This week in trans: The Lancet, the ACLU, the Guardian

[Emily Lake]

More, I expect the "erasing women" dialogue was cut entire by cultural protectionists, gender essentialists, mostly said men who made the rules so as to stay some way.

Why do you assume this?

My observation is that the objection to seeing women erased comes very, very strongly from left-leaning feminists and lesbians. Because we'd rather not have to engage in newspeak to be able to describe our experiences, our reality, and our interactions.

I'm not a fucking "menstruator". It's insulting beyond all reason to be reduced to a bodily function. I'm a woman - and adult human female. And while not all women menstruate, only women do so.

Not true. Only people with ovaries and a uterus menstruate.

You're on the right track. Now... what is the collective name for a sexually mature human being that normally has ovaries and uteruses?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not true. Only people with ovaries and a uterus menstruate.

You're on the right track. Now... what is the collective name for a sexually mature human being that normally has ovaries and uteruses?

Uterine Didelphyses.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not to mention that whole hyena thing... It's kinda hot, if it weren't such a self-risking biology.

God, I can't believe I pulled that magic off though. Emily finally, inevitably missing the point of all points and putting me in stitches.

Bravo Emily, I couldn't have done it without you.

"I refuse to validate your identity as wizardgender"

Your validation does not make nor unmake what I am, what I can do, and how and why I do it, there's a hint for you.

My validation doesn't alter what you are or what you can do. My refusal to validate should likewise not cause you any offense.

On the flip side, your perception and belief about yourself don't change reality in any way whatsoever. Similarly, your Humpty-Dumpty approach to words doesn't actually make them mean something new and special for anyone other than you.

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Her screaming, assured insistence does not change the reality. Imagine that...

At any rate, the insistence that belief and perception does not change reality is firmly grounded in dick-all. That the effect is mediated by work does not change the shape of the graph that translated the outcome.

Last I knew perception and belief could have profound impacts on reality. Just look at how much effect perceptions on race had on the reality of the US!

 

[Emily Lake]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

And see, this is the reason your participation I these threads earns you derision and ire: you have one position and that position is to demand that for all humans, "woman = ovaries/vagina/uterus."

This is the point in contention. You have begged the question yet again.

 

[Playball40]

Not true. Only people with ovaries and a uterus menstruate.

You're on the right track. Now... what is the collective name for a sexually mature human being that normally has ovaries and uteruses?

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

 

[Playball40]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

 

[Metaphor]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

If your child is of the sex that has large, sessile gametes, your child is a girl.

 

[TomC]

Not true. Only people with ovaries and a uterus menstruate.

You're on the right track. Now... what is the collective name for a sexually mature human being that normally has ovaries and uteruses?

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

Yes in fact there is.
It's woman.

There's a tiny fraction of people that don't fit the normative sexual categories, male and female. But yeah, there is a normal.

Even if it's politically incorrect to point out this basic truth, there is a normal. Somebody who's "husband" menstruates doesn't change that.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

Yes in fact there is.
It's woman.

There's a tiny fraction of people that don't fit the normative sexual categories, male and female. But yeah, there is a normal.

Even if it's politically incorrect to point out this basic truth, there is a normal. Somebody who's "husband" menstruates doesn't change that.
Tom

The issue is you demanding that the "normal" be expected to "mean" anything.

When you expect it to, you fall headfirst into the naturalistic fallacy.

All "normal" tells you is trivia, especially when the subject is "abnormal". And intensely disrespectful and violative trivia, as much as would be were we to discuss the color of Emily Lake's underwear.

I imagine she would be quite angry were we to discuss this, in fact, as while it is most certainly a fact of geometry, it is also most certainly none of our business!

Similarly, it is most certainly none of your business what is inside anyone's underwear. What is your business is what they DO choose to show you.

 

[Trausti]

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

If your child is of the sex that has large, sessile gametes, your child is a girl.

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why do you struggle with this concept so much? My son is NOT a 'girl living as a boy'. My son is my son regardless of what 'body parts' he possesses or doesn't possess.

If your child is of the sex that has large, sessile gametes, your child is a girl.

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

It does. The 1800s had their war on reality re slavery, the 1700's had their war on reality that was the inquisition... It seems that your war against the evolution of thought is this hill. It's a dumb hill to die on, I guess I'll take it, as long as your dead on it, though....

 

[Trausti]

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

It does. The 1800s had their war on reality re slavery, the 1700's had their war on reality that was the inquisition... It seems that your war against the evolution of thought is this hill. It's a dumb hill to die on, I guess I'll take it, as long as your dead on it, though....

Would you drink the milk of a trans-cow?

 

[Jarhyn]

Every age has its war on reality, I guess. This is ours.

It does. The 1800s had their war on reality re slavery, the 1700's had their war on reality that was the inquisition... It seems that your war against the evolution of thought is this hill. It's a dumb hill to die on, I guess I'll take it, as long as your dead on it, though....

Would you drink the milk of a trans-cow?

Quite possibly, depending on the physiological nature of the milk and it's biological causes.

If you mean drinking semen, though, no, because I'm not into ladies, even if they do have a cock the size of a bull.

There is, also, most certainly rule 34 of this scenario. I could find some for you if you would like.

 

[funinspace]

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

Yes in fact there is.
It's woman.

There's a tiny fraction of people that don't fit the normative sexual categories, male and female. But yeah, there is a normal.

Even if it's politically incorrect to point out this basic truth, there is a normal. Somebody who's "husband" menstruates doesn't change that.
Tom

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

 

[Metaphor]

You're on the wrong track now. There is no "normal" collective name now so I would have to answer this as "person".

Yes in fact there is.
It's woman.

There's a tiny fraction of people that don't fit the normative sexual categories, male and female. But yeah, there is a normal.

Even if it's politically incorrect to point out this basic truth, there is a normal. Somebody who's "husband" menstruates doesn't change that.
Tom

If one means 'average, typical, or commonplace' then really nothing is wrong with the usage of 'normal'.

However, far too many people stuck in a binary world, are really intending 'traditional, standard, or natural', when they use this word, implying something is wrong with 'those others' that aren't in the normative bucket.

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

What gametes are on the spectrum between an ovum and a sperm?

 

[Trausti]

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

Nature is binary. Nature is uncompromising that mammals (and nearly all multi-cellular life) need a male and female to procreate. There's no shades of grey there.

 

[Jarhyn]

Human sexuality, physically and mentally, is far closer to 50 shades of grey than their black and white projections and fears...and such binary people seem to have a hard time accepting the reality that our society has grown a little more caring and respectful of our human differences; and that these differences are ok.

Nature is binary. Nature is uncompromising that mammals (and nearly all multi-cellular life) need a male and female to procreate. There's no shades of grey there.

Except when you ignore "certain" cases to maintain narrative, as you are pointedly doing in both human and other biologies, and you are inserting the context of "procreation" where it has not been invited.

 

[Trausti]

and you are inserting the context of "procreation" where it has not been invited.

Uh, why do you think there are males and females? Without procreation, we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not to mention that Emily is begging the question by saying only women have menses... She'd have to take that up with my husband, who has menstruated a few times. And probably also with that one guy who was "peeing blood" from the penis... Which turned out to be menses from his ovaries and incomplete uterus.

Your husband is a woman who lives as a man. Your husband has ovaries and a uterus. The male-appearing person with a deleterious disorder had ovaries and a uterus. And while they may not have conformed to the normal phenology of a female, they were in fact an adult human female.

And see, this is the reason your participation I these threads earns you derision and ire: you have one position and that position is to demand that for all humans, "woman = ovaries/vagina/uterus."

This is the point in contention. You have begged the question yet again.

If Emily's use of the technique commonly known as proof by blatant assertion qualifies as "begging the question", then what does your use of proof by blatant opposing assertion qualify as? By all means please enlighten us -- are you equally committing the fallacy of "begging the question", or are you instead committing the fallacy of "special pleading"?