Trans women are women! Why? Love and Truth that's why

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

I got one, a woman is a human being (let's not debate this term lol) with XX Chromosomes who has clearly visible characteristics associated with what is known as woman. Breasts and a Vagina. I think that is the best one could do to make that label as specific as possible.

Trans would be a modifier. Like the word tall or short is a modifier. So a Trans woman would comprise a different definition. This is the best idea I can think of at this time.

You actually don't have to be very specific at all. You just need to have a general idea. Definitions will never be perfect, but with a circular definition, you have no idea what it means. It can mean anything.

[Etherial Cat]

23 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, so I'll address both of your points. You're using the self-identification definition, which is a circular definition which doesn't make sense in a purely analytical sense. 

Now, referring back to my earlier point, most people don't really care about definitions making logical sense or not — they simply use words to communicate and to relate to other people, and judging by how you're using an illogical definition, you probably fall under that category, and most trans activists do as well.

I'm saying that is actually fine, but now your movement is no longer about being logically consistent but solely promoting social responsibility, which means your focus should be on how people actually treat each other and not stuffing definitions down people's throats, because while most people don't give a fuck, some people actually prefer their definitions to be logically consistent, and you have no leverage there.

So, when I say "I think the bio-essentialist definition makes the most sense, but I'll still call trans people by their preferred pronouns", you should be very happy, because I'm following your social demands AND you have no business telling me which definitions make logical sense.

Bio-essentialism is not 'logically consistent', which is why it has been under attack for decades. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Carl-Richard]

16 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Bio-essentialism is not 'logically consistant', which is why it has been under attack for decades. 

I think I should've said this instead: it's a definition, and self-ID is not even a definition.

Btw, you gave an essentialist definition as well earlier (only based on archetypal traits rather than biological traits), so according to some people, you're a transphobe as well

[Raptorsin7]

Why is transgenderism considered legitimate but transracialism (or trans species) not considered legitimate, or is it?

Couldn't some random white person claim to be asian/black/etc and all the above arguments would hold?

Edited June 30, 2022 by Raptorsin7

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, BenG said:

What makes the self-identification definition more accurate is that it actually accounts for all women. As far as I'm aware, it's the only definition that even can. Instead of talking about logical definitions, why don't we talk about accurate definitions?

It's not a definition though. It doesn't tell you what a woman is. Now, me expressing a preference for the bio-essentialist definition is not about logic per se, but the fact that it is a definition and self-ID is not has to do with logic.

[BeHereNow]

@Raptorsin7 because no one seriously has racial dysphoria nor is it a real thing

[Raptorsin7]

@BeHereNow You can't really be sure of that. 

Let's say someone had racial dysphoria, would you accept what they tell you about their race of choice?

[BeHereNow]

@Raptorsin7 well if it's real then there's a lot of people in the closet. I mean think about this way, why do you think trans ppl can come from any race or culture, through out all of history mind you, but trans racialism doesn't seem to be a real thing at any time? 

And if it was a real thing, yeah sure why not, they're not hurting anyone. Live let live.

[Raptorsin7]

@BeHereNow Well I would counter that by saying why does transgenderism seem more prominent in disenfranchised and traumatized individuals/groups?

But I agree that if transracialsim becomes more prominent it will have less historical backing than transgenderism.

I had an insight about transgenderism a while back around why some people would be trans.

I was looking at this thai girl's instagram and I was reflecting on how attractive thai woman can be, and how much attention they must get from tourists, media etc. Then I was thinking, imagine being an average thai boy, your value and treatment is such more worse relatively than thai woman. So it would make sense that some people would have a strong desire to be lady boys because there is so much more attention and value in passing as a woman.

[Roy]

15 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Why is transgenderism considered legitimate but transracialism (or trans species) not considered legitimate, or is it?

Couldn't some random white person claim to be asian/black/etc and all the above arguments would hold?

Because transgenderism is actually tenable but transracialism is mental insanity and mostly people just trolling.

The only argument I've seen that makes sense for it is if someone "culturally" feels like they are another race, but race and culture don't correlate with each other perfectly. People will adopt the culture they are born in even if their skin colour is an extreme minority.

[Etherial Cat]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think I should've said this instead: it's a definition, and self-ID is not even a definition.

From what I can see, self-identification is not seen as a definition but as a criteria to explain why someone is trans.

I don't think it's very pertinent due to the fact that all identifications are ultimately a mirage. For someone who understand how the ego works, it gets obvious that it's not a perfect foundation to explain transgenderism. My impression is that in theory, you could still express a very queer personality and wish to desire as a woman or man without having a self-concept.

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Btw, you gave an essentialist definition as well earlier (only based on psychological traits rather than biological traits), so according to some people, you're a transphobe as well

The problem is that when it comes to figuring out if someone is masculine or feminine there is no way to go around essentialism. Figuring out the essence of what is to be masculine or what is to be feminine is the pre-requisite. The question of essentialism is the very question being asked.

But bio essentialism and my type of essentialism are totally different. Bio essentialism is way more narrow, and fail to seize the big picture.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Etherial Cat]

22 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Why is transgenderism considered legitimate but transracialism (or trans species) not considered legitimate, or is it?

Couldn't some random white person claim to be asian/black/etc and all the above arguments would hold?

Because the feminine/masculine polarity is an actual duality incarnating in each things and people, while race is just a social construct. 

 

[Raptorsin7]

7 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Because the feminine/masculine polarity is an actual duality incarnating in each things and people, while race is just a social construct. 

 

What do you mean race is a social construct? Aren't masculine/feminine and male/female also social constructs in a sense?

So transgenderism is related to an imbalanced femine/masculine polarity? I am a man, with some feminine qualities I think so would that make me trans? How do we decide what balance makes a person trans

[Consept]

10 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

We can talk about it the day there is an actual case of this. Until then... it's just a thing that does not exist and we don't need to factor as part of the reality we are discussing.

There was Racheal Dolezal and she still hasnt said that im just white - 

 

[Etherial Cat]

11 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

What do you mean race is a social construct? Aren't masculine/feminine and male/female also social constructs in a sense?

So transgenderism is related to an imbalanced femine/masculine polarity? I am a man, with some feminine qualities I think so would that make me trans? How do we decide what balance makes a person trans

The feminine/masculine is embedded in reality, in a way that human race isn't. For instance, in each living species there are expressions of the masculine and the feminine.

The relative is made out of opposite, and the dichotomy between the masculine and feminine is one of the most prominent duality. The principle of Gender is for instance to be found in the Kyballion as one of the 7 hermetic principle.

Quote

 "Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all  planes."

- The Kybalion

Transgenderism is not really an imbalance in polarity. The feminine and the masculine can express themselves as they want through numerous combinaison. 

From my understanding, it's more that someone's bodily gender expression is outpowered by the other polarity at the personality/center of interest /attraction level.

It's very much mysterious because it's energetic, and thus hard to pinpoint at. One can often sense clearly a male or a woman with a feminine or masculine energy. Nobody knows exactly where it originates from, but it can be very perceptible depending on the person.

Having some feminine traits does not make someone trans. The feminine expression in your case would need to be so strong that you'd feel like altering your body to live your life as a woman.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Etherial Cat

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Etherial Cat said:

But bio essentialism and my type of essentialism are totally different. Bio essentialism is way more narrow, and fail to seize the big picture.

It's easy to fall in the trap of perfectionism of trying to deduce the most accurate definition. You don't have to do much mental gymnastics to figure out which one you prefer.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, BenG said:

What definition exists that can tell you what a woman is as something other than what a woman is socially constructed to be? Self-ID just gets straight to the point about it. Takes away the mess of trying to make it something solid and real. 

In other words, it doesn't tell you anything.

"A carpenter is somebody who works as a carpenter" does not tell you what a carpenter is. All you know is that it involves working with something, and it makes no distinctions between different types of work. Likewise, "a woman is somebody who self-identifies as a woman" does not tell you what a woman is. It only tells you that it involves self-identifying as something, and it makes no distinctions between different cases where one self-identifies as something.

 

2 hours ago, BenG said:

Just in case I need to reiterate: Bio-essentialist definition doesn't tell you what a woman is!

How so?

[Razard86]

2 hours ago, BeHereNow said:

@Raptorsin7 because no one seriously has racial dysphoria nor is it a real thing

It actually exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

[Etherial Cat]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's easy to fall in the trap of perfectionism of trying to deduce the most accurate definition. You don't have to do much mental gymnastics to figure out which one you prefer.

It has nothing to do with perfectionism. One can't seriously subscribe to bio essentialism and think transgender are a real thing. So by upholding it as the 'most accurate definition', one makes transgenderism invalid by default.

Bio essentialism is systematically used by transphobes and misogynists of all kinds in order to confine people to traditional gender expressions. For instance, it is Ben Shapiro's favorite talking point. For this reason, it is a least than perfect definition to work with.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Etherial Cat said:

Bio essentialism is systematically used by transphobes and misogynists of all kinds in order to confine people to traditional gender expressions.

How is your definition not doing that?