BeHereNow

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

233 posts in this topic

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


OCEAN MAN TAKE ME BY THE LAND LEAD ME TO THE LAND THAT YOU UNDERSTAND

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcaPiiFZu2o&ab_channel=Ween-Topic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 :P

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 by Etherial Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

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. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JoeVolcano said:

I'm not so sure. What if some white kid says they reincarnated and still feel deeply that they belong to the same african tribe as a previous life, and they can actually tell you about this tribe and point them out on the map and everything.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 - 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Consept said:

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

 

There are literally no internal expression of being black, white or asian. Nobody feels 'blackness' within them, beside potentially some socially constructed cultural conditioning and/or having been through the black experience.

If not for the social constructs we have around race, nobody would even think of making an identity or a social role out of it. Our ancestors in Africa (both I and Concept are mixed race with black ancestry) probably didn't even think of themselves as black, for as long as they would only see black people around them.

Rachel is categorized as white, and she's cosplaying and impersonating a black person. She's been lying about her heritage until she got caught, just like Hilaria Baldwin has been pretending she's a Spaniard until it was revealed she's from Boston.

Edited by Etherial Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Etherial Cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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


The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JoeVolcano @BenG @Razard86@Carl-Richard @Etherial Cat  I think most people here are just trying to be right at this point. I really seriously hate how much some people here prioritize being right even if they see their half assed pursuit is causing somebody to get trauma trigger. You are disgusting. Thank you to those who are actually being considerate and nuanced. 

I guess for some people bio essentalism works, because they just identify with it and their bio body is important to them. I am willing to accept people who accept bio essentalism as their personal philosophy of how they identify that they are not trying to impose on others, because thats totally fine. Identifying with body is fine, just be considerate and not be transphobic. Even the mods here highkey suck at being immature and not being able to admit their fault at saying hurtful shit.

As Etherial Cat said, you cannot hold bio essentalism as sacred and also see trans as valid. So stop, its transphobic, not welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard

Honestly dude, I respect you despite how obnoxiously arrogant you came across to me earlier in this conversation. :D Don't deny it. You don't need to respond to me after this if you don't want. I'm just going to tap out of the conversation after this post. You can have the victory!

The problem with literally any definition other than self-ID is that it imposes your standards onto other people and doesn't allow them to self-define. This is in the most literal sense, to quote you, "shoving ideas down people’s throats". Not you or anybody else has any right to force an identity onto another human being. 

Another thing is that any definition you could ever come up with is just self-ID with extra steps. Make a definition as seemingly real and valid as you want. Make it so seemingly real that you feel entitled to push it onto other people. It doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day a definition is whatever you make it and doesn't ultimately tell you anything truthful about reality. Definitions are constructed for convenience, not truth.

"What a woman is"... There's no such thing as what a woman is other than however you choose to define what a woman is. Definitions are fine but not at the expense of human rights. Stripping people of their identity is pretty bad. Fascist is not too strong of a word imo.

On a final note, I understand that I might be too deep into relativism, and this makes my position somewhat impractical. I have no problem with nuance but it's not clear to me that nuance is where you and Roy are coming from. It seems more like you're both disguising subtle transphobia as nuance. Of course, I'm open to being wrong, but beating your chest in front of me doesn't make you seem very convincing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How is your definition not doing that?

I'm not as much fixated on biology to define gender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bejapuskas

I agree there is a lot of transphobic talking point in here. 

But at the same time, I don't think one can ask someone to fix their thought process when they don't understand how else things could be seen. No one here is ill-intended.

How can people confront themselves to new perspectives if we do not give them room to talk? I understand there is conflict of interest between maintaining a safe space for minorities, but there should also be space to grow. It is also in the best interest of minorities.

Shunning people and chasing them with pitchforks when they are being ignorant only leads to more polarization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now