FlyOnTheWall
1yr ago
It seems to me that if you transpose your sentence "in my mind I certainly perceive that family as not a real family." to trans people, you would get in trouble in some places (e g reddit). And that is what I call enforcing a lie, and that is what I think is an important issue.
To be clear, I agree with you that transgender activism enforces a society-wide lie, so I agree that I would get in trouble.
My point is that you would also get in some trouble for saying that an adoptive family isn't a real family (But, thinking about this again, I must concede that you would get into significantly less trouble for it than for saying trans women aren't women)
Would you comply with your own requirement that "it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent", your entire post could not exist. You need to be able to mention the fact that both differ to build your argument.
This feels like a straw man. Throughout the conversation we have implicitly been referring to saying these ideas in general society (in person, reddit, etc).
I can also say that trans women are not women here without facing any repercussions (as can you)
Being a woman gives you no special rights. The only special rights of women are actually rights of females, related to biology, like being accepted in a maternity hospital or competing with people with less testosterone in sports (female sports has never been about gender, but only about biological sex).
But in the advent of transgenderism, many of these "female rights" have now become "women's rights", in the modern conception of the word (a trans woman can compete with a cis woman in many competitive sports, use the women's restroom, go to an otherwise female school/university, etc
This is in direct analogue to how now someone of a non-native race can be a citizen of their new country, and enjoy all the same rights and privileges of any other citizen.
I think the only reason that these feel different to us is because the fact that a nation does not have to be racially homogenous is now well-established, and opposition to that idea is outside of the Overton window.
I believe that in less than 10 years time (if that sounds fast, remember that gay marriage was only legalised in the west about 10 years ago, and nowadays it would be considered unacceptable to even debate the issue) the same thing will happen to transgenderism.
FlyOnTheWall
1yr ago
All 3 of the "lies" share the common structure of defining two distinct ideas (gender/sex, legally related/biologically related, nationality/ethnicity) and then, when convenient, implying they are essentially the same thing.
But belonging to a country is a matter of allegiance more than of ethnicity. Would you argue that someone who has never lived in France, doesn't speak french and hates France is actually french just because his biological parents are?
They are ethnically French, but not French by nationality (In the same way a transsexual male is, following the progressive definitions, a "male woman")
But most people would not say either of these things. They would just say this man is French, and the transsexual is a woman. The race/sex is irrelevant, and if you want to know then you have revealed you are a racist who doesn't see immigrants as real French people / a transphobe who doesn't believe transgender women are women.
And anyway the person is french if society declares her french ( e g with an id or a passport), not if she self identifies as a french person. She can self identify as much as she wants, it won't change anything.
But the person never changes their race, just as the transsexual never changes their sex.
The point is that now this person is French by nationality, whilst no one would ever outright claim that she is actually racially French, it would be taboo to mention the fact she is not. The reasoning for this being that it hurts social cohesion.
When we think about parent, we think about that more than about the sexual act to make the child.
I certainly do think about the upbringing aspect, but in my mind (and I think most others') the idea of the child being the genetic offspring of the parent is also an important aspect.
Because of this, whilst I do see an adopted family as being something similar to a family (just as I do see a passing transsexual male as something close to the category of woman), in my mind I certainly perceive that family as "not a real family".
But just as in the case of transsexuality, I would not say this out loud, because of the social taboo, and because it would upset the person to hear this.
Transgender identity, on the other side, is meaningless because when we think about women, we think about people with a vagina, two tits, a menstrual cycle, who experienced that from their young age and can bear children.
Now you've selectively chosen characteristics that correlate to womanhood that cannot be achieved by a transsexual. Just as with the above, I do think of these things when you say the word woman.
But I also think of things like makeup, wearing a bra/panties, having longer hair, speaking in a feminine voice, having sex with men, crying in public, etc.
These are all things which can absolutely be achieved by a transsexual. Just as one could adopt a child that isn't biologically related to them and raise them to be a healthy, happy adult. Just as immigrant can love their new country, be a productive citizen and be elected to the highest ranks of government,
But the trans "woman" is still a male, the adoptive "parent" is still not biologically related to their "child", and the immigrant is still of a distinct race to the indigenous population.
Thinking you can become a woman is like thinking you can become King Charles: either you are born the first son of Elisabeth, or you're not. There is nothing we can do about it, even if you self identify as Charles
This is the rhetorical trick. In the modern framing of sex/gender as distinct concepts, you absolutely do become a woman if you sincerely identify as one. You just never become a female (however it would be transphobic to point out this fact)
But again this is the same thing as with immigrants and adoptive parents. No amount of patriotism will turn you into the native race, and no amount of love and affection to the child will overwrite its DNA.
But you do get to call yourself a citizen of country X and the parent of the child, and it would be forbidden for anyone to mention the way in which you differ from a native or a biological parent (unless they want to argue that the difference makes you superior or somehow more of a parent/citizen)
The article quotes a transgender actress Indya Moore. I've never heard of her before (despite watching quite a lot of US TV shows) and I imagine she is close to irrelevant.
This definitely doesn't feel reflective of the transgender movement. Indeed, reading the exact quote:
Moore is contradicting the logic of gender ideology. The adjective "female" is supposed to refer to sex not gender, yet here she clearly equates the two, despite the most important principle of the ideology being that sex and gender are completely orthogonal concepts.
Hence I do not think this proves anything. It is just an example of someone misunderstanding, or being more realistic, someone trying to downplay the existence of sex.
More options
Context Copy link