Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Greta, do you recall that friend of mine you once Googled, whilst researching antinatalism? He writes much on feminist topics, and has some good points to make that transgender are effectively encroaching on feminine space, and making a mockery of, and holding back, real feminist goals. I believe he is more enthused by ridding society of gender labels, period, rather than creating more. Which does make sense, if you read him through. But I don't want to do him a disservice by pretending I understand his goals, or exactly how he thinks.

It's enough to say that he's a fellow that has made me think. And that doesn't happen often lol.

I don't have a problem with men dressing as women or vice versa. What I do think is ridiculous is when they claim that they have changed sex and a man is a woman or a woman is a man. Look at Bruce Jenner. He still has the deep voice, huge man-hands, and (presumably) the strength of a man. Give me a break. I wonder how long it will be before he decides to 'change back'. He's never had a period. Never gone through childbirth... There's a bit more to being a woman than makeup, a wig, and designer dresses. He just looks and sounds like a masculine man in a dress.

I agree with you, veg. And this is how men are trying to encroach on women's spaces in part; by denying that only women are women, and thus trying to erase their voices, by claiming womanhood, and saying they speak for them. They don't. They are not women, and should get no voice on women's topics.

And he got 'woman of the year'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have a problem with men dressing as women or vice versa. What I do think is ridiculous is when they claim that they have changed sex and a man is a woman or a woman is a man. Look at Bruce Jenner. He still has the deep voice, huge man-hands, and (presumably) the strength of a man. Give me a break. I wonder how long it will be before he decides to 'change back'. He's never had a period. Never gone through childbirth... There's a bit more to being a woman than makeup, a wig, and designer dresses. He just looks and sounds like a masculine man in a dress.

I agree with you, veg. And this is how men are trying to encroach on women's spaces in part; by denying that only women are women, and thus trying to erase their voices, by claiming womanhood, and saying they speak for them. They don't. They are not women, and should get no voice on women's topics.

And he got 'woman of the year'.

It's PC. And does as much damage to real feminism, as liberal feminism does. We are trying to be so inclusive and accepting, that we don't see the damage done in the process to women and their legitimate issues. Were making exceptions for the few, and giving them voices over women. They are not women. Again, god bless 'em all, but they should not be given say as women, for women, over women's voices.

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: I agree with you, veg. And this is how men are trying to encroach on women's spaces in part; by denying that only women are women, and thus trying to erase their voices, by claiming womanhood, and saying they speak for them. They don't. They are not women, and should get no voice on women's topics.

And he got 'woman of the year'.

It's PC. And does as much damage to real feminism, as liberal feminism does. We are trying to be so inclusive and accepting, that we don't see the damage done in the process to women and their legitimate issues. Were making exceptions for the few, and giving them voices over women. They are not women.

I don't see it as 'feminism' though. I don't know what feminists say about it. I can only go by what I've observed. I don't think anyone in their right mind would call Jenner a 'feminist'. He must feel awfully uncomfortable in the tight dresses, itchy wigs, high heels, and thick makeup. If he was really a woman he wouldn't need any of that.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: And he got 'woman of the year'.

It's PC. And does as much damage to real feminism, as liberal feminism does. We are trying to be so inclusive and accepting, that we don't see the damage done in the process to women and their legitimate issues. Were making exceptions for the few, and giving them voices over women. They are not women.

I don't see it as 'feminism' though. I don't know what feminists say about it. I can only go by what I've observed. I don't think anyone in their right mind would call Jenner a 'feminist'. He must feel awfully uncomfortable in the tight dresses, itchy wigs, high heels, and thick makeup. If he was really a woman he wouldn't need any of that.

Not him I'm pointing at, but look at the award; woman of the year? Really? There's not a real woman who deserved that cookie? And what does it say? That these people are real woman, and can speak as such, for other women. That's not a good thing, veg. They do not understand the real issues women go through, as they to not have them. Yes, they have their own tough issues and prejudices to wade through, but they are not a woman's. They are two distinct groups.

Dalek Prime wrote: Not him I'm pointing at, but look at the award; woman of the year? Really? There's not a real woman who deserved that cookie? And what does it say? That these people are real woman, and can speak as such, for other women. That's not a good thing, veg.

I know. It's a joke. Not that I don't think that award is stupid in itself, but it's even more stupid when it's given to a man.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Not him I'm pointing at, but look at the award; woman of the year? Really? There's not a real woman who deserved that cookie? And what does it say? That these people are real woman, and can speak as such, for other women. That's not a good thing, veg.

I know. It's a joke. Not that I don't think that award is stupid in itself, but it's even more stupid when it's given to a man.

And it's extending legitimacy for these 'men' to speak for women. Only women can or should speak for women. Not that concerned men can't, but the agenda cannot be ours to control, for obvious reasons.

Seriously, to call him a woman is a disservice to women.

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Not him I'm pointing at, but look at the award; woman of the year? Really? There's not a real woman who deserved that cookie? And what does it say? That these people are real woman, and can speak as such, for other women. That's not a good thing, veg.

I know. It's a joke. Not that I don't think that award is stupid in itself, but it's even more stupid when it's given to a man.

And it's extending legitimacy for these 'men' to speak for women. Only women can or should speak for women. Not that concerned men can't, but the agenda cannot be ours to control, for obvious reasons.

Seriously, to call him a woman is a disservice to women.

True, but women can't speak for me either.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I know. It's a joke. Not that I don't think that award is stupid in itself, but it's even more stupid when it's given to a man.

And it's extending legitimacy for these 'men' to speak for women. Only women can or should speak for women. Not that concerned men can't, but the agenda cannot be ours to control, for obvious reasons.

Seriously, to call him a woman is a disservice to women.

True, but women can't speak for me either.

I hear you, and you're right. I'm only speaking of a very bad trend where others hyjack women's agendas, which properly belong to women to direct.

I‘m a great believer in the distinction between the classic ideal man and ideal woman. Now there is this push to make men and women the same which seems foolish to me. It seems that the hermaphrodite or male and female becoming one is becoming the ideal, Frankly watching a woman now reunited with a man as children of the moon rolling along is not my ideal but if this is what we will once again become in time, who am I to argue with progress and equality?.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sym.htm

Aristophanes's Speech from Plato's Symposium

…………In the first place, let me treat of the nature of man and what has happened to it. The original human nature was not like the present, but different. The sexes were not two as they are now, but originally three in number; there was man, woman, and the union of the two, of which the name survives but nothing else. Once it was a distinct kind, with a bodily shape and a name of its own, constituted by the union of the male and the female: but now only the word 'androgynous' is preserved, and that as a term of reproach.

In the second place, the primeval man was round, his back and sides forming a circle; and he had four hands and the same number of feet, one head with two faces, looking opposite ways, set on a round neck and precisely alike; also four ears, two privy members, and the remainder to correspond. He could walk upright as men now do, backwards or forwards as he pleased, and he could also roll over and over at a great pace, turning on his four hands and four feet, eight in all, like tumblers going over and over with their legs in the air; this was when he wanted to run fast.

Now the sexes were three, and such as I have described them; because the sun, moon, and earth are three; and the man was originally the child of the sun, the woman of the earth, and the man-woman of the moon, which is made up of sun and earth, and they were all round and moved round and round because they resembled their parents. Terrible was their might and strength, and the thoughts of their hearts were great, and they made an attack upon the gods; of them is told the tale of Otys and Ephialtes who, as Homer says, attempted to scale heaven, and would have laid hands upon the gods............

Dalek Prime wrote:Greta, do you recall that friend of mine you once Googled, whilst researching antinatalism? He writes much on feminist topics, and has some good points to make that transgender are effectively encroaching on feminine space, and making a mockery of, and holding back, real feminist goals. I believe he is more enthused by ridding society of gender labels, period, rather than creating more. Which does make sense, if you read him through. But I don't want to do him a disservice by pretending I understand his goals, or exactly how he thinks.

It's enough to say that he's a fellow that has made me think. And that doesn't happen often lol.

Sorry Dalek, my memory is not good.

What are transgenders supposed to do? Kill themselves? Force themselves to be "normal"? Homophobia and transphobia are women's issues. Every gay or trans-oriented male who enters into marriage so as to avoid loss of safety and status is a time bomb waiting to explode in their wives' and children's faces. Meanwhile, the bullies who create this oppression get off scot free while the woman and kids pick up their lives. These males should not be pressured to be "normal", to marry.

My understanding is that transsexualism exists because cognitive treatment, drugs, electroshock, hypnosis etc didn't work. Why should a person not change gender if it will make them more functional? Humans are diverse and, reproductive organs aside, there is ultimately more difference within genders than between them. So some overlap makes perfect sense to me, and sex role changes often occur in other species too.

Also, what of females who live as men? What of the sidelining and ignoring of that group by comparison with those going the other way? It would seem an example of patriarchal focus in itself - the breaking of the "brotherhood code" being seemingly more significant than breaking from the sisterhood. The thinking appears to be that F-M sex changes are really "just women" and thus can be ignored completely with no consequence [sic].

Meanwhile, I just Googled and found that in Poland there are many more females living as men than males living as women http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01542342. Must be a real worry for the Poles, eh?

Whatever, I'm a fan of minding my own business when it comes to others' personal lives. Adults ultimately have to deal with the consequences of their decisions. If a person can change sex and fit into society, no harm, no foul. You'd have to figure that if someone can seamlessly fit into the world as the opposite sex for years then they couldn't have been too deluded.

By the same token, consider the lives of big boofy baritone blokes in frocks and bearded, wide-hipped uber-wimps with a predilection for check shirts. Surely their mistakes are punishment enough for any assumed "wrongs" they have committed? Are we to nanny these people, say we know better and undermine them "for their own good"?

Not that I'm defending the notion of gender performance, which (due to age, hindsight and calmer hormones) now strikes me as rather childish and silly. However, most people buy into it without thinking, including (especially?) transgenders, but I'm not about to attribute some minuscule minority with the power to reinforce patriarchal oppression of women.

Better to donate to girls' education in developing countries IMO than blame other victims. Better to ignore annoying gender expectations and cliches. The more we personally break the shackles, the easier it is for those who follow to just be who they are rather than being coerced into uncomfortable gender performance roles.

No. They should be accepted as unique. Not confused with what is. I used to think the same way you do. It was a surprising leap for me to be persuaded otherwise, but it makes sense to me. I've seen some fairly nasty online battles between transgenders and radical feminists, so much so that the transgenders needed to be banned, as they were demanding their say in the agenda, and changing it, to the detriment of women.

I haven't forgotten female to male, either. But men's 'agendas' aren't threatened by this group. Men don't require these protections. They have always been dominant. It's a different scenario altogether.