[Morgan.]

Youtube video

Completely siding with India here.

[Elliot]

Spotted the terf

[Greg!]

Scum (the terf not India)

[Katty24]

Originally Posted by Greg!

Scum (the terf not India)

India is a very poor example of womanhood so she has a valid point.

[MB.]

Correction: not a feminist

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by MB.

Correction: not a feminist

This is what I was thinking... tired of people calling themselves feminists... who've lost the plot and are giving feminism a bad name

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by MB.

Correction: not a feminist

Idg why people are making articles “feminist does something .....” for these women who quite clearly aren’t feminists

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Idg why people are making articles “feminist does something .....” for these women who quite clearly aren’t feminists

To be logical though, you can't have your cake and eat it too surely. If it's all about self determination, then if this woman self-identifies as being part of a branch of feminism, then she is a feminist. It's an easy / lazy solution to say "Simples; she is not a real feminist".

It's like... When an act of violence is committed in the name of Islam people are happy to call it "Muslim extremism", but when an act of violence is committed in the name of Christianity people are quick to say "Simples; that person is not a real Christian"...

Surely the crux of trans rights issues is that if someone declares themselves to identify as something, then no one can tell them that they shouldn't or are not that thing.

Why would that suddenly no longer be true of feminism?

Is it simply because it's uncomfortable and ideologically problematic to admit that - whether you personally consider it to be a twisted definition or not - she is indeed some brand of feminist?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be logical though, you can't have your cake and eat it too surely. If it's all about self determination, then if this woman self-identifies as being part of a branch of feminism, then she is a feminist. It's an easy / lazy solution to say "Simples; she is not a real feminist".

It's like... When an act of violence is committed in the name of Islam people are happy to call it "Muslim extremism", but when an act of violence is committed in the name of Christianity people are quick to say "Simples; that person is not a real Christian"...

Surely the crux of trans rights issues is that if someone declares themselves to identify as something, then no one can tell them that they shouldn't or are not that thing.

Why would that suddenly no longer be true of feminism?

Is it simply because it's uncomfortable and ideologically problematic to admit that - whether you personally consider it to be a twisted definition or not - she is indeed some brand of feminist?

...(..sorry I have to rush so this is just an initial thing to what you say, TS..]...

..there are differences in what you’re comparing though...feminism is a choice, we are not born feminists...extremism is a choice, we’re not born to be extremists...a trans person though..?...is born as a woman inside the body of a man, their body doesn’t match what they were born as..(...as with trans who are women born in men’s bodies..)...and they had no choice in any of it, other than whether to complete a trans journey in their bodies, like India has...but yeah, I do agree that definitions of the practising of feminism will vary and fit to an individual in that variation...that’s the same with many things though...

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...(..sorry I have to rush so this is just an initial thing to what you say, TS..]...

..there are differences in what you’re comparing though...feminism is a choice, we are not born feminists...extremism is a choice, we’re not born to be extremists...a trans person though..?...is born as a woman inside the body of a man, their body doesn’t match what they were born as..(...as with trans who are women born in men’s bodies..)...and they had no choice in any of it, other than whether to complete a trans journey in their bodies, like India has...but yeah, I do agree that definitions of the practicing of feminism will vary and fit to an individual in that variation...that’s the same with many things though...

I think TS may have borrowed from my comment where I mention the concept of self-identification (in general)... that's different than Transgenderism... it's one thing to say an apple is an apple... or that an apple looks like an apple, but feels like an orange... but completely different if an apple can change to different fruit at will (Fire orange, banana bonanza, peachy keen, fine lime)... to me, that completely trivializes Transgenderism (relatively speaking)... but the self-identification thing and Transgenderism are two different concepts...

A trans-qualifier, at least as accepted by psych/med, is for those who suffering from gender dysphoria... but self-identification goes beyond that and creates an even bigger umbrella... it means we can change at will, which theoretically can mean, as often as one would prefer... it makes defining things more ambiguous, and I think if we're heading that direction, then other things can start to lose their original definition... because after all, the only qualifier is that we self-identity or "feel" a certain way that day... is a bit different than saying, well this person is transgender... because they have gender dysphoria... as I wrote above, I really disagree with this concept because it trivializes the footwork that legitimate trans-folk have to go through to find peace with their own identity... if it were as simple as a switch, hey I'm not feeling a certain way today I'll change my mind, then the discussion would be null...

I don't think the concept of self-identification is the problem. I just don't think it should be law is all... a trans-person who is struggling with a real disconnect, that's much easier to accommodate... and easier for society to create social barriers that make sense for all folk...

So anyway, it was just an ironic comment... we're discussing how feminism is concretely in support of certain movements, has these political positions, is within these belief systems, this that and the other thing... is ironic considering that a great deal of folk who have that belief also support self-identification and a gender-spectrum... which sort of undermines the premise of defining things concretely to certain criterium...

Hope that makes sense, Ammi... if not, no worries ... it's just me discussing a side-topic and other mind-dumping (as usual) ...

[Morgan.]

Originally Posted by Smithy

Idg why people are making articles “feminist does something .....” for these women who quite clearly aren’t feminists

I only used the word feminist because it's the word used in the attached video.

[Oliver_W]

She's a transwoman, but she'll never be biologically female, but what's to be gained by saying that to her face? India's hardly gonna say "YOU'RE RIGHT" and regrow her cock and start living as a man again...

[Maru]

Feminism has become too big a word or umbrella to now try to control how people self-identify with it... if we're pro-self-identification here... I think of myself as an individualist feminist, but I don't agree with all the new new waviness coming out.

I don't think because a woman is a feminist in past time and the movement has changed significantly and that individual chooses not to adopt those new(er) views, doesn't mean they are not a feminist...

Just the same, we shouldn't kick lesbians out of the LGBT because they don't agree with newer views on Transgenderism... it completely contradicts the purpose of those movements being about acceptance... there shouldn't be an ultimatum.

Anyway, I'm not arsed whether myself is accepted me as a feminist or not because I could care less... but I just think it's uncomfortable for me as a woman to see other people go through, that we've now determined all women must all agree or check certain boxes before they can be accepted into the feminist movement...

It really makes me think of Christianity, where there was one this unifying church... and now there's all these different movements/denominations and obviously agendas within it because that's how separatist the movement has become...

[Oliver_W]

Feminism in its modern form is a bit cracked. Some people seem to think it's "intersectional" by default; while she's in no way a consensus, Riley Dennis (I linked one of her videos in the JK Rowling racism thread) categories any of her videos relating to race, poverty, or trans stuff as feminism.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Feminism in its modern form is a bit cracked. Some people seem to think it's "intersectional" by default; while she's in no way a consensus, Riley Dennis (I linked one of her videos in the JK Rowling racism thread) categories any of her videos relating to race, poverty, or trans stuff as feminism.

Yeah... I relate that part again to religion. XD Back in the 90's, early 00's, I had that problem with Christianity. Particularly where they would take their core ideology and apply it to every political/economic issue possible to force their constituency to vote a certain way. I don't think beliefs/feelings can be argued in any reasonable manner. Who can rebut a feeling or a personal belief system? It's near impossible as the basis of it is how much that person truly believes the thing they believe... like those people who can cite evidence showing Jesus existed, may be reason enough for them (emotionally), but not for others who are looking at the issue more intellectually...

I don't identify with those portions of Feminism that leave the female domain for me (particularly biology) because I think in doing so, the movement has become dictatorial. Obviously some of that is the political portion of things waving off-screen in the distance. That can't be helped. However, I think leaving behind core principles of individualism and moving more towards group orientation, we lost some of the credit we had gained there by working alongside men to gain equal footing. The political side is particularly exclusive in this manner, so in having checkboxes what that has done has stifled individual female representation... which for me nullifies the whole point of it...

[Toy Soldier]

I've been telling all y'all for years that the term "feminism" is broken and toxic, and needs to be replaced. It's being clung to now out of nothing more than principle / stubbornness, which is partially understandable - people don't WANT the term to have been usurped - but it has been, and refusing to go in another direction is doing nothing to further the purported goals of (apparent) "true feminists" at all.

Bin it.

Start equality movements afresh.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I've been telling all y'all for years that the term "feminism" is broken and toxic, and needs to be replaced. It's being clung to now out of nothing more than principle / stubbornness, which is partially understandable - people don't WANT the term to have been usurped - but it has been, and refusing to go in another direction is doing nothing to further the purported goals of (apparent) "true feminists" at all.

Bin it.

Start equality movements afresh.

wtf... TS went Texan all the sudden.

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Ignorance.

The scientific consensus is that while biological sex is determined by genes, hormones, and genitals, [B]one's psychological gender[B] is entirely on the basis of how that individual self-identifies.[B]

But go off, i guess

One would think it would be the other way around? Otherwise, our cognitive state could be predictably influenced/changed by how we self-perceive... which would be really great actually.

Gender dysphoria isn't something individuals willingly deal with, in my view. It's not a cake-walk, as suggested by the statistics... and for me, personally, the idea that people can treat their "gender" as easy as a drop down in a Facebook profile is actually very patronizing for those who are actually having to face their dysphoria...

It is also equally prejudicial to make womanhood more about the types of clothes she wears and apparent feminine "features", rather than to notice and focus on her individuality... and that's where a lot of these movements lose me ... like who cares what umbrella we fall under, as it is who we are as individuals that counts... I understand certain groups have varying pressures and having associations within that group (fellow advocates) is very helpful to enabling us to get up back up on our feet. I was lumped in with the hysterical crowd when I came down with an infection and it took me 8 years to get a proper diagnosis... but I would think no matter what label I fell under, to not be seen as an individual would feel the most dehumanizing... that was actually my worst fear after being diagnosed.

[Marsh.]

Tbh, I kind of understood her in some places.

When she questioned Ruth's statements that for many years prior to India's physical transition she had "been living as a woman" and when she actually asks both Ruth and India to answer the question of what that means, neither of them could. India constantly says "I lived as a woman for x number of years prior to surgery" but doesn't even know what she means by it when she says it.

The woman has valid points about people being able to so easily "identify" as something else. I think she's going about it the wrong way, and obviously in the case of someone like India who has completely physically transitioned it's not strictly the same thing. And also "You can't change the DNA code in every cell of your body", well, she's not wrong.

Valid points on both sides here.

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

India constantly says "I lived as a woman for x number of years prior to surgery" but doesn't even know what she means by it when she says it.

It means presenting as a woman full time, leaving your past identity behind, and it's not as simple as putting on a dress and changing your name, there is dozens of tiny little things you have to change about yourself before you even start on hormones. Presenting as female in some degree is expected before you can start on the hormones, it's not as easy as people like to make out, its long, difficult and lonely road.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Dia.

It means presenting as a woman full time, leaving your past identity behind, and it's not as simple as putting on a dress and changing your name, there is dozens of tiny little things you have to change about yourself before you even start on hormones. Presenting as female in some degree is expected before you can start on the hormones, it's not as easy as people like to make out, its long, difficult and lonely road.

But that's what I meant. Before any of that, how do you live as a woman.

That denotes wearing "female clothes" or growing your hair out or wearing makeup, which is not the definition of "woman". This was precisely that woman's point I feel.

But, the point I was making was India couldn't answer. You might have just answered what you feel it means to you, but India couldn't give that answer in this debate and therefore most likely attaches "living as a woman" to "wearing dresses full time".

[Scarlett.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But that's what I meant. Before any of that, how do you live as a woman.

That denotes wearing "female clothes" or growing your hair out or wearing makeup, which is not the definition of "woman". This was precisely that woman's point I feel.

And that's the problem a lot of trans people face, you're expected to live as a woman to some degree before you can have anything at all medically done. The wait from getting a referral to a GIC to actually seeing a GIC is two years. People who put on womens clothes before having anything done arent actually doing it for fun (unless they're a cross dresser which is something completely different), they're doing it because it is required.

[JoshBB]

She aint a feminist then basically, if she thinks a vagina is the sole/most important factor to determine a woman.

The irony in what she says & claims to support, boi the terf jumped out

[Redway]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

She aint a feminist then basically, if she thinks a vagina is the sole/most important factor to determine a woman.

The irony in what she says & claims to support, boi the terf jumped out

It sort of is though.

There’s an element of truth in what she said.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Redway

It sort of is though.

There’s an element of truth in what she said.

Ignorance.

The scientific consensus is that while biological sex is determined by genes, hormones, and genitals, one's psychological gender is entirely on the basis of how that individual self-identifies.

But go off, i guess

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Ignorance.

The scientific consensus is that while biological sex is determined by genes, hormones, and genitals, one's psychological gender is entirely on the basis of how that individual self-identifies.

But go off, i guess

Well the discussion is about womanhood, not strictly femininity so...