The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

BTW, this is just plain false. To be trans, one must have undergone a transition from one gender to another. It's actually in the word. This typically means that your new gender does not match your sex, because people are typically initially assigned a gender that does match their sex, but in the cases where this isn't so, it becomes clear that your hypothesis makes the wrong predictions about who is and who isn't a trans person.

Nobody is assigned a gender. That's eye-bleeding nonsense. Nobody could be assigned a gender, because gender is a thought in your head, and babies don't have thoughts about gender in their heads. Your sex is determined, from visual inspection, at birth. Sometimes doctors are mistaken about a person's sex, but not often.

It's bullshit to say transgender people have 'transitioned' from one gender to another. Most transwomen will tell you they always felt like, or wanted to be, girls/women, even when they couldn't explicate it as such. They feel like this, and have gender dysphoria, because their gender does not match their sex.

 

[Jokodo]

It isn't clear to me that Erik/Erika was ever 'trans'. Do you know what gender identity Erik/Erika had growing up?

Erika apparently didn't fit in very well with the other girls, and didn't quite understand the hype about boys, but never thought of herself as anything other than a somewhat untypical girl. She suspected she might be lesbian after some unfulfilling attempts at relationships with boys but left it at that, dedicating her time and energy to the sport instead of going through the hassle coming out in 1960s rural Austria would have meant.

I don't know how you know how Erik/Erika saw himself (the wikipedia page does not go into it).

I don't know what his genital configuration was like, but it seems that his external appearance must have closely resembled that of a cis woman for Erik to have been mistaken for a woman for so long (though I can't imagine why, after not menstruating, concerns were not raised). In other words, since nobody could tell except via advanced medical technology, it seems natural to me he would have used the women's toilets. He was simply mistaken about his sex.

And if she didn't know?

Are we to install test booths at the entries of locker rooms and bathrooms now?

We've never had to before. Intersex people have to use a bathroom after all, and they are probably going to use a bathroom that most closely matches their external appearance.

And when a trans woman (even one that does in fact look more like a typical woman than like a typical man) uses the women's, thus the one that "most closely matches their external appearance", you throw a fit?

But, the trans bathroom debate is not about, and never has been about, intersex people. Most trans people are not intersex.

True but irrelevant. A proposed solution that logically leads us to the conclusion that we ought to be installing test booths at the entrances of bathrooms to determine the true sex of intersex individuals is a crappy solution even if it professes to concern itself only with transgender individuals.

 

[Metaphor]

And when a trans woman (even one that does in fact look more like a typical woman than like a typical man) uses the women's, thus the one that "most closely matches their external appearance", you throw a fit?

No, I haven't thrown a fit.

But I also want to know why you think transwomen "look more" like a typical woman than they do a typical man? I think having a penis makes you look particularly masculine, to be frank. Have you ever seen a transwoman's face, and shoulders, and hands, and feet?

True but irrelevant. A proposed solution that logically leads us to the conclusion that we ought to be installing test booths at the entrances of bathrooms to determine the true sex of intersex individuals

No, it doesn't logically lead to that.

 

[zorq]

But I also want to know why you think transwomen "look more" like a typical woman than they do a typical man? I think having a penis makes you look particularly masculine, to be frank.

I personally don't walk around inspecting the bare crotches of humans before I guess which pronoun to use. When people have blatantly feminine signaling (do I need to explain this?), I presume that they are female, or wish to be treated that way. Which is just fine with me.

Have you ever seen a transwoman's face, and shoulders, and hands, and feet?

Yes, and they actually resemble the features of various non-trans women I have seen. You know, there are a lot of "handsome" women out there, right?

I am reminded of Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, or Patrick Swazey, in To Wong Foo. When I was a kid watching these movies, I thought it was remarkable how feminine the characters appeared to be despite the remaining masculine features that weren't hidden by their disguises/costumes. I am also reminded of Coach Beast from Glee, Dot Marie Jones. Women have endless varieties of features.

 

[Jarhyn]

I still find it ridiculous that someone so hurt by efforts to define and then subsequently treat that mere definition as meaningful, would turn around and do the same thing to someone else.

Metaphor is attempting to create and enforce a definition of "man" and "woman" of "male" and "female". You are attempting to make a denotation that runs counter to the connotation that these words already hold in immovably persistent culture, in a way that benefits nobody (hell, it doesn't even benefit YOU!). All I can say is that any utterance that has a connotation for "has dick", "has balls", "has ovaries", and "has vagina" are not ones that I accept in conversation from anyone beyond the person who has the dick, balls, vagina, ovaries, etc., and that context belongs in the fucking bedroom. Have some fucking decency for your fellow humans because it's not your fucking business unless you're doing the fucking.

They're also not things I want the government to know or tell people openly. That, to me, is private medical information. Of course, I have a right to share that if I wish. But that's mine to share.

Of course, we're also talking about someone who would make a trans woman grow up through a male puberty because "why should they get a choice?" despite the fact that we can totally give them a choice, and then what if they get it? I suppose Metaphor has some deep philosophical questions to probe on the case of someone who grew up feeling trans, was treated like a girl, hung out with girls, then went through a girl puberty, played girls sports, fits in well with all the other girls (except maybe some mean girls who give her shit for having a dick, if they even know). Admittedly, she may never have periods or get pregnant. Neither did my mom. This is still a woman. Unless she expresses interest in fucking you, unless you have interest in fucking her, what is in her pants matters to nobody. People are 100% allowed to have genital fixations. Just, keep your genital fixations the bedroom and your genital history in the doctor's office.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's a difficult bar to meet, but Metaphor has actually managed to have a more regressive stance on this issue than the Iranian mullahs: https://qz.com/889548/everyone-trea...also the,reassignment, but also subsidizes it.

In the spirit of "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.", the above observation can be equivalently restated as "On this issue, Progressivism is closer to the Iranian mullahs than to Metaphor."

 

[Lion IRC]

...When people have blatantly feminine signaling (do I need to explain this?), I presume that they are female, or wish to be treated that way. Which is just fine with me.

I accept that some people want to see themselves as gender xyz, race xyz, [poached egg, Napoleon Bonaparte, stable genius...] That's their free choice or unshakable belief. Inalienable right?

What I dont accept is that I have to think what they think.

 

[Metaphor]

I personally don't walk around inspecting the bare crotches of humans before I guess which pronoun to use. When people have blatantly feminine signaling (do I need to explain this?), I presume that they are female, or wish to be treated that way. Which is just fine with me.

I don't. Goodness knows I've seen enough femme-presenting gay men and hard butch lesbians that I wouldn't assume they want to be treated as a certain 'gender'.

Yes, and they actually resemble the features of various non-trans women I have seen. You know, there are a lot of "handsome" women out there, right?

Well, if you can look at a transwoman's hands and not see how they are the hands of an adult male, I reckon that's good news for trans people, because it's always obvious to me.

I am reminded of Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, or Patrick Swazey, in To Wong Foo. When I was a kid watching these movies, I thought it was remarkable how feminine the characters appeared to be despite the remaining masculine features that weren't hidden by their disguises/costumes.

Um. The characters were, and looked like, men in drag. If Patrick Swayze, dressed as that character, walked into a women's toilet, no person on earth would pretend they saw him as a woman (okay they might pretend it but they wouldn't believe it).

In that film, Swayze's character is inspired by a signed photo of Julie Newmar that is on a restaurant wall. The difference between Swayze in drag and Julie Newmar couldn't be harder and more obvious. Julie Newmar was actually taller than Swayze, but she nevertheless epitomises feminine beauty. I'm a gay man, but I can recognise her breathtaking feminine mystique.

View attachment riedel_wong1a.webp
View attachment julie newmar.webp

 

[Metaphor]

Of course, we're also talking about someone who would make a trans woman grow up through a male puberty because "why should they get a choice?" despite the fact that we can totally give them a choice, and then what if they get it?

No. A ten year old can't consent to sex, much less to a 'sex change'.

I suppose Metaphor has some deep philosophical questions to probe on the case of someone who grew up feeling trans, was treated like a girl, hung out with girls, then went through a girl puberty,

The onset of menarche is the usual marker of puberty in girls. How many transgirls experience menarche?

played girls sports,

You sex-role essentialism is showing.

fits in well with all the other girls

Curious the number of girls at gender clinics who present with autism, actually. Quite curious.

(except maybe some mean girls who give her shit for having a dick, if they even know). Admittedly, she may never have periods or get pregnant. Neither did my mom. This is still a woman. Unless she expresses interest in fucking you, unless you have interest in fucking her, what is in her pants matters to nobody.

It matters to the women playing sports and the women in toilet and locker rooms all across the world. But, their feelings don't count, I guess.

People are 100% allowed to have genital fixations. Just, keep your genital fixations the bedroom and your genital history in the doctor's office.

You have conjured an imagined genital fixation from nowhere. Acknowledging that women don't have penises isn't a genital fixation. It's a fact of life.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I sure haven't read all of your close to 16,000 posts.

I have read everything you posted in this thread. In this thread, it has been pointed out repeatedly (by me and others) that not all trans people are biologically unambiguously of the opposite sex of the one they want to be.

Every fucking time, you reacted with handwaving.

It is not handwaving to say a transwoman has to not be a woman. If they were already a woman, there'd be no trans to speak of. Transwomen are not women by definition.

By definition, a transwoman is a person who was not previously considered a woman and now wants to be considered as one. That is, ironically, a question of gender, not of sex

Whether she is or was a woman by sex (and in what sense) is an entirely different question.

A genetically male person who was assigned female at birth (with or without functioning testes that didn't migrate as they typically do during embryonal development) is a cis woman if she chooses to continue living as a woman. It is only by virtue of being raised as a boy that she can become a trans woman.

Again, that's a question of gender, not sex.

Let us grant for the sake of the argument that the meaning of 'trans woman', 'cis woman', etc., are as you say (I'm not actually taking a stance on whether that is the case one way or the other, but just going with it).

Suppose A is a 45-years old trans woman. Suppose A has a penis, testicles, etc., no vagina, ovaries, etc., and so on. Let us further stipulate (why not?) that A is sexually attracted to (some) people with vaginas, not to people with penises. As A is a trans woman, A "was not previously considered a woman and now wants to be considered as one". Alright. But what does "woman" mean in your sentences? Does it mean 1995-English 'woman'? Or does it mean 2020-English-'woman'? Or does the word 'woman' has not changed its meaning from 1995 to 2020?

We have the following options.

1. The concepts are not the same, and you meant 2020-English 'woman'.

As there was no word in 1995 in common use in English that meant the same as 2020-English 'woman', and people did not make assessments as to whether others were 2020-English women, then it seems no one was in 1995 considered a 2020-English woman. Granted, many were considered 1995-English women, but that is a different category. So, it follows that any person who now wants to be considered a woman - that is, any 2020-English woman- was not considered in 1995 a 2020-English woman. Assuming the person was an adult in 1995, that person is a trans woman. Then, I reckon that there are at least tens of millions of trans women in America, Australia and the UK, who fail to realize that they are trans women, and who are regularly misclassified as cis women by the Woke. They too, if they use those terms, mistankely believe themselves to be cis women, even though they are trans women.

It might be argued that even if English lacked a term that meant the same as 2020-English 'woman', people were regularly classifying others into the category picked by the term 'woman' in its 2020-English meaning. But that would be rather puzzling. If people keep making this categorization, why would they not coin a word for it? It would seem socially relevant. So, what is the evidence in support of this hypothesis?

2. The concepts are not the same, and you meant 1995-English 'woman'.

So, A was not previously considered a 1995-English woman, but now wants to be considered as a 1995-English woman. But what is the evidence supporting the claim that A is a 1995-English woman? I have not seen anything remotely compelling. It would require both a combination of linguistic evidence, and evidence from minds/brains. If you have enough evidence, I am listening.

3. The term 'woman' has not changed its meaning from 1995 to 2020. But then, we are in situation 2. again. What is the evidence supporting the claim that A is a woman?

3. 1.-3. are false and you meant 2020-English 'woman'. However, there were a few, tiny proportion of people who classified themselves and other people according to the category given by 2020-English 'woman' in 1995, and that's enough.
But the problem here is that those who did not meet any of those people using this odd classification were not classified as 2020-English women, and so if they want to be classified as such, they are people who were not previously considered 2020-English women, and now want to be considered as such. In other words, those would all be trans women, mistakenly believing that they are not so.

6. There were really tiny changes in meaning, so we can reasonably identify them for the relevant intents and purposes, so it's a reasonable approximation. I'm not sure how the logic would work, but that aside (though I might address it later if you pick this one, depending on your reply), again, what is the evidence that A is a woman by a concept that is almost the same as 1995-English 'woman'? What are the really tiny changes in the concepts that makes this option correct?

7. Other. Please explain in this case.
​

 

[Jokodo]

It's a difficult bar to meet, but Metaphor has actually managed to have a more regressive stance on this issue than the Iranian mullahs: https://qz.com/889548/everyone-trea...also the,reassignment, but also subsidizes it.

In the spirit of "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.", the above observation can be equivalently restated as "On this issue, Progressivism is closer to the Iranian mullahs than to Metaphor."

Indeed.

And Vienna is closer to Boston than to New York.

 

[Jokodo]

And when a trans woman (even one that does in fact look more like a typical woman than like a typical man) uses the women's, thus the one that "most closely matches their external appearance", you throw a fit?

No, I haven't thrown a fit.

But I also want to know why you think transwomen "look more" like a typical woman than they do a typical man?

I didn't say all trans women look look more like a typical woman. I specifically talked about those who do. This was referring back to an exchange you had with Emily Lake, who said that, while she agrees with you in general terms that trans women in women's bathroom makes her uneasy, a differential, she'd like to differentiate on a case by case basis and trans women who "pass", and/or who have their penis surgically removed, are a better fit for the ladies' than for the gents' - to which you objected that all of that doesn't matter because they're still men.

And now you're telling us intersex individuals simply should "use a bathroom that most closely matches their external appearance" - a notion you explicitly rejected for trans individuals. Having one law for one group of people and another for another group is the very definition of legal discrimination.

I think having a penis makes you look particularly masculine, to be frank.

First, not all trans women have a penis, and second, I don't know what you think typically goes on at the ladies', but showing one's genitals to strangers isn't one of those things.

Have you ever seen a transwoman's face, and shoulders, and hands, and feet?

How many cis women's face, shoulders, hands, and feet have you seen, in real life, outside of fashion magazines and TV ads? For each of those features, there's a lot of intrasex variation and a considerable overlap between the normal ranges for men and women. Both of the women who gave birth to my children have fairly broad shoulders - probably not broader than mine in absolute terms, but quite possibly broader in relative terms, expressed as a ratio of shoulder width/body height; and definitely broader than many men I know - and I personally witnessed both of them giving birth. I have more delicate hands than my sister (who has given birth twice), with elongated nail beds and visible lunulae.

Now, it's probably harder to find men that fall within the normal female range of variation on all those features than on any individual one. It's probably well-nigh impossible with 40-year-old men, but already much easier with 19 year olds - and consequently, much easier with people who've taken hormone therapy since age 19 or before.

True but irrelevant. A proposed solution that logically leads us to the conclusion that we ought to be installing test booths at the entrances of bathrooms to determine the true sex of intersex individuals

No, it doesn't logically lead to that.

It does when someone's "true sex" overrides all other considerations, such as where they better fit in, or safety concerns, or where they will or will not stick out.

That, or you're fine with clear cut discrimination of transgender individuals.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't say all trans women look look more like a typical woman. I specifically talked about those who do. This was referring back to an exchange you had with Emily Lake, who said that, while she agrees with you in general terms that trans women in women's bathroom makes her uneasy, a differential, she'd like to differentiate on a case by case basis and trans women who "pass", and/or who have their penis surgically removed, are a better fit for the ladies' than for the gents' - to which you objected that all of that doesn't matter because they're still men.

Well, they certainly are still men.

And now you're telling us intersex individuals simply should "use a bathroom that most closely matches their external appearance" - a notion you explicitly rejected for trans individuals.

No. In the specific case you brought up, the intersex person looked like a woman and thought he was a woman. I assume he was indistinguishable from a woman because nobody discovered he wasn't one until he had medical tests that uncovered internal male sex organs.

First, not all trans women have a penis, and second, I don't know what you think typically goes on at the ladies', but showing one's genitals to strangers isn't one of those things.

Not in the toilets I imagine, but in lockers and dressing rooms, it surely does happen that people take their clothes off.

How many cis women's face, shoulders, hands, and feet have you seen, in real life, outside of fashion magazines and TV ads? For each of those features, there's a lot of intrasex variation and a considerable overlap between the normal ranges for men and women. Both of the women who gave birth to my children have fairly broad shoulders - probably not broader than mine in absolute terms, but quite possibly broader in relative terms, expressed as a ratio of shoulder width/body height; and definitely broader than many men I know - and I personally witnessed both of them giving birth. I have more delicate hands than my sister (who has given birth twice), with elongated nail beds and visible lunulae.

Now, it's probably harder to find men that fall within the normal female range of variation on all those features than on any individual one. It's probably well-nigh impossible with 40-year-old men, but already much easier with 19 year olds - and consequently, much easier with people who've taken hormone therapy since age 19 or before.

It's true that most transwomen currently were not medically experimented on before puberty when they were boys (except for getting their male genitals mutilated, I suppose, though that isn't so much an experiment as ongoing butchery). And so, if we as a society imagine that children can understand and consent to a 'sex change' at 9, even though we don't allow them to consent to sex or alcohol or smoking, some transwomen will come to look more like cis women as time goes on.

It does when someone's "true sex" overrides all other considerations, such as where they better fit in, or safety concerns, or where they will or will not stick out.

No. I did not propose 'testing'. That is a fantasy you have concocted from whole cloth and it is not a logical conclusion from anything I wrote.

 

[Jokodo]

Well, they certainly are still men.



No. In the specific case you brought up, the intersex person looked like a woman and thought he was a woman. I assume he was indistinguishable from a woman because nobody discovered he wasn't one until he had medical tests that uncovered internal male sex organs.

First, not all trans women have a penis, and second, I don't know what you think typically goes on at the ladies', but showing one's genitals to strangers isn't one of those things.

Not in the toilets I imagine, but in lockers and dressing rooms, it surely does happen that people take their clothes off.

How many cis women's face, shoulders, hands, and feet have you seen, in real life, outside of fashion magazines and TV ads? For each of those features, there's a lot of intrasex variation and a considerable overlap between the normal ranges for men and women. Both of the women who gave birth to my children have fairly broad shoulders - probably not broader than mine in absolute terms, but quite possibly broader in relative terms, expressed as a ratio of shoulder width/body height; and definitely broader than many men I know - and I personally witnessed both of them giving birth. I have more delicate hands than my sister (who has given birth twice), with elongated nail beds and visible lunulae.

Now, it's probably harder to find men that fall within the normal female range of variation on all those features than on any individual one. It's probably well-nigh impossible with 40-year-old men, but already much easier with 19 year olds - and consequently, much easier with people who've taken hormone therapy since age 19 or before.

It's true that most transwomen currently were not medically experimented on before puberty when they were boys (except for getting their male genitals mutilated, I suppose, though that isn't so much an experiment as ongoing butchery). And so, if we as a society imagine that children can understand and consent to a 'sex change' at 9, even though we don't allow them to consent to sex or alcohol or smoking, some transwomen will come to look more like cis women as time goes on.

I said 19, not 9. It's not just puberty and then nothing ever changes, years of exposure to higher testosterone levels do their thing well into adulthood. A lot of university freshmen could pass for girls with a clean shave and some makeup, 40-somethings not so easily.

It does when someone's "true sex" overrides all other considerations, such as where they better fit in, or safety concerns, or where they will or will not stick out.

No. I did not propose 'testing'. That is a fantasy you have concocted from whole cloth and it is not a logical conclusion from anything I wrote.

You didn't propose is, but it logically follows from your position that a person who is biologically male in the female bathroom is a menace that needs to be avoided at all costs, even in those cases, rare as they may be, where that person doesn't stick out as a man.

If you can't see how it does, your logic is severely damaged.

 

[Metaphor]

You didn't propose is, but it logically follows from your position that a person who is biologically male in the female bathroom is a menace that needs to be avoided at all costs, .

I didn't say that and it is a fantasy you have concocted from whole cloth.

even in those cases where that person doesn't stick out as a man.

If you can't see how it does, your logic is severely damaged.

Non. You have attributed to me, as the 'logical' outcome of things I've said, fantasies you have concocted from whole cloth.

 

[Jokodo]

You didn't propose is, but it logically follows from your position that a person who is biologically male in the female bathroom is a menace that needs to be avoided at all costs, .

I didn't say that and it is a fantasy you have concocted from whole cloth.

You did too. When Emily Lake said she preferred a more differentiated approach and didn't have a problem with trans women who "pass" using the ladies', you said it doesn't matter, they're still men and therefore need to go to the gents'. Do you really need me to dig up that post for you?

 

[Metaphor]

You didn't propose is, but it logically follows from your position that a person who is biologically male in the female bathroom is a menace that needs to be avoided at all costs, .

I didn't say that and it is a fantasy you have concocted from whole cloth.

You did too. When Emily Lake said she preferred a more differentiated approach and didn't have a problem with trans women who "pass" using the ladies', you said it doesn't matter, they're still men and therefore need to go to the gents'. Do you really need me to dig up that post for you?

Yes, you do, since I have no fucking idea what you might be referencing.

If it's post #515, what I said was:

Emily, you do not seem to be aware of what trans activists want. They want any biological male, no matter what he looks like, no matter what surgeries he has or hasn't had, no matter what he does or does not do to present as female or feminine, to use the women's toilets, and you are labelled a transphobe for rejecting that notion.

Which is true when I posted it and it's still true.

If you are referring to another post, please let me know which.

 

[Jokodo]

You did too. When Emily Lake said she preferred a more differentiated approach and didn't have a problem with trans women who "pass" using the ladies', you said it doesn't matter, they're still men and therefore need to go to the gents'. Do you really need me to dig up that post for you?

Yes, you do, since I have no fucking idea what you might be referencing.

If it's post #515, what I said was:

Emily, you do not seem to be aware of what trans activists want. They want any biological male, no matter what he looks like, no matter what surgeries he has or hasn't had, no matter what he does or does not do to present as female or feminine, to use the women's toilets, and you are labelled a transphobe for rejecting that notion.

Which is true when I posted it and it's still true.

If you are referring to another post, please let me know which.

In #484 you explicitly said that "everybody should be using sex-segregated spaces according to their sex" (emphasis added), specifically in response to Emily Lake talking about trans women who pass and/or who have undergone surgery.

 

[Bomb#20]

To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

BTW, this is just plain false. To be trans, one must have undergone a transition from one gender to another. It's actually in the word.

That's a false etymology. "Trans" came from "transsexual", from the Latin word for "across", not from "transition".

 

[Jokodo]

To be trans, the gender in your head has to not match your sex.

BTW, this is just plain false. To be trans, one must have undergone a transition from one gender to another. It's actually in the word.

That's a false etymology. "Trans" came from "transsexual", from the Latin word for "across", not from "transition".

This isn't about etymology, this is about common usage. A biologically male individual who was misidentified as a girl at birth, raised as a girl, and to this day doesn't think of themselves as anything other than a girl/woman isn't a trans woman in common usage.

Even a genotypically male, phenotypically intersex baby who received "corrective" surgery to look more like a typical girl, was raised as a girl, and was never told their was anything unusual about their lower parts isn't a trans individual in common usage.