Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

In defence of deadnaming

606 replies

welshgendercrit · 28/11/2018 14:43

For ‘deadnaming’ is just a Newspeak word designed to demonise the telling of historical truths. Not satisfied with seeking to control contemporary discussion and attitudes, now trans activists and their allies (all institutions, in essence) want to control the past itself. History. No way. The past happened, it was true, and we should not allow that to be erased and forgotten just to make some people feel better about themselves.

Yet again spiked (which I never used to read) has written a good, hardhitting, sensible article on transactivism.

www.spiked-online.com/2018/10/11/in-defence-of-deadnaming/

OP posts:
NonExistentFox · 22/12/2018 13:21

How does that work then? I was under the impression that lesbians were female homosexuals. Thus exclusive same sex attraction? A lesbian doesn’t do dick. Spiritual, corporeal or on any plane of existence

If one likes both sexes one is bisexual. A lesbian is a female attracted to females. A lesbian by definition does not have an attraction to males

I’m all agog at the thought of a spititual dick. what might one of them be?

I'm not an authority on this myself but I'm fairly sure it predates your current "TRA" concerns by a long time and might go to show that a) perhaps you don't know as much about lesbians as you think you do and b) perhaps there is more than one binary dimension in life and your certainties are merely simplistic illusions. Because otherwise you end up with fundamentalism and purity tests and so on and I'm pretty sure that kind of thing tends to end badly.

MadgeMidgerson · 22/12/2018 13:35

if an uncountable number of people * are put at risk so that a Jessica doesn’t ever need reminding she was known as Jonathan (even if she caps herself Jonathan in her online product reviews) than I say it is more than worth it

  • NB I used ‘people’ here to include women and I know that is v controversial for some posters but humour me and pretend they are human
Bowlofbabelfish · 22/12/2018 13:36

perhaps there is more than one binary dimension in life

What does this mean? It’s waffle. What extra dimensions? Like actual extra dimensions? Tiny spiritual penises wafting through Kaluza Klein spaces?

... My god! we’ve found dark matter!

That’s two Nobels at least for the TRA movement, once they can explain how changing sex actually works

NonExistentFox · 22/12/2018 13:38

Well I'm not, so it's irrelevant.

Well then you're disputing an analogy I didn't make, aren't you. I am sorry, I'll try not to assume any up front knowledge on your part in future.

FloralBunting · 22/12/2018 13:38

I imagine a spiritual dick probably produces dark matter. It's all sounding a bit greek mythology at this point...

MadgeMidgerson · 22/12/2018 13:44

when I read NonExistentFox’s posts I noticed that they contain the same letters of the alphabet that a death threat might

I feel attacked

Can NonExistentFox please report to a re-education facility or face prosecution - I have been in touch with a Yorkshire and Norfolk police and they await my instructions with fervent alacrity

Mariotta · 22/12/2018 14:13

Yes, but if a spiritual penis is comprised of dark matter, can we see it if the lights are on?

This is all getting very Celestine Prophecy. I wonder if a spiritual penis vibrates at exactly the right frequency, it will disappear, having ascended to a higher binary dimension?

FamilyOfAliens · 22/12/2018 14:36

I wonder if a spiritual penis vibrates at exactly the right frequency, it will disappear, having ascended to a higher binary dimension?

We can but hope Grin

ZIGGY7 · 22/12/2018 14:36

Lesbians are attracted to other women, not men. What nonsense is this? Surely this gaslighting will eventually come to an end.

Pulltheotheroneitsgotbellson · 22/12/2018 14:53

I imagine a spiritual dick probably produces dark matter. It's all sounding a bit greek mythology at this point...

I'm going to tell my lesbian friends about spiritual dicks - I know what their response will be - it will provide the baseline joke material throughout Xmas and beyond.

Next thing I'll be told that Father Christmas is a woman - wait - that's the truth..... Wait - are all dicks spiritual? Are they all descended from the great Dick in the Sky? Are all men really women? - now there's a thing...that would explain all the misogyny of many men - they're conflicted internally as they're really women. I think I just found The Secret ...

Bowlofbabelfish · 22/12/2018 15:28

Lesbians are homosexual females. They are exclusively attracted to other females.

Other sexualities are available and may suit better if one is attracted to males, or both males and females.

NonExistentFox · 22/12/2018 16:47

What does this mean? It’s waffle. What extra dimensions? Like actual extra dimensions?

It means that people have social, cultural, emotional, sexual, gender etc etc aspects that can't be denoted purely by the either/or of your gametes, and that a bimodal distribution of sex, which I don't dispute, isn't the same as a binary. It's philistinism to insist otherwise.

In addition, to the person in the AIBU thread who said Gödel doesn't apply outside mathematics: as far as we know everything can be represented by mathematics, which relies on certain axioms. You have your crude little axioms you're so proud of - Brexit biology is biology, humans cannot change sex. Well, the consistency of the axioms of the arithmetic of natural numbers cannot be proved within their own system, nor can you ever achieve both consistency and completeness in it, and the fields of human biology and psychology are a whole lot messier and less predictable than that, so I think any certainties you've built on your axioms are illusory and you can't expect to derive any satisfactory and sustainable solutions from them because you haven't allowed for inconsistency and unverifiability but they do nonetheless exist.

They are exclusively attracted to other females.

Plenty are, but not all or in every way. It's a crude classification for convenience's sake, and if you nonetheless insist on believing that they are you'll find yourself with an unverifiable and incompletely explained phenomenon, because nobody can prove to you that they're 100% and immutably gay, yet we accept them as such on the basis of self-declaration. You can accuse me of derailing but it's not my intention, I just don't understand why the supposedly educated and deep thinkers on here won't concede these things, but don't worry, you have 49 other threads in which to keep banging on about chromosomes and Karen White.

Bowlofbabelfish · 22/12/2018 16:52

It means that people have social, cultural, emotional, sexual, gender etc etc aspects that can't be denoted purely by the either/or of your gametes, and that a bimodal distribution of sex, which I don't dispute, isn't the same as a binary. It's philistinism to insist otherwise.

Social, cultural, emotional, etc are diverse and change with place and time. They are not solely defined by sex

But sex IS defineable. It isn’t fuzzy. Itvisnt subjective. There is no waffly ‘more to it’. It’s just sex. Male, female and a few, pretty rare, people who are male or female but have disorders of sexual development.

Your sex is nothing to do with culture, or socialisation. It’s sex.

What aspects of sex are NOT created by our genes? Can you clarify this? Aspects of the physical sex, not gender or feelings or personality. Sex.

What bits of sex are NOT the result of our biology?

Bowlofbabelfish · 22/12/2018 16:54

It's a crude classification for convenience's sake,

No. It’s the very simple, accurate definition of a lesbian. Female homosexual. That’s it.

POMO waffly word salad may disagree but some stuff IS defined simply.

Lesbian = female homosexual.
Woman = adult human female of the class that produces ova.

Mariotta · 22/12/2018 16:55

a crude classification for convenience's sake

This seems a rather unworthy way for a spiritual penis to speak of lesbianism. I hope none of these intensely transcendent members known to you would be like this, Fox. Do spiritual penises perform penances at all? And if so, what form do they take?

Mariotta · 22/12/2018 16:56

(I'm imagining a very sparkly mea culpa.)

NonExistentFox · 23/12/2018 11:45

No. It’s the very simple, accurate definition of a lesbian. Female homosexual. That’s it.

Yup, until you start to define "female" and "homosexual". Obviously the devil is in the details, but wasn't it Kathleen Stock who said something along the lines of "not every characteristic of a class is necessary to qualify something as a member of that class but a certain number of characteristics can be taken to be sufficient" ?

POMO waffly word salad

Is that MN for "complexities I refuse to countenance" ?

What aspects of sex are NOT created by our genes? Can you clarify this? Aspects of the physical sex, not gender or feelings or personality. Sex.

What bits of sex are NOT the result of our biology?

OK, firstly, how are you defining "genes"? Are you including the genes responsible for hormone regulation, the environmental factors that trigger them, epigenetics etc etc? Because "biology" certainly =/= only sex chromosomes, you know that, right? Secondly,

Male, female and a few, pretty rare, people who are male or female but have disorders of sexual development.

Woman = adult human female of the class that produces ova.

Is someone with both types of gonad male or female? If you have to refer back to Y chromosomes in such cases, what about in people who also have chromosomal mosaicism, which is not vanishingly rare?

Thirdly, given that behaviour is one expression of phenotype, can you explain why the "few, pretty rare" people who have atypical or ambiguous physical sexual phenotypes are an acceptable constituent of reality to you but the few pretty rare people who have atypical or ambiguous behavioural sexual phenotypes, i.e. transgender people, are not?

Fourthly, if you're going to reply that what I am calling sexually phenotypic behaviour is all in fact gendered behaviour, and you are adamant that gender is entirely a social construct and therefore neither fixed nor innate, why are two criminological surveys of limited power (i.e. FPFW's one and the Swedish study) sufficient to satisfy you that transgender women do retain male-pattern criminal behaviour whereas transgender men, despite the efforts of the patriarchy, represent no increased risk "because they're women" ? Because the thing is, one of these studies ( journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885#pone ) unambiguously states, "By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."

Your usual response to me is that I'm concerned with speculative waffle and you're concerned with the real danger to vulnerable women and girls. Well, we seem to agree that possession of a penis is not a guarantee of harmful behaviour but merely a signifier of statistical likelihood. Here's a finding of the same risk as that of male controls in transgender men sans possession of your relevant biology, it's from the one formal scientific study you cite to support your arguments on the subject, but this risk is based on what you perceive as gender rather than what you perceive as sex so it doesn't fit in with your particular strain of exclusionary fundamentalism and you never seem to mention it. It can't be for practical reasons that you're not keen to enforce this particular exclusion because a trans man in the Ladies' is frequently far easier to spot than a trans woman.

All this is to say I think the ethical and practical questions you're concerned with should be informed by more than just sex observed at birth. You can accuse me of derailing but given your propensity to simultaneously accuse people of not explaining their point of view adequately I thought I'd unpack it a bit for you. And you can tell yourselves I've just been "reading too much transactivism", but you might want to consider the implications of the fact that I've read probably ten times more of your offerings, thought about it all as honestly as I can and this is what I've come up with.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 23/12/2018 11:55

Yup, until you start to define "female" and "homosexual".

That's hardly difficult Hmm

Honestly, sex is not complicated. There are two sexes. Two gametes. One possible combination to create a baby.

sackrifice · 23/12/2018 11:55

Yup, until you start to define "female" and "homosexual". Obviously the devil is in the details

Everyone on the planet knows whether they are of the class that produces eggs or sperm.

Hence the concept of 'trans'.

Every female [of the egg producing female class] knows whether they like other females of the egg producing female class or they like producers of the sperm producing class, or both.

Women know whether they are lesbian, straight or bi.

People that are desperately trying to force lesbians to accept penises by trying to logic their way into their knickers, are rapey, gaslighting abusers.

Datun · 23/12/2018 12:00

People that are desperately trying to force lesbians to accept penises by trying to logic their way into their knickers, are rapey, gaslighting abusers.

And it's tedious, predictable and as old as the hills.

Katvonbatshit · 23/12/2018 12:00

Do spiritual dicks make spiritual babies?
Has fox just discovered the true meaning of Christmas?
Xmas Grin

NonExistentFox · 23/12/2018 12:21

I'm presuming spiritual cock is a fancy term for the reason why some lesbians enjoy having their strapons sucked, but clearly I need to read up on the whole subject because personally I don't know whether I'm lesbian or bi under your classification system.

Bowlofbabelfish · 23/12/2018 12:23

Yup, until you start to define "female" and "homosexual". Obviously the devil is in the details,

That’s easy too.

A female is of the class that produce immobile gametes (ova)
A homosexual is exclusively sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

There is again, no fuzziness. There is a strong movement to rob language of its meaning (postmodernism and queer theory) which does stuff like mixing up nouns. This is where all the atheletes ‘medalling’ bollovks comes from.

The definition of female is solid and simple
The definition of homosexuality is solid and simple.

So: what detail?

VickyEadie · 23/12/2018 12:26

I'm presuming spiritual cock is a fancy term for the reason why some lesbians enjoy having their strapons sucked, but clearly I need to read up on the whole subject because personally I don't know whether I'm lesbian or bi under your classification system.

That some people like using 'toys' in their sexual activities doesn't make them bisexual.

As one of the lesbians myself - but not one that has ever used such 'toys' (nor would I) - I will state for the record once again: lesbians are adult human females (female = XX person, definitely not one that has ever had a penis) who are solely attracted to similar adult human females of the XX variety.

Mariotta · 23/12/2018 12:26

I'm presuming spiritual cock is a fancy term for the reason why some lesbians enjoy having their strapons sucked, but clearly I need to read up on the whole subject because personally I don't know whether I'm lesbian or bi under your classification system.

You were the one who told us about these spiritual trousersnakes!

We're the ones enquiring about the catechism they follow!

We want to know: is glitter involved?