrey, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain,[13] barrister Jolyon Maugham, Green Party of England and Wales co-leader Carla Denyer,[78] journalist Owen Jones[79][80][81][82] and Natacha Kennedy, co-chair of the Feminist Gender Equality Network.[83] Broadcaster India Willoughby has described the group as "baddies masquerading as the good guys."[84] The group has also been described as "anti-trans" by the Trades Union Congress and Hope not Hate.[11][12] Paul Roberts OBE, CEO of LGBT Consortium said of LGB Alliance "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives".[61][85]

LGB Alliance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you read further, the LGB alliance has a very troubling history, it seems

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Get yourself educated.

As long as you don't understand that you have in a sense a dogma in regards to in effect objectivity, then we won't get anywhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

According to journalist Gaby Hinsliff, "The Alliance is seen by many in the LGBT sector as a fringe organisation at best, and at worst a hate group."[77] It has been described as a hate group by Pride in London, Pride in Surrey, the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats, the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights, the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain,[13] barrister Jolyon Maugham, Green Party of England and Wales co-leader Carla Denyer,[78] journalist Owen Jones[79][80][81][82] and Natacha Kennedy, co-chair of the Feminist Gender Equality Network.[83] Broadcaster India Willoughby has described the group as "baddies masquerading as the good guys."[84] The group has also been described as "anti-trans" by the Trades Union Congress and Hope not Hate.[11][12] Paul Roberts OBE, CEO of LGBT Consortium said of LGB Alliance "they exist to oppose free, safe and empowered trans lives".[61][85]

LGB Alliance - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you read further, the LGB alliance has a very troubling history, it seems

Why am I not surprised?

 

[ChristineM]

Why am I not surprised?

Count me in on that.