To ask you not to tolerate the term "pregnant people"

[flashbac]

It might seem harmless and kind but it is not harmless. I'm seeing the term alot at the moment due to the horrid state of affairs across the pond.

Pregnancy, abortion, menstruation, menopause. These are issues that affect women and reasons why men have sought to control us, to control our bodies. We are seen as vessels, chattels, playthings, property, servants, and then, when we can no longer get pregnant, as useless rubbish. All due to our biological function. If you tolerate language change so these things are seen as 'people' rights issues that affect both 'men' and women we lose the truthful and valid argument that bad and oppressive practices, laws, policy decisions etc, e.g. banning of abortion, are rooted in misogyny, which of course they are.

Abortion bans are because of misogyny. Especially in countries where there is no free maternal care, no statutory maternity leave or pay, no shits given about the children once they are born. This is a women's rights issue, a sex based one. And we, as a sex class, must never take any rights we have for granted.

All I said was whilst your body parts are your body parts, how you understand your body parts is a cognitive, psychological and social process. I don’t understand how you can reasonably dispute this.

What you said was this

When you call yourself a woman that’s gender

You're saying that my definition of being woman comes from 'gender', I'm saying no it isn't. So you're policing how I define myself.

The men on the right want to take away women’s rights by controlling bodies, the men on the left want to take away women’s rights by controlling the language needed to defend those rights. It’s two sides of the same misogynistic coin. Toss it, and women lose either way.

100%

Sone people know they are terrible fat

We call it anorexic

Sone men know they are women we call it transgender

Sone people know the world is flat , they are also incorrect

The men on the right want to take away women’s rights by controlling bodies, the men on the left want to take away women’s rights by controlling the language needed to defend those rights. It’s two sides of the same misogynistic coin. Toss it, and women lose either way.

Excellent point.

@Tandora since you’re into epistemology, can you explain then how someone can “know” themselves to be the opposite sex, when quite logically they can never have experienced what it is like to be the opposite sex, apart from through gender stereotypes?

How can that then be anything other than a fantasy or a mirage? You’re dismissing on the one hand knowledge of biological sex as “gender”, whilst simultaneously relying on it (as a sleight of hand) to claim that trans people can “know” what it is to be the opposite sex. The entire argument deconstructs itself.

But people can and do. So rather than dismissing it as absurd nonsense and impossible, maybe you should direct your energies towards trying to understand it?

People can and do think they’re Elvis. Are they? Is that possible?

This all detracts from the theme of the thread, which is that women are unable to define themselves in the fight for rights because a group of men get upset when the word woman is used to describe “not them”. They hate it. Fight tooth and nail to make sure woman is never rooted in its definition of a sex. Whenever you see “pregnant people” remember it’s the males who are being kept happy for that.

When I call myself a women it's because I was taught that women means adult human female

My parents also spent a long time helping me understand that I did not need to accept any gender concepts

It seems people insist that because transgender people say they are the opposite women we must accept it but when we say that's not what women means to us we are bigotted

Sexism in action again

Not at all. I have clarified exactly what I meant by that statement, if you don’t want to engage with the actual point that’s up to you.

But people can and do

Ive never understood this. Given that they've never been the other sex, how would they know that's right?

I have clarified exactly what I meant by that statement

Well no. But I can see you've run out of ground with this particular argument 😉

and I didn’t say it “comes” from gender. I said it is gender.

This.

A male person with dysphoria has nothing in common with a female person without dysphoria.

They are not experiencing the same thing.

The female person is experiencing femaleness.

The male person is experiencing maleness and dysphoria.

It didn't make any sense the first time you said it, and it still doesn't.

and I didn’t say it “comes” from gender. I said it is gender.

okay then. My definition of being a woman is not gender, it's sex.

”Gender” is the knowledge and understanding that gives meaning to bodily differences.

But people can and do. So rather than dismissing it as absurd nonsense and impossible, maybe you should direct your energies towards trying to understand it?

They do not. They know that they prefer living their life with "female" tropes. They prefer how women are treated in society, or rather the gender roles which have been forced upon them. They cannot possibly know what it is to have and live within a female body and all that entails. It is putting on "femaleness" as a costume.

I have directed energies towards understanding since 2015 and that's how I know the above

Tandora is using the the wrong word in relation to gender. If I called myself 'feminine', that would be 'gender'.

Gender” is the knowledge and understanding that gives meaning to bodily differences.

My understanding of bodily differences comes from scientific analysis.

Youre conflating all of this with societal stereotypes.

These are not applicable to my conclusions that I'm a woman because I have breasts, a uterus, a cervix and not a penis, testes, etc.

I think you should spend some time talking to trans people as you have a very superficial understanding of their experience.

No sex explains body differences not gender

Like breasts are for feeding children that you give birth to

Timing of puberty and how it relates to body strength and size

Trans people are aware of their bodies, but they often know themselves to be the opposite sex.

No, because your sex is in your body. This is just Newspeak. You can't make an argument by changing the meaning of words.

You may feel, very strongly, that you ought to be the opposite sex but that's possible only if your body is sexed, and sexed the way you don't want.

There can be no such thing as a trans person if sex and gender are not distinctly separate things. Gender exists as a concept only if it is not the same as sex. "Subconscious sex" simply means gender identity, but worded in a way to try to obfuscate the meaning of sex and suggest they are the same thing, or not different significantly. In which case, there is no such thing as a trans person.

I understand that you lot rely on Newspeak and intellectual dishonesty to make your so-called arguments, but how do you not realise that by spouting this nonsense, you are denying the existence of transgenderism?

Why can't you use the prefix "trans"? Don't you want a clear and accurate term for this group of people? When gay rights campaigners marched, they weren't calling to be called straight.

If a person born female chooses to live as a man, surely that means taking steps to not get pregnant.

Queer theory and gender ideology can do one. It's the worst American import (and I've eaten bleached chicken)

@Tandora

The established meaning of “gender” is that it is the system of social attribution of “masculine” and “feminine” traits to social behaviours. eg:

“Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.”

Have you decided to change that definition? Because you seem to be reimagining gender as part of an epistemological process of knowledge production when it has never been understood that way.

You’re internalising the social as something that is innate. This isn’t what we generally understand as “social”: in fact we normally use the terms in opposition to one another.

It’s a creative definition of gender, but it is still an unorthodox and epistemologically incorrect one.

This with big fucking bells on 👏