UK PM Rishi Sunak: "A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, that's just common sense"

[Left Coast]

How about a little give and take:

Ask me your follow up question and I'll answer it. But...

you need to take a whack at explaining why Sunak's comment was transphobic.

Post #46 in this thread:

"Ah okay. So if you acknowledge that "men are men and women are women" is about trans issues - what do you think that slogan communicates to the conservative listeners in his audience?"

My question, I suspect, will help illuminate yours.

 

[icehorse]

You really can't connect the dots between such publicly expressed sentiments and hate crimes? If not, I can't help you.

Some sentiments (perhaps "claims" would be better?), sure, but not this one.

 

[icehorse]

Post #46 in this thread:

"Ah okay. So if you acknowledge that "men are men and women are women" is about trans issues - what do you think that slogan communicates to the conservative listeners in his audience?"

My question, I suspect, will help illuminate yours.

I'm willing to explore this with you, but we have to "unload" comments as we go. In this context, I believe "conservative" is a loaded term. Please define what you mean by conservative in this context?

Now, in good faith I'll move forward: In this context we can divide people into two categories:

1 - those people who are okay with how trans activists have tried to forcibly alter language and reality
2 - those people who take issue with one or more aspects of the trans activist agenda. I guess you're calling this group "conservative"?

I think that group 2 feels positive about Sunak's statement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

First of all, you just misquoted him

How?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1 - those people who are okay with how trans activists have tried to forcibly alter language and reality

We aren't promoting IngSoc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's an uncomfortable feeling. My appearance is atypical of most males, I am often mistaken for a girl. Especially when I was a teen. Of course girls look at me like that too sometimes, but it's a less intensive gaze, more smiley. More blinking.

Definitely. It's a gnarly look, and especially the more intense ones you can't get caught in it or you feel it stripping you of your human value and worth as a person.

 

[Left Coast]

I'm willing to explore this with you, but we have to "unload" comments as we go. In this context, I believe "conservative" is a loaded term. Please define what you mean by conservative in this context?

Oh boy. Sunak is the leader of the Conservative party. Say that you know this?

And of course, the Conservative party is ideologically and politically conservative. Again, please say you know this?

If you know these things (which I'd be baffled if you didn't), why are you asking? Again, this suggests you're engaging in pedantics to try to somehow poke holes rather than good faith conversation.

Now, in good faith I'll move forward: In this context we can divide people into two categories:

1 - those people who are okay with how trans activists have tried to forcibly alter language and reality

Ah now we get to something. How have "trans activists" tried to "forcibly alter language and reality?"

And how is "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" a response to that? What is it saying about trans people to his listeners?

think that group 2 feels positive about Sunak's statement.

Why would they feel positive about it? What political message is Sunak sending them? What is he saying?

"A man is a man and a woman is a woman." And it's about trans people. Think. What is he telling them?

 

[icehorse]

Oh boy. Sunak is the leader of the Conservative party. Say that you know this?

And of course, the Conservative party is ideologically and politically conservative. Again, please say you know this?

If you know these things (which I'd be baffled if you didn't), why are you asking? Again, this suggests you're engaging in pedantics to try to somehow poke holes rather than good faith conversation.

Forgive me for attempting to clear up ambiguity, jeez oh Pete.

So what aspects of the UK's Conservative party's conservative ideology do you think are in play in this context?

Ah now we get to something. How have "trans activists" tried to "forcibly alter language and reality?"

In this thread @Little Dragon and I showed each other a lot of respect and patience and were able to drill down to some concrete points of understanding. Much of that process revolved around defining key terms like male, female, gender and so on. While @Little Dragon and I disagree on the definitions I think we achieved at least some understanding of each other's positions.

All of this work was necessary because trans activists have been trying to forcibly alter language and reality. The conversation is right there for you to review in this thread.

And how is "a man is a man and a woman is a woman" a response to that?

see above.

What is it saying about trans people to his listeners?

I can imagine several different takeaways. As you and I have discussed in previous threads, I think most people can and do make a distinction between trans people and trans activist agendas. I think most people are fine with trans people, but that they find trans activism to sometimes be problematic. (That's my stance in a nutshell, btw.)

So to me his statement is not about trans people, it's a response to trans activism (gone awry?).

 

[Left Coast]

Forgive me for attempting to clear up ambiguity, jeez oh Pete.

You're not. You're attempting to poke holes at an obvious comment instead of getting to the actual point. Sunak is conservative. His fans are conservative. It doesn't require navel gazing.

In this thread @Little Dragon and I showed each other a lot of respect and patience and were able to drill down to some concrete points of understanding. Much of that process revolved around defining key terms like male, female, gender and so on. While @Little Dragon and I disagree on the definitions I think we achieved at least some understanding of each other's positions.

All of this work was necessary because trans activists have been trying to forcibly alter language and reality. The conversation is right there for you to review in this thread.

I'm not going to have two conversations with you simultaneously. You and I are talking, right here.

I can imagine several different takeaways.

Such as?

As you and I have discussed in previous threads, I think most people can and do make a distinction between trans people and trans activist agendas. I think most people are fine with trans people, but that they find trans activism to sometimes be problematic. (That's my stance in a nutshell, btw.)

So to me his statement is not about trans people, it's a response to trans activism (gone awry?).

What aspects of the "trans activist agenda" are addressed by "men are men and women are women?" What is he saying there? What is the message vis-a-vis transgender concerns?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, this suggests you're engaging in pedantics to try to somehow poke holes rather than good faith conversation.

Yup.

 

[icehorse]

You're not. You're attempting to poke holes at an obvious comment instead of getting to the actual point. Sunak is conservative. His fans are conservative. It doesn't require navel gazing.

Your mind reading skills continue to be poor, knock it off.

I'm not going to have two conversations with you simultaneously. You and I are talking, right here.

I was not having two conversations - I was directly answering you, ffs.

Such as?

you inserted this bit of snark just before I answered you.

What aspects of the "trans activist agenda" are addressed by "men are men and women are women?" What is he saying there? What is the message vis-a-vis transgender concerns?

As you very well know, trans activists also demand that we all accept the claims that trans women are women and that trans men are men. I'm guessing that's what he's referring to. And right back at'cha - I'd be astounded if you didn't know that

 

[LuisDantas]

Talk amongst yourselves:

I expect better from... well, from anyone really.

Sunak is pandering to the anti-trans contingent. He ought to be ashamed.

 

[Left Coast]

As you very well know, trans activists also demand that we all accept the claims that trans women are women and that trans men are men. I'm guessing that's what he's referring to. And right back at'cha - I'd be astounded if you didn't know that

Ah so NOW we get to the actual truth!

Thank you!! Jesus ****ing Christ.

So "men are men and women are women" actually communicates the message: "trans people aren't who they say they are."

Now why in the world do you find it baffling that say, a trans person, would be offended when you tell them that their gender identity is a farse?

"WHA???? I didn't say that!"

Yes. Yes you did. Think hard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As you very well know, trans activists also demand that we all accept the claims that trans women are women and that trans men are men.

Correctly me if I'm wrong, but considering your threads and comments it seems to me that to you an activist is simply those you don't agree with. Even those who don't consider themselves activists and don't do groups widely and mostly will say they are what they identify as and transitioned to. But according to you they are activists.

 

[icehorse]

So "men are men and women are women" actually communicates the message: "trans people aren't who they say they are."

wrong

Now why in the world do you find it baffling that say, a trans person, would be offended when you tell them that their gender identity is a farse?

"WHA???? I didn't say that!"

Yes. Yes you did. Think hard.

ROFL !!!

So now we have a chance to get back to where the rest of us have been for the last 100 posts, glad you caught up!

Please connect the dots here? How does Sunak's claim logically get you to the conclusion that he thinks their gender identities are a farse.

Think hard!

 

[Left Coast]

wrong

You literally just admitted it.

Don't go back on what you just said now. You object to the idea that "trans men are men and trans women are women." And you think that's what Sunak is objecting to. So he said "men are men and women are women."

ROFL !!!

So now we have a chance to get back to where the rest of us have been for the last 100 posts, glad you caught up!

No need to catch up. Just getting you to say what you've meant this whole time, ****ing finally.

Please connect the dots here? How does Sunak's claim logically get you to the conclusion that he think's their gender identities are a farse.

Think hard!

You don't understand how telling trans people that they aren't who they say they are invalidates their gender identity? You really can't grasp that? It's completely opaque to you?

Really? Really really?

 

[icehorse]

You literally just admitted it.

Don't go back on what you just said now. You object to the idea that "trans men are men and trans women are women." And you think that's what Sunak is objecting to. So he said "men are men and women are women."

you did some - shall we say - creative editing there. can we try to respect each other and not deliberately edit each other to change context. I was responded to the COMPLETE sentence - the 3rd sentence - in your post #193. This editing seems like bad faith to me

You don't understand how telling trans people that they aren't who they say they are invalidates their gender identity?

Again, for the umpteenth time - you're jumping over a whole bunch of logic to make that claim. SHOW - YOUR - WORK !

You are taking Sunak's statement - inserting a whole bunch of your own logic into it - and coming out with claims like the one above.

SHOWS US YOUR LOGIC. Show us how you got from point A to point B. Because I think you cannot get from point A to point B without making some seriously weird assumptions.

So show us your logic chain,

thanks!

 

[Alien826]

Okay, I did a full-blown job of answering you, though I didn't want to. Now, I want you to go along with me and try a thought experiment. Not many people will do this, and (so far as I've found) very few will do it honestly, or without posing so many caveats that the experiment becomes meaningless. Still, I gave your challenge my best -- I hope you might do the same.

I don't know your gender, but for now, I shall assume it is male. (If I'm wrong, then you'll have to reverse everything throughout the experiment -- but note, I'd like any other male who reads this to try the experiment for themselves, and respond here.)

Here is the scenario: you are a heterosexual male, but an evil scientist with the most brilliant surgical skills has abducted you, and having placed you under general anaesthetic, has transformed your body -- your face, your genitalia, even your internal sexual organs and glands -- so that your are now a very, very attractive, unmistakable (without doing a DNA test) woman.

On waking up from surgery, you are instructed by this evil genius to "go out and live as a woman. Find yourself a good and handsome man, learn to live your sexual life more submissively on your back with an active male doing what comes naturally to him on top of you. And above all, be happy."

Now, the question in this experiment is this: since your whole body was transformed, but your mind left unaltered, how would you go about training your mind to accept this new truth about "who you are, and how you should behave" so as to fit into the world as you always understood it before? And above all, be happy?

I'll try. For the record I'm a heterosexual male.

My immediate reaction is "ewww", but in truth I don't know how I'd feel in such an extreme circumstance, and all this really only applies after I'd got over the anger at being so violated.

One thought is that you included "glands". I'm wondering if that might change my sexuality. Another notes that as an attractive woman I would certainly get more sex than I do now. I've also noted that women enjoy sex more than men do. That's not being flippant, if I could really adapt to it, then it might be OK. Hey, I could be a lesbian if I still preferred women sexually! (Just realized that you said my mind would be unaltered, but I would have female sensations during sex, who knows how that would interact with my "male" mind).

New paragraph for different thoughts. It's not all sexual. Socially, my life would be very different. Some things would be worse, like dealing with the worst aspects of men. Others might be better; women seem to have more friends and enjoy them more than men do. I wouldn't have to pay for meals out. The whole thing could be a great adventure.

Overall it's a difficult thing you put to me. If the whole thing were reversible, I'd give it a try I think.

I'm going to post this before I change my mind.

 

[Left Coast]

you did some - shall we say - creative editing there. can we try to respect each other and not deliberately edit each other to change context. I was responded to the COMPLETE sentence - the 3rd sentence - in your post #193. This editing seems like bad faith to me

So hold on, you don't object to the notion that "trans men are men and trans women are women?" Or you're taking back that that's what Sunak was indicating his objection to? It's one or the other or both.

Again, for the umpteenth time - you're jumping over a whole bunch of logic to make that claim. SHOW - YOUR - WORK !

I asked you a question. You are genuinely claiming you don't grasp how telling trans people that they aren't what they say they are would be objectionable to them?

You really can't grasp that? I have to explain the logic of what makes something objectionable in the English language? Seriously?

This is a tedious exercise that has characterized your whole interaction in this thread. Reminds me of Bill Clinton: "depends what the meaning of is is."

You don't want a good faith conversation. You want to poke holes in what is plainly obvious to anyone being reasonable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll try. For the record I'm a heterosexual male.

My immediate reaction is "ewww", but in truth I don't know how I'd feel in such an extreme circumstance, and all this really only applies after I'd got over the anger at being so violated.

One thought is that you included "glands". I'm wondering if that might change my sexuality. Another notes that as an attractive woman I would certainly get more sex than I do now. I've also noted that women enjoy sex more than men do. That's not being flippant, if I could really adapt to it, then it might be OK. Hey, I could be a lesbian if I still preferred women sexually! (Just realized that you said my mind would be unaltered, but I would have female sensations during sex, who knows how that would interact with my "male" mind).

New paragraph for different thoughts. It's not all sexual. Socially, my life would be very different. Some things would be worse, like dealing with the worst aspects of men. Others might be better; women seem to have more friends and enjoy them more than men do. I wouldn't have to pay for meals out. The whole thing could be a great adventure.

Overall it's a difficult thing you put to me. If the whole thing were reversible, I'd give it a try I think.

I'm going to post this before I change my mind.

I appreciate your response -- you actually tried, and that's something! I'll think more about what you wrote before saying more.