Does this analogy work?

[tenbob]

I've told a few friends about the Ocado issue this weekend, which has resulted in most of them deciding they will also boycott them for now (and I'm in SW London prime-ocado land so I'm hoping this counts for them...)

But in the course of our chats, I've made an analogy and I would appreciate some feedback on it...

If someone has a pet and calls themself a parent, and they really believe they love their pet as if it is was their child, I'm going to look at the photos of their furbaby, and understand why they worry when they are ill, and I'll give them time off when they have to go to the vet, and know that they love them so so completely and utterly

I'll go to the birthday parties they throw, and when people try to take the piss, I'll say 'that's not on, they aren't hurting anyone and you are being unkind and there is no need for that'.
And I'll be mindful that there might be an underlying issue or incident for why they feel strongly that their pet is their baby because I have suffered infertility and know what it is to desperately feel a hatred towards your body which isn't doing what it should, and therefore need to find something else to make it better

But if someone tried to get a school place for their cat, or statutory adoption leave for their new dog, i would 'but that is overstepping it' and I think the world would probably say that with me?

No.....
Sorry just no.

Very few analogies actually work.

Trans racial perhaps.
Trans nationality perhaps.

Nothing absurd like trans pet / species.

It's not trans species
But it's something that might something someone has encountered- I live a very cosmopolitan life and know several people who have 'fur babies' compared to one person who is trans

If they had a pet, said it wouldn't harm kids and turned up with an lion, would you feel a bit pissed off that they had lied to you as you had to leave the soft play centre to avoid anyone getting eaten?

NALALT of course.

People just aren't going to call a lion a pet cat.
The only scenario where people actually lie about reality is the one where male and female people lie they are of the opposite sex. This has been legally allowed and encouraged for a long long time there are very few worthwhile analogies.

Stalking cat is a cat..well was. RIP.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_Cat

Yes, I think that’s a very good analogy OP.

So I need to work on it..!

My point is more that if TWAW then pet parents are parents because they genuinely love them as a parent would and feel like real parents
And lots of people will nod and smile, and play along until it comes to asking for legal status and admission to schools

I'm not understanding this post

What don't you understand Tam?

If a wolf wants to wrap himself in a sheepskin and pretend he's a sheep for his own gratification that's one thing. When the wolf demands that he should be considered a sheep, including being allowed into the sheep pen, that's another thing altogether.

too

That's very correct but that isn't my analogy

NALALT of course.

😂😂😂

Your analogy works fine, it shows that feelings, even genuine feelings, don't override reality.

Not really.

It is quite simple - having extreme feelings doesn't necessarily mean that those feelings should be colluded with or enabled eg giving a kid loads of sweets because they cry if they don't get them. The reason to say no is important and needs to be upheld regardless.

Other mental health reasons work fairly well. Would you collude with an anorexic girl and help her diet to save challenging her feelings and thus cause her to die? Or more apt; would you enable someone to poison the water supply if they sincerely believed they were giving people magic healing medicine and threatened to kill themselves if you did not help them.

But the main problem I think is not getting the right analogy, it is them recognising that women need and deserve any protections on the first place. It is the women's position that they cannot get right. And recognising that some men are doing bad things under the guise of their feelings.

You cannot harm women just to save some men's feelings.

Enabling people to do harm = bad.
People wanting to do harm to others to save their own feelings = bad.

Men who want to harm women to feel better = bad.
Men who want to force women to lie = bad
Men who refuse to accept women's feelings also matter = bad.
Men who would drive a bulldozer through women's rights and safety = bad

Why would any of these men deserve what they ask for, and why on earth should it be the women who are obliged to give it?

But if that doesn't work, try asking them to give me their nice house and all their money because I have housing issues and feel desperately shit and worried... if they won't do that for me to save my distress, why are they happy giving my rights to men to save theirs? Oh yeah, the because they think doing that only hurts me, not them too. That is not smart at all.

While I agree that TW are not women. I do find some of the analogies I'm a bus etc offensive and trans parent to an animal come on that comes across as a slagging than an attempt to argue the facts and keep the title women for women.

seafret I don't really understand your post, sorry

??? You don't understand the analogy of not colluding with a desperately distressed anorexic girl because although you hate seeing her distressed, you know that going along with her would cause her to die?

That feelings do not trump reason?

longtime
I've got friends who talk about their fur-babies - pets who they regard as children
They throw birthday parties, and take leave from work when they are ill etc
They consider the bond they have with their pet to be equal to that of a parent and child

Most people indulge this. It's mostly harmless and acknowledges that they do really love their pet, and have a nurturing relationship akin to parent and child so there is no harm in telling them 'that's just a dog you weirdo'

But if these people started asking for paternity leave, or free nursery hours to use towards their dog walker - would people then tell them they aren't a real parent?
Yes probably

I get it. You are going along with a person's assertion that their pet is 'like' their child, but no-one belives the pet is the same as a baby.

We accept that gender dysphoric men wish to live as if they are women and we go along with the fiction. But we don't accept that they become women in anything other than a legal sense.

Your analogy does make sense in that it makes it clear that it's right to have compassion for someone with this irrational belief, but doesn't really illustrate the potential for abuse that self-id allows. No one is going to pretend to believe that their pet is their baby for some kind of gratification, but it feels like people can pretend to be dysphoric to get access to women and girls.

Your analogy with pets does not go far enough and people would just see it as silly, not a real possibility and so don;t get why you are so worked up. "that will never happen"

Other more serious analogies work better.

Not even going to explain again the difference in transexuals and transgender and which group is taking your women only places, who believes they are actual women etc. You will lose this battle if not careful as you refuse to see friend from foe.

longtime

How can I tell a transsexual from a cross dressing male just by looking?

And are you saying transsexuals don't come into women's spaces?