Listen up cis people! Educate yourselves!

[BettyBooper]

Read this and be told!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/sep/30/will-ferrell-harper-steele-netflix-documentary

But not to a trans person. To them their belief system is a material reality

Whatever. That doesn't mean it has to be mine.

If I don't believe in god, do I accept being labelled in religious terms? A sinner, a heretic? No.

Just like some people are more equal than others?

It's a self-evident truth that some beliefs are more founded in reality than others. I don't gender identity ideology as one of those. So comparing it to acknowledging the importance of biological sex doesn't fly with me.

Let’s say my colleague Gerald from the IT department transitions and becomes Geraldine. I’ll call this person by their new name. I will not use she/her pronouns, but equally I’ll avoid using he/him. I consider that to be respectful to Geraldine’s new identity without compromising my right to believe that men cannot literally become women. If Geraldine starts calling me cis, then that’s disrespecting and misgendering me. Geraldine will have to compromise and avoid using ‘cis’ when I’m around, just as I’ll compromise and not use reality-based pronouns for Geraldine.

I’ll call a vicar Reverend and I’ll call a priest Father. But if they say a prayer, I won’t be forced to join in or say Amen!

But that's not what a material reality means. Material reality is a solid, tangible thing. It exists in a concrete way. It is more than the realm of belief.

Sex exists. It is a material reality.

Gender may or may not exist. I'm not going to argue that either way. But it is not material. It is mental/spiritual.

Since it is undeniable that the sexes exist, and undeniable that some people truly believe they have a mental gender, it really does just come down to whether you believe Man and Woman are the names for the two human sexes or whether you believe they are the names for two of the many gender identities.

I personally believe that since Man and Woman have always referred to sex they should continue to do so, and genders should start with new names, a clean slate and make a case for whatever rights, spaces and protections they need from first principles not just based on "well it says Woman on the door"

Oh my I missed this glorious bit of BB trivia. I thought I was the only person who still remembered that song.

I read somewhere most men think of the Roman Empire a few times every day...pretty sure My Favourite Waste of Time goes round my head a similar amount

Once it's in your head it refuses to leave!

@Zebrassiere
I'm going to go into this in the language of GII.
How does a man know he is a transgender woman as opposed to a cisgender woman?
His male sexed body.
He believes that the maleness of his body is irrelevant or unimportant or even that it is actually a female body by virtue of the fact that he claims a feminine gender identity - but he still knows it's different to women's bodies.
TAs tell us we must use "cis" about ourselves to differentiate us from MCW (men who claim to be women). Both groups supposedly have a feminine GI, so what is different about us? Our bodies.
Sex is a description of bodies. Implicitly, MCW accept that by claiming a transgender identity. So no belief is being imposed on them about what they are. They just don't want any significance to be attached to their male body.

In a video upthread, a man says he is a woman with a penis. The fact that he says "with a penis" is an acknowledgement that his body is different.

Language is the key battleground. The demand to accept the word cis to differentiate us demands that we consider MCW and women as two types of woman. Because the obvious way to differentiate women from MCW is to say "women" and "men".
Forcing men into the definition of woman makes the word meaningless and useless for anything except forcing men - any men - into women's single sex spaces.

I've never worked out how it differs from any other cultural appropriation.

Men can't know how it 'feels' to be a woman any more than a white person can know how it 'feels' to be black.

So why is blackface or any form of racial cultural appropriation BAD yet man who appropriates womanhood to be applauded.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

In a video upthread, a man says he is a woman with a penis. The fact that he says "with a penis" is an acknowledgement that his body is different.

But that in itself isn't considered a bar to those males using female only spaces to many trans rights activists. She's just got a "different body"! You know, like a woman who has had a mastectomy and you "tolerate" that, so stop being exclusionary of these women for their body shapes!

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5150772/snp-outrage-offensive-remarks-trans-women-mastectomy-patients/amp/

Yes, I know. As I say, they think that the difference is irrelevant or unimportant. The point is that they admit implicitly that the difference exists and that it is physical. That women (us) don't have penises. And the physical difference is what we are referring to when we say they are men.

I just wanted to share to the thread one of the most egregious examples of this mentality.

Oh, ok. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Possibly, but I think it's quite clear that most of us have met trans people. I certainly have, and the ones I have met are nice but naive, and they have swallowed the idea that anyone who doesn't use "their pronouns" hates them. In other words they have been indoctrinated.

You are taking the 2 positions as mirror images. They are not.

One side is arguing to continue using language in line with material reality, scientific knowledge, and thousands of years of common usage (in which the nouns woman and man, the adjectives male and female, third person pronouns in many languages - also second person in some, not to mention assorted suffixes - all refer to biological sex). The other side is arguing to overturn all that and redefine how all these parts of language work to align with their personal belief system.

And what you're calling a contradiction on the GC side misses that the same accusation applies equally to the GI side

You are stating the GC position as: 'I will call you what I believe (your sex), you may not call me.what you believe (your assessment of my gender).

But you must see exactly the same applies on the GI side: 'I will call you what I believe (my assessment of your gender), you may not call me.what you believe (my sex).

Note that this is not a contradiction within either argument, it is a disagreement between the GC one and the GI one. Refusing to see a man as a woman and refusing to be labelled as cis is an entirely consistent argument. As plenty of PP have explained. How that emerges in who can say what is not the point of the belief but a manifestation of it.

Similarly if your position is that everyone has a gender identity, it is logical to assume the other person has one. It is, however, contradictory and hypocritical to assume what that gender is and apply it to someone who rejects it while insisting that you are the only one qualified to know your own based on your internal feelings..

I sometimes refer to men and women as penis people and vagina people for that reason. It drives the SJWs nuts. Plus, it's a convenient way of differentiating the two sexes.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom said;
"No one can explain what it is or what characteristics it has or what it has to do with being a woman and if you ask these questions you are accused of trolling and sealioning, because of course everyone knows what it is, even if no one can put it into words.

And since it's the female people (the vast majority of people who apparently share this identity) who don't really seem to be aware of it or understand what it is, and the male people (a tiny minority) who insist that it is real and it is what defines a woman, we end up with the definition of a woman being "whatever trans women say a woman is" (and if you have any questions you're a hateful bigot)."

Right. It has always puzzled me when women claim they feel womanly. There are even song lyrics about it, eg; man I feel like a woman and you make me feel like a natural woman. What the hell does it mean to feel like a woman? I know I'm a woman because of my body. It's not a feeling. Nobody seems to be able to explain it. Therefore, I must consider that this nebulous feeling which is now being called gender is nothing but a fantasy.

Thanks to the Pebble Mill gaffe, I will never fully forget Owen Paul. The look of WTF on their faces as their song started without them…

Who’s going to admit to remembering Kyrie by Mr Mister from the same time? That’s definitely dredging up the scraps of my Top Of The Pops memories

excellent thread - thank you all.

I learn so much.

Who’s going to admit to remembering Kyrie by Mr Mister from the same time? That’s definitely dredging up the scraps of my Top Of The Pops memories

🙋‍♀️

But that's not what a material reality means. Material reality is a solid, tangible thing. It exists in a concrete way. It is more than the realm of belief.

Yes. And it is objective. Everyone encountering it will perceive the same core things, in a replicatable way. It is not a subjective thing where one person or a group have announced 'I see this and everyone else must now pretend to see it too regardless of their own perceptions, because I/we are more powerful and higher than them who don't get to have perceptions, just to service provide'.

Equally in (other) strong faith based positions, there are those who would refer to me as an 'infidel' or a 'sinner' or 'nutter with a sky fairy friend' depending on their belief and perception of mine. Whatever. If they get in my face and follow me around shouting about it then that's harassment, but otherwise I'm not bothered. They can have whole swathes of the internet chatting about sinners/infidels. However if they start requiring me to sign forms and talk about myself as 'a sinner' or to engage in conversations in which they wish to call me a sinner because otherwise I bugger up their wellbeing and uninterrupted belief, we're going to have a problem.

And that's leaving apart the whole 'cis' is something you 'identify' into by choice, it's a silly term that's fairly meaningless and does not stand up to even the most basic inquisition, it's frequently a slur and means of subordinating people into a lower caste to justify ill treating them, and it is in fact a means of enforcing their submission to gender ideology. I in turn do not require a man to state to me he is a man, or accept that he is a man, I'm happy to leave him to crack on doing whatever and calling himself whatever. Unless he gets in my face and treads on my rights and other women's rights and forces me to the discourtesy of having to point out material reality. At this point his feelings are no more important than anyone else's in the situation he has chosen to create.

ok.

But to take you back to my posts yesterday or so, I pointed out that not only are those in Group 2 repurposes and redefining words making communication effectively impossible, but Group 2 has forced every person to be part of their belief.

Which other group has the right to :

(1) force everyone to act as if they believe in their philosophical belief.

(2) repurpose / redefine established words that the majority of society use to describe their unique needs.

(3) act as if their belief is material reality, to the point of being able to change language, laws, policy and to educate society according to that belief that is based on falsity.

Remember, this group (group 2) is not treating society as if society is ‘those who believe in gender identity / don’t believe in gender identity’ or ‘has a trangender identity / doesn’t have a transgender identity’. They are treating society as ‘those who have a gender identity that matches their sex and those who have a different gender identity that doesn’t match their sex’ .

Again, this forced belief is not ‘null’. It is not even neutral. It has redefined all of society from only the perspective of those believing in gender identities.

As I said yesterday: “Religious people can call other people non-believers of their religion and this is a material fact. It is real and it is meaningful. I doubt people would reject that. It is a null option.”

Why should any society have to accept the belief that completely redefines them? From that group’s perspective?

This is actually an abusive act when you pull it apart. Group 2 has forcibly redefined language and recategorised society without society’s consent.

Why do you feel society should respect Group 2? No one is saying that people in Group 2 cannot say what they want to say amongst themselves or even write articles or have TV shows.

What we are saying is that if anyone from Group 2 wants to talk to someone from Group 1, they may be ignored by those in Group 1. And rightfully so because for effective communication, a group of people can’t redefine words and recategorise society without consent. Just to suit themselves and their own belief that is not based on material reality. That is not objectively provable.

As someone pointed out, does anyone take notice of someone who posts about the earth being flat? I will put this into context if it helps.

If those flat earthers decided to label all people who understood that the earth was a spherical planet ‘aliens’, would any ‘alien’ be considered hypocritical for not listening to the flat earther?

Would any ‘alien’ be hypocritical in saying to the flat earther ‘don’t call me an ‘alien’ ‘?

Religion doesn’t really work as a comparator because, as I said yesterday, with religion you are either a believer, or a non-believer. And being a non-believer is a materially true statement even though it is from the religious person’s perspective. That is a null position, or maybe just the position of absolutely no change. It requires no interaction from a group 1 person.

Group 2 isn’t categorising people as ‘non-believers’, they are categorising ALL of society as being ‘believers’. This is false.

Just for reference here are the groups again:

Group 1 are people who don’t believe in gender identity theory at all. And I expect that this group is the majority of people.

Group 2 are people who believe in gender identity theory - they have gender identities that are either transgender or cis gender.

TL/DR If a group of people hold a belief that defies known and established scientific fact, why should society accept being redefined without its consent ?

In my opinion, to categorise society as being ‘believers’ without their consent is an act of abuse. Why should we respect our abusers?

The other important thing to understand about "cis" is that in the case of women and trans women, it transwashes the underlying power imbalance between men and women.

The background in our culture is still that men are the privileged norm and women are the less heard, less seen other.

By renaming women as "cis" women, where cis is the privileged norm, and men as "trans" women, where trans is the marginalised other, it hides this underlying power dynamic.

It is I think not a coincidence that the trans allies who place so much emphasis on intersectionality of oppression/ disadvantage (a woman and black, a women and disabled, a woman and trans) and consider themselves feminist do not allow themselves to recognise, or others to say, that even if you accept "woman" to be a mixed sex gender group, a "cis" woman is a woman and female while a "trans" woman is a woman and male, while a "cis" man is a man and male while a trans man is a man and female.

By their own intersectional rules they should recognise that the trans woman and the cis man both have male privilege while the trans man and cis woman do not, but instead "cisness" is presented as an equally privileged position in relationship to "transness" regardless body sex and the underlying power dynamics of that.

Again, one of the inconsistencies in genderist norms that once you see, it undermines their whole position.

Maybe we should fight them with their own language: a woman and AFAB. And indeed I'm seeing some genderist woman are now using AFAB not just to frame gender identity but to speak about the experiences of being female.

Me! I remember asking my RE teacher what Kyrie Eleison(sp?) meant. I'd seen it in a cartoon about Passion plays when it was in the charts and I thought she'd know. Was it them who did Broken Wings?

Anyone remember Lean On Me by Red Box?

And indeed I'm seeing some genderist woman are now using AFAB not just to frame gender identity but to speak about the experiences of being female.

Indeed. You can tie the language up like a pretzel but the material reality keeps coming back. And then you have to use whatever language you've been given to express the reality. Bless.