Trans vs feminists: Are Trans women women?

Oh no I'm not. Its obvious it exists but what does it exist as is the question. Are lesbian butch teenagers transgender? Are little boys in dresses transgender? As far as trans theory is concerned the answer is yes. I'm saying you cannot confuse biological sex with gender! I'm saying a man who lives as a woman is fine but that doesn't make him a woman he is still a man, a biological male. The fact that he enjoys dresses is as interesting as a woman who enjoys short hair and a pant suit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, you are in complete denial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes I object to the notion that transgender women are in fact women. A woman is a female, a female is a biological reality. Again I refer you to the question of whether a little boy in a dress playing with dolls is a girl or a little boy wearing a dress playing with dolls. The answer lies there. A woman can be anything right? She can be a bulldyke who drives a 16 wheeler, she can be a beauty queen, she can be a mother, she can be a lesbian. She can look feminine and behave with feminine traits or she can be masculine and behave with masculine traits. That is feminist theory. All that also pertains to men. Feminist theory posits that feminism frees men because they too are are to project their gender in any way they choose. So an effeminate man who loves fashion is still a man and as much a man as the alpha male stereotype, both are in fact men who are expressing gender differently, meanwhile the effeminate man can be a heterosexual and the alpha guy gay so this isn’t about sexual orientation. Gender expression cannot and does not change biological reality. So are trans women women? No, they are men who’s gender expression differs from the norm but that doesn’t make them suddenly female because if that’s the case then every little boy who’s effeminate as a child should be called girl, something that little boys usually say to another boy child to shame and humiliate them. Get it?

Well historically speaking feminist theory was about the vagina (woman’s physical reality) in the sense that its the vagina that forced her into fixed gender roles. It was the vagina that allowed for sexual domination. It was the birth of children that kept her at home and dependent. How women used their vaginas has always been politicized and it’s the vagina that men had used as an excuse against women’s liberation. Without the physical reality there would be no feminism, there would be no point. Or as one feminist said "Some people seem to think that if we abolish gender, everyone will be forced to sport khaki robes and buzz cuts. This is because they confuse (time- and place- specific) gender signifiers with the actual underlying gender hierarchy. They think of gender as a costume, rather than a set of power relations."At the end of the day it was reproductive freedom (the pill and abortion) that solidified women’s rights but that’s a different discussion.


You’re confusing apples and oranges. When I speak of the history of being a woman I mean the trajectory of being a little girl who becomes a woman through her biological reality. Chris Jenner cannot claim to be a woman and know what a woman’s existence even is because he hasn’t been a little girl, who had to navigate the changes in her body and how that affected her, how it changed how the world viewed her and how she had to navigate that. Chris didn’t have to experience being groped because of his tits and ass. He didn’t get the cat calls, the desperate attempt to get away from some guy who decides a date is really a call to sex. He didn’t have to go through those training bras and the first period that can happen anywhere. He didn’t give birth to any of his children nor did he experience being a mother. He will never go through menopause and the massive changes that brings on (just ask Angelina Jolie). That’s what I mean by a history of being a woman. Chris was never socialized as a woman but he puts on a dress and makeup and we hail him for his bravery and start saying he’s a woman just the same as any biological woman. So right there we turn being a woman into a thought and feeling and not a biological reality a woman experiences.


Now gender is something else. Gender is about masculine and feminine traits which are mostly, not totally but mostly a social and cultural construction. Is a man who stays home to raise his children suddenly a mother? No. Is he suddenly a woman? No. Is a man in a dress suddenly a woman or homosexual? No. He’s just a man who likes to wear dresses but because of how our culture and society frames gender around biological sex we conflate the desire to wear a dress as literally becoming a different sex because we like to see gender roles as fixed with biology. Trans theory says because the little boy plays with dolls and wears a dress he’s a girl and should fix his biology to fix what’s in his head. Get it now?


Who said feminists don’t embrace them? All these critics are not claiming men shouldn’t wear a dress, take hormones or have surgery. They are objecting to trans theory which states that being a woman isn’t a biological reality.


I don’t understand why this is so hard to wrap ones head around and I don’t mean you personally I’m just saying in general. Trans theory is taken at face value and we are not taking the time to understand it.


You cannot self-identify yourself out of biological realities. If it were so then Rachel Dolezal would be a black woman because she ‘thinks and feels black’, whatever that means. Same is being done in transgender theory it states a woman is no more than something in your head, its the “I feel like a woman and think I’m a woman therefore I am a woman”. If this is true then why is race fixed reality but biological sex not a reality?


The spaces these feminists are trying to defend are not safe spaces as they presently have at universities but female spaces like locker rooms, bathrooms, rape and domestic violence centers and all the funding that goes with that etc. Its about protecting resources that were designated for women. The whole trans reality is not a woman’s reality, they are different and should be treated as such especially when a man doesn’t even have to go through with reassignment surgery to be considered a ‘woman’.


Here’s the irony. Its trans theory that states its the hair, tits and vagina that makes a woman a woman and this is why they are transitioning, all the while they claim being a woman doesn’t have a biological reality but something in ones head, like some ethereal spirit. If what they claim is true then why is it so important to change their appearance and get tits and a vagina and grow the hair and wear the makeup and heels? Do you get now that the contradiction is coming from trans theory itself.

Again female=biological sex which is a reality. A woman is a female depicting any variety of gender expression. It is you who do not understand what feminists mean by gender. Look at the chart above and that should explain the difference.

Transgender theory does not abolish gender but reinforces it!!!!! I'm losing my mind trying to get this across. In a perfect world a woman is a butch but still female and a woman, a boy in a dress playing with dolls is a male in a dress playing with dolls not a girl AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE OKAY! That's the liberation from gender that feminists worked towards.

Bells whether you like it or not Germaine Greer is a feminist who helped shape feminist theory and championed women's rights. Is she right to say that men don't know what it is to be a woman because the don't have a big, hairy, smelly vagina? YES!!! What she's saying is that you can invert your penis all you like it doesn't turn it into that big hairy vagina that bleeds, excretes and brings forth children. So yes I do agree with her there. She said trans women don't "they do not look like, sound like or behave like women", well yes that's true too. The expression of womanhood they have is based on what men think and believe about women so its not a true expression of womanhood. Ever hear of trans porn? You should check it out as its produced and performed mostly by trans women and its all about female submission. Ironic no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In denial of what exactly?

 

First of all there is no way to talk about this without someone thinking its cruel. It may be painful for someone psychologically to accept their biological reality but that doesn't make it any less true. Paglia makes reference to biology because that's how you clear up the crazy concerning biology vs. gender. They are not the same thing, its that simple all these other examples you're providing are besides the point and only serve to obfuscate.

 

The feminist summer camps were forced to either accept trans women or close. Michfest was forced to close from constant bombardment by trans activists so you're wrong on that point.

 

ElectricFetus

You say we shouldn't use female or male signifiers because its divisive. Here's where trans theory and intersectional feminism merge and here's what it sounds like. Perhaps you've heard of Jill Soloway? She's the woman who created the hit show Transparent. She's adopted trans theory and now lives as a "gender non-conforming queer person, who prefers to be referenced with gender-neutral pronouns (they/them/their)". When she was being interviewed by The Guardian the writer had to re-write her article to make sure all the pronouns were (they/them/their) to describe this one woman. Fine. Here's what made me uncomfortable Soloway in her new independence from 'whatever' (I write whatever because I'm not quite sure what she's liberating herself from) states

“When people gender me as female, I feel strange, and if someone is like, ‘You look so pretty’ or ‘beautiful’, I feel offended. It’s like I’m succeeding at something feminine when I’m not trying, and that feels like a strange insult,”
These days, Soloway adds, they get rid of their whole wardrobe every six months: “I’m changing every day, so every six months I’m like: ‘None of this stuff makes sense any more.’ I got rid of every even slightly feminine shoe. There’s a feeling of being grown up, and moving through the world and feeling like I’m the subject instead of the object and that doesn’t really work for me if I’m feeling feminine.”

But, I say, surely the revolution is in re-defining what feminine or female attractiveness means rather than rejecting femaleness? After all, I Love Dick makes the feminine the subject.

“I think it’s more about the binary, the masculine and feminine,” Soloway says, lapsing back into the jargon. “There will always be incredibly masculine people and completely feminine people, but that has nothing to do with people’s bodies, whether they have a penis or vagina. And besides those two poles there’s also a place in the middle, the non-binariness, the people who don’t register as one or the other. I’m happy to speak on behalf of women and on behalf of feminism. But I notice when people see me as non-binary, I get treated more as a human being,” Soloway says.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ds-male-and-female-describe-who-we-used-to-be

When people see her as 'non-binary' she feels like she gets treated more like a human being. Now this may be true even though she still looks very much like a woman in her short hair and pants suit, but the message here is that there's something wrong with being feminine and that if you want to earn respect you have to appear masculine. You see I had thought we had moved passed that and now its reared its ugly head again. She's assuming that if she simply shirks the words 'male' and 'female' that it no longer exists and that other's will not see her as either and that's troubling because of course people see her as female, a woman. And why aren't feminine women "treated like human beings?" That falls into the heart of feminism. Calling oneself non-binary doesn't change that reality. I could feel like a masculine male all I want and put on men's clothing and other men will still see me and treat me as a woman. I mean did anyone really think Demi Moore's character in G.I Jane really became more respected by her male counterparts because she shaved her head and built up her muscles? That's the suggestion. We have to subsume or eschew the feminine to be taken seriously. I thought we had moved past that because the point of feminism is not to subsume or eschew the feminine, it tried to make sure she wasn't boxed into it which is something else entirely and brings us to the problem with how we look at transgenderism. Just listen to the woman who transitioned and then detransitioned because this is what screwed her up, she was literally convinced that because she wasn't a feminine woman meant that she was really a man. Its madness! All women don't have to be feminine. I thought we had figured that out.

 

I think you sound really angry.

 

Especially, she would be completely unreliable on any scientific topic - because no, she is not entitled to that opinion on climate change. She is a Western intellectual with no excuses.

Refer to the post. Follow the discussion. Pay attention.

No, it doesn't.

Everybody gets it. Everybody you are replying to got it long ago.

Quit watching videos. They rot your brain.

If your idea of a "biological reality" includes the sociological race classifications of the post-slavery US, you are a long way from ever making sense about gender. Rachel Dolezal's identity as a "black" - or "white" - person has nothing to do with biology.

No, it isn't. The message was that when she looks less effeminate and harder to pigeonhole she is treated better, in general, by others, in ways she prefers, more "like a human being". That sounds plausible, to me. I've heard the same from lots of people. Do you think she is wrong?

Jargon? Seemed fairly plainspoken - and also realistic, btw. Again: is she wrong?

There's lots of crazy people. Enough to make hundreds, thousands, of youtube videos.

 

Of course it does.

If you own the bathroom you can do whatever you like. Ban gays, blacks, Jews, whoever you like. The problem arises when you ban parts of the public from using public bathrooms.

We had coed bathrooms in college. No problems. Four hundred people of both sexes using the same bathrooms all year - and no sexual assaults. It's almost like crimes are caused by criminals, not bathrooms! Strange but true.

Because states are trying to ban people from bathrooms. Why did we need laws that allowed black people to marry whites, to sit at lunch counters, to sit in the front of the bus and to attend the same schools? Because bigots tried to prevent that.

Yes, it is. Bigots are getting VERY upset.

===========================================
Suspect arrested in attempted rape of woman in Walgreens bathroom in the Bronx
POSTED 1:51 PM, AUGUST 11, 2017

WAKEFIELD, the Bronx — Police have arrested a man they say attempted to rape a woman in the bathroom of a Walgreens' drug store in the Bronx, an attack that was interrupted by a heroic employee who stepped in.

Police on Saturday announced they had apprehended Victor Augustus, 28, a homeless man, in the attempted sexual assault at the store in the Wakefield section of the Bronx. He has been charged with attempted rape, sex abuse, forcible touching, assault and harassment.
=========================================
A straight man trying to rape a woman in a women's bathroom! I guess women using women's bathrooms leads to rape. Better ban women's bathrooms.

That's like claiming a black man raised in Chicago doesn't understand the "black experience" because everyone knows that the only real blacks are from Africa.

Only for you. You best deal with your problem, because no one is going to make it go away for you.

 

You aren't exactly hilarious when you're willing to recognize trans "women" who appear to pass the test of agreeing with something you want to say.

Your hypocrisy is disgusting. Your hatred is repulsive.

I find it typical of conservatives and supremacists that they argue as if what they have to say is self-evident, and are afraid to actually compare reality to what they believe. Sex is not binary. I'm sorry, does that word bother you or any other anti-feminism advocates? Sex is not a dualism, in general, and thus certainly not Manichean in particular. Like your hately table↑, which is childishly simplistic in its framework. Ooh! look! a conservative says so!

Nor is there anything unusual about an obsolecense revival; Greer's wavering principles, leaving her to appear something of the slapstick parody male chauvinism, remind why her assertion of feminism sees e'er delining influence—the best thing anyone can offer on behalf of some of her statements about sexualizing young boys is that it was an envy-driven politic, or a cheap joke she never put enough effort into, because, really, the other best thing we can say is that it sounds like she gave over to the old madonna-whore gendertyping.

You went out of your way to be cruel; there is a difference. The sheer arrogance of trying to hide behind some incidental notion when you're going out of your way to be thickheaded and cruel is as grotesque as it is predictable.

It may be painful for you, psychologically, to accept that "biological reality" isn't as simplistic as you need it to be in order to enforce your hatred, but that doesn't make it any less true.

I doubt you are capable of explaining what the hell that means. How does "biology" clear up the "crazy" around a "social construct"?

Furthermore, as noted↑, the biology of binary sex is itself a social construct, so, y'know, that's just great—are you really proposing that "reference to biology" is "how you clear up the crazy" in a juxtaposition of two social constructs? How absolutely super.

I can't wait for the detail, though, again, I doubt you are capable of explaining what you're on about.

The fact that you say it does not make a self-evident proof.

Your thoughtless contradiction renders your words meaningless save for their cruel intention.

You want to call women you don't like men? Good for you. That's just super:

I mean, all you've got is constant switching back and forth between social constructs; that "it would force people to confront the lie that trans people are not the sex they say they are" is itself fallacious, a windmill of sorts.

Transgender is transgender. Intersex, for instance, is intersex.

By the way: Why do you let "radical" feminism define feminism? That's what Rush Limbaugh, for instance, does when he wants to complain about women because he doesn't know how birth control works.

So you want to be like Rush?

Good for you. That's just super.

I mean, really:

Tell it to the corpse in the alley.

No, really, like that one rapper: He'll pick her up like a woman, he'll fuck her like a woman, he'll kill her like a woman for being transgender. I admit, however, I'm hesitant to expand his example, though, until I understand a bit more about whether he actually is a closet case, or maybe that's just a symptom of his particular masculinity.

(True story: I mistakenly called him a comedian, yesterday. Talk about prejudice; there was just no way that rudypoot looked like a rapper to me, but I ought to have known since I read the press when it came up. I let appearances get the best of me.)

 

It gives solace to wonder what 50 to 100 years from now what civilization would be like...

Call me a dreamer?

 

Well, there will be disingenuous people who will use these labels and rights to exploit them. Literally, perverts who will try to use it as a disguise to demand rights based on pretense. It would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

I personally think that if you have not had sex re-assignment surgery, one should have to use facilities based on their physical gender at the time. I dont see how that is a problem. This is not to discriminate but so the issue is not obfuscated.

 

While I agree gender is a contrive concept and we should go back to sex, as in your sex is defined by your genitalia, and your preferences are yours and need not conform to any stereotype of your sex. I disagree that a trans-women can't be a real women. There are plenty of real women that have hysterectomies, are they not women, what is the difference between them and a transsexual that has had surgery. Worse what happens if we develop the technology to create replacement reproductive organs, grow a womb for a transexual, grow testis for female-to-male man.

I notice no one is pointing out what makes a man, no one cares. Only women were seen as valuable because they had a womb, just walking wombs, that is what most women were seen as since the dawn of humanity, now we can finally evolve past that as a society and judge everyone on their interests, skills and labor, and yet some people want to return to determining the value of women on wombs.

 

I don't know if this is a political or scientific discussion. Yes, ovaries are the main producers of estrogen and testes produce the most testosterone. Can anyone say for sure how those two hormones affect the brain?

(Sorry, there was an elephant in the room.}

 

There are accounts published - essays in magazines like Harper's, that kind of thing - of the experiences of men who have lost their testosterone supply for one reason or another, without knowing it, and then had it restored via medical treatment, injections, etc.

They make interesting reading in conjunction with the scientific studies of structural changes at puberty, etc - in which the gestational mother's hormonal state, which varies quite bit between different mothers, and even the same mother at different ages, is sometimes overlooked.

The army cares.

 

For sure? No. Do they? Yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...stosterone-levels-destined-to-be-tomboys.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021112075626.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763404001642
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X07000128
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022492106974