Forum
>
Trans Women
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Anyway, as I said previously, I personally would be ok with the "trans tag" solution on main site. Even if i fully agree that it would ideologically be like an hypothetic "black tag", I know we aren't living in a perfect world: black women just forward their struggle for rights much more than trans women did until now. So it is a step by step path, trying to keep together different perceptions (perceptions, not biological, religious or whatever truths).
It is really every time funny to see a cis man (I suppose) supposing to know (and explaining) who I am, better than myself. Anyway, I would only answer that I never asked you (or someone else) to fight my battles. The entire false sillogism you did on black women falls exactly because only 100 years ago black women were not considered women, as trans are still not now by many people. It is, another time if needed, proof that biology doesn't matter, in the entire question. But only, another time, perception.
It is really every time funny to see a cis man (I suppose) supposing to know (and explaining) who I am, better than myself. Anyway, I would only answer that I never asked you (or someone else) to fight my battles. The entire false sillogism you did on black women falls exactly because only 100 years ago black women were not considered women, as trans are still not now by many people. It is, another time if needed, proof that biology doesn't matter, in the entire question. But only, another time, perception.
Trans women aren’t women though
Your opinion, exactly as you can find people nowadays ready to swear black women aren't women (or human being at all)
Not the same thing but okay
Not the same thing but okay
Exactly the same but hey, the world is funny thanks to different opinions
If you wildly cut and paste things I have said and put my words into new contexts, of course it is going to look silly and hilarious. Nobody is going to contest that. But only a fool would think that you've proven a serious point.
dude, everything you write is silly and hilarious (as well as rather sad), but i'm not going to excavate whole tracts of the nonsense you've written when i can simply focus my attention on the most coherent information you've provided and challenge that instead.
I take that you are not interested in what I am saying. But at the same time you pretend to know what I am saying. And then go on to immediately demonstrate that you don't. And don't even care to know. But then you come across as if you had given a smashing criticism to something you have no clue about and don't even care to. You're probably just trying to torture me with all your contradictions.
all i did was highlight the inconsistencies in your argumentation - but if you believe i contradicted myself in any way, you're welcome to actually highlight it instead of simply claiming foul and whinging like a child about being exposed as a quack.
I do know they can fool some people for some time in some contexts, especially a site like this, but sooner or later you will become aware that something is off.
assuming that they are pretending to be something they aren't. this is YOUR narrative, not their reality.
My words here are a comment to the gloating I saw here earlier that people praise some pictures until they realize that the person in the picture is trans. After which they act horrified. I was just repeating the words of one of you, accepting them as a valid description of what is happening and would happen even more.
The fact that people do feel and will feel something is off has nothing to do with what the person in the picture is or wants to be according to law or some ideology. So it had nothing to do with pretending. Nothing to do with my narrative.
define gloating for us, please.
the comment you were responding to said nothing about 'fooling people', so ultimately that is your responsibility to take, because unlike the person whose comment you were reacting to, you clearly believe in the idea that 'something is off', and you're clearly sceptical about the basis in which transpeople are acknowledged, so ultimately you are insinuating that who they are is based on pretence. fuck, most of what you've written in this thread is dedicated towards undermining their identity, so why would you deny it here?
Actually it was your narrative on how trans people are victimized by hypocrites. And their reality is completely irrelevant to what I said, because I wasn't talking about "their reality" but your description of an onlooker's reaction and agreeing with that description.
seriously, have you been paying attention to your writing here, Zarkle? are you seriously insinuating that it's my narrative that you believe what trans people are is based on pretence? if not that, then what exactly do you think you're trying to express?
It's bad if you can hide that someone is trans. Because you're in effect lying to people. Or at least many would feel that way if they knew or found out. And it's bad when you eventually fail to hide it.
why is hiding what they are a necessity?
If they could fly under radar, permanently, all of them, I am quite sure they would and this discussion would be unnecessary and possibly wouldn't even exist.
whose radar? i personally don't feel as if transpeople need to hide, but you do. and as far as i'm concerned, the only reason this discussion exists at all is because there are still a lot of people who refuse to accept transpeople for who they are, and not because of their detectability or lack thereof. currently speaking, you are attempting to deny the bias you've been perpetuating throughout this thread, which makes me wonder if all you did here was deny the obvious because you thought it'd help you save face from being called out on your prejudice.
as if you're attributing the complete breakdown of society on what you assert is a proportion
Except that I wasn't. I think those are separate issues. I am not particularly protective of any society. I'm interested in what constitutes a person or an identity. If you can just mimic and glue together some mannerisms and appearances then it doesn't look good for anyone.
hah hah! so basically it's "no.. except yes!", followed by more transphobic ad hominem as rationalisation.
y'know, you could easily cut down on the bullshit you write by exactly 50% if you were more concise about what you're trying to express, but that would invariably require you being honest with yourself about what you mean to convey, and the word-curtains you employ are simply a smoke-screen meant to enshroud the limitations you have to grapple with in communicating that message. you're basically confusing your neurotic dependency on schizophasia as a form of nuanced contextualisation, simply because you're apparently too proud to admit that your opinion is far more straightforward than its presentation.
It's as if science was a street fight where people were beating each other up with surveys.
surveys are a legitimate facet of data collection in most scientific disciplines.. particularly in the branches that involve human geography. how the fuck wouldn't you know this as a purveyor of real science?
I am constantly doing real science by attempting to connect known causes and effects. I don't think I need anything more than that. [..] This is how a professor of psychology saw the issue and I found the things I heard interesting and had no reason to outright reject them. I was not motivated to hear or believe anything in particular. I just think that what I heard made sense on multiple levels. There was no survey. I know that pro-LGBT activists operate by cooking up "surveys" to prove what they want to, so I understand the projection. Except when they're busy assassinating someone's character. Calling it hearsay is just an unproven and false accusation. There exists a professor who sees things the way I described, and that's that.
let me reiterate this once more: confirmation bias is not real science! and neither is sifting and cherry-picking according to what you want to believe while baselessly hand-waving information that conflicts with your personal bias as 'cooked up surveys', without even providing your own verification on what you claim exists to legitimise the information you're trying to persuade others is fact. if you can't explain who the professor is that you're talking about and yet you expect us to take you by your word, that is exactly why i'm accusing you of hearsay.
..and Zarkle, you're not a scientist. you're a fraudulent clown, and the sad thing is that you appear to have this remarkable ability to convince yourself that your clown act represents something altogether more profound. that.. as any actual psychologist would be able to point out to you.. is called a grandiose delusion. it's the reason why you're willing to pore out your efforts writing dissertation-length diatribes in the backwaters of the internet, because if you presented this drivel to an academic body, they'd not only toss it away, but there'd also be a very strong chance that it could end with you potentially getting committed.
i mentioned before that i was never going to accuse you of self-awareness, and to be bluntly honest a part of me even pities you because i know you're probably never going to change from the way you are. it's almost as if.. this is what you must resort to in order to live with yourself, and i don't think i'd wish that on anyone. anyway, i doubt the world's cameltoes are going to sniff themselves out, and in time perhaps a PhD will be devised for that discipline, in which case i know you'd be the foremost candidate for such a vocation!
i mentioned before that i was never going to accuse you of self-awareness, and to be bluntly honest a part of me even pities you because i know you're probably never going to change from the way you are. it's almost as if.. this is what you must resort to in order to live with yourself, and i don't think i'd wish that on anyone. anyway, i doubt the world's cameltoes are going to sniff themselves out, and in time perhaps a PhD will be devised for that discipline, in which case i know you'd be the foremost candidate for such a vocation!
Maybe just another form to self-determinate and building an identity ? :D
LOL that was absolutely brilliant BarteusSimpsonii. Loved every word and couldn't agree more!
I think that I can break down the Zarkle argument into a few simple points:
1) He likes muscular women
2) He comes to this site to look at them and pleasure himself to their photographs
This is okay so far, him and I are in agreement on 1&2. I very much do the same
3) He does not believe that trans women are women. He thinks they are men
4) He's concerned that trans women might "fool" him into thinking that they were born women
5) If he unwittingly pleasures himself to the image of a trans woman, he'll feel bad about himself and enter a sad, dark realm of sexual identity confusion. And he'll be angry and bitter about that. So...
6) Girls With Muscle must keep trans women away to protect his feelings and prevent him from unwittingly admiring a feminine human being with muscles who was not initially born as a biological woman.
Here's where we all differ. To Zarkle & Co, this site is not a comprehensive online resource for muscular women content. It's just a spank bank. It's his feelings that matter.. not the models' feelings.
The usual transphobe sports argument is that trans women can detract from the accomplishments of cis women. But that doesn't apply here, as there's no real awards for doing "well" on this site. A few trans athletes won't diminish the thousands and thousands of cis athletes here. So the only real opposition is personal bias. And this site has decided that protecting the feelings of fragile men is more important than offering a small bit of representation to trans women.
It's a shame. Really.
And this site has decided that protecting the feelings of fragile men is more important than offering a small bit of representation to trans women.
It's a shame. Really.
Well, it is always a good thing protecting a minority 😆. Anyway, I guess some kind of consideration about the topic is actually undergoing
"If you told me you suddenly identify as a German Shepherd, would the same argument hold? Because you are talking about yourself, somebody else pointing out that you have not turned into a dog does not matter because they're not you?"
Straw man argument, my friend. I clearly do not belong to dog specie. I belong to human specie, within which, and even accepting without problem I born with a male sex, I can position as I wish. With or without your consent. About black women, it is just the case to remember publications like indigenous races of the earth (1857, Nott, Robins Gliddon), that clearly spoke of black people as the "missing link" between the chimpanzee and the "greek man". Literally, another specie. Not "culturally unbecoming whatever". The ratio between your walls of text / the lines needed to confute them dramatically increases. Come on, you can do better than that.
You did it so many times, and not only you forget to be forthcoming in each, but you contradicted yourself in nonsense so many time I lose the count, as any of "us" ("us" who?) pointed out, as did anyone that has a residual logic and a little bit of intellectual honesty. The pattern is every time the same, like the last posts ahead a) you spend a logorrohic wall of text to say nothing, but one or two senseless personal pov that you try to pass for axioms, or facts b) someone (like me in the last post about black people specie and your straw man argument) confute with ease and point out your nonsenses. c) you completely ignore to answer on the matter and discharge another wall of text full of new nonsenses, at least you are creative. Believe me, I know the strategy, and you can't fool me. Sorry.
About what can alter gender: not sure about sex, but about gender, it depends on every individual that begins the transition. There's not a magic formula and any point can have various weight for different people. in my pov I would pick every point you wrote, from the most important (the individual say-so) to the less (society declaration). But you are right on one point: it was never about consent of someone else.
Here is a born male (never denied my sex), that ever considered her gender to be woman, from since she has memory. She enters a path of truthness, proudness, pain, self esteem, hormones, fears, reconsiderations (yes, reconsiderations), surgery. And, not poof, but after a long path yes, it comes out a woman. A woman that doesn't need your consent to be considered so, again. If this hurts your fragile ego, sorry again. But hey, I can't bear your burdens too.
I mean, I trust myself far more than I trust you about this.
Hey i'm for freedom at all, for all. You're free to hurt yourself the way you like.
I like the fact that Zarkel “barely” likes muscular woman and DEFINITELY doesn’t like trans women but dude has spent hours on a website about muscular women writing his magnum opus on trans women. It’s impressive.
Again, your (legitimate) opinion. As I think you pick up casual piece of information, politics, science and made a pot pourri of nonsenses, contradicting yourself more and more at every post, just to intorbidate the debate. These are opinions. Not facts.