Rose Of Tralee now accepting trans applicants (Threadbanned List in OP)

I was very clear above. Trans women are women. Trans men are men.

I got the point of the thought experiment. I was pointing out it’s flaws. In the same way, I’d point out the flaws of the Tarzan desert island thought experiment, and the aliens you invented who have no concept of sex but they would somehow care to distinguish between humans based upon sex.

It’s no coincidence of course that the aliens you made up would share your point of view, any more than it’s no coincidence that Tarzan was portrayed as being superior above all others, by an author who infused his writings with his own hot take on eugenics and scientific racism. Ironically enough, the apes didn’t have a word for Tarzan in their language -

“Look!" he cried, "Apes of Kerchak. See what Tarzan, the mighty killer, has done. Who else among you has ever killed one of Numa's people? Tarzan is mightiest amongst you for Tarzan is no ape. Tarzan is--" But here he stopped, for in the language of the anthropoids there was no word for man, and Tarzan could only write the word in English; he could not pronounce it.

And thus young Lord Greystoke took the first step toward the goal which he had set--the finding of other white men like himself.

Chapters 11 & 12 -

What I said was indeed mean, and it’s a shìtty thing to say about anyone, and I had hoped you’d get the point that exactly the same sort of sentiments as you’re expressing towards people who are transgender, are exactly the same sort of sentiments that are directed towards gay men - they don’t have a problem with gay men “per se”, but they are “intrinsically disordered”, “homosexuality is a psychosexual problem”, etc. Quite frankly and not to put too fine a point on it - it’s bullshìt. It’s an opinion, it’s not a fact. I know there isn’t any malice in it because what you’re suggesting is the same bullshìt contempt that is suggested be shown to homosexuals - “compassion” and all that other stuff, like that’s supposed to make up for regarding anyone as less than your equal?

As for the idea of classification of man and woman being above all others, and the idea of aliens of no sex observing and classifying humans according to how you’re agreeing to classify them, if said aliens happened upon pornhub they would still be none the wiser because the classification system most people are familiar with is based entirely upon reproduction. That’s how humans are classified according to humans, who invented the classification system. It’s why anything which doesn’t conform to that classification system is an affront, rejected as “disordered”.

There’s nothing I can say about the idea of “gaydar” that doesn’t begin and end with simply dismissing it as complete nonsense. Your point was that you could tell who was gay by the way they dressed, and even if I were to include mannerisms and all the rest of it - you’d still only be guessing, based upon stereotypes. It’s no different than anyone who says “ah sure wouldn’t you know by the head of him!” It’s not based upon sexuality, it’s based upon stereotypes.

Gender fluidity is as old as human civilisation. Just because you weren’t aware of it before, or it’s only come to your attention recently, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in one form or another throughout the history of human civilisation, across time and cultures and societies.

What other deciding factor is there if not rights? Rights confer legal recognition and freedom from discrimination and prejudice. It’s precisely how no matter what anyone thinks of someone else, or some other group in society, or social class, they cannot treat a person less favourably than anyone else on the basis of any of the nine grounds which are recognised in law.

Your argument that how someone views anyone can’t be controlled by rights is countered by the fact that it is because of how people are perceived is the reason they are denied rights in the first place. Were they to be granted rights which mean they have equal status in law, then the decision wouldn’t be yours any more as they would have autonomy to make decisions for themselves and wouldn’t need your approval or validation or anything else, they could simply be themselves.

In a similar way, in your thought experiment about drag queens on a desert island, they would still be drag queens the same way you’d still be you if it was you on a desert island, and there would be nobody around to tell them they’re wrong, and they shouldn’t be doing it, and it’s unacceptable and all the rest of it, by way of trying to invalidate them as you do not approve of their behaviour. Does that sound familiar to you? At all? I mean at all, at all?

Not at all, just find it strange that any married woman would be interested in entering the Rose of Tralee, simple as that, nothing to do with not wanting them to do something for themselves.

Chances are for the bit of craic, same reason all the other women from around the world want to experience it for themselves, and sure the hubby or the wife could always apply to be an escort… nooo, not that kind of escort! 😂

If you accept there are physical differences, then how can you equate the two? Furthermore, if a transwoman has all the physical characteristics of a man, how can you say they are an actual women?

I say actual as legally a man (or male if you prefer) can legally identify as a women, something I'm not fully opposed to provided caveats for sports and prisons are applied. For some posters all one must do is simply identify as a women and then they are one. It's hard for me to expand further as I've been warned with a threadban if I state the actual facts of the matter ie outside of a legal context.

But really I think if someone is trans, it's fairly obvious they are and I accept them when they say so.

You don't really have people faking it (one of the most common examples is the whole women's toilet bs.. like why would a man pretend to be a woman in order to abuse women.. all they would have to do is just you know.. go and straight up abuse women like they always have...).

I think the whole 'debate' on this is nonsense and really just another way to keep people in their place. It's really a pointless exercise and there could be a far more productive use of time.

For example, considering the 'gender critical' (a lovely euphemism) often talk about how they just want to protect women.. wouldn't it be better if they spent the same time and energy campaigning for women's rights (rather than campaigning to remove rights from some already marginalised group)?

But you are too easily dismissing genuine concerns some people have, like I would with regards to prisons and sports. It is not ignorance nor transphobia.

And most of the vocal 'gender critical' people are themselves feminists, and have been vocal supporters of women's rights (hence the derogatory term TERF). Jk Rowling probably being the most well known example.

Why is it your business what other people do?

Not at all.

It's just not the thread for it.

RE The GC. I think a lot of 'GC' people certainly use the language of feminism.. however you can support some feminist issues and still be a bigot I guess. It just depends if you believe the gaining of rights to one group means taking them away from others.

But there you go again accusing people with genuine concerns as being bigots. It's a lazy and disingenuous debating technique.

And yes potentially it does, that's why this whole trans stuff is an issue in the first place.

But yes I'll back away from going down this road as it's not the thread for it as you say.

What's your definition of a cheese spacesuit?