15

I’ve been thinking, even though TRAs want the removal of sex based rights, that’s not what they actually say or ask for, so why aren’t more people rebelling by following their wording?

What I mean;

TRAs say it’s wrong to discriminate based on “gender identity”. I think the reason they aren’t facing more backlash is because people assume “gender identity” is just another way of saying “sex”. If TRAs just flat out said “we believe biological males should be allowed to play on women’s sports teams and use their bathrooms if they declare themselves to be women” to the general public, there would have been an outcry and it would have been shut down long ago. I think they use “gender identity” as a term for this purpose. The only people paying attention are either woke and on side, or... us few.

But, even if we followed the “rules” as they’ve stated them, that there should be no discrimination based on “gender identity”, we could still keep the status quo.

A male is eligible to play on the men’s team —> male identifies as woman —> male is therefore dismissed from the men’s team, that would be discrimination based on gender identity. That would be a violation of rights based on gender identity.

A male is not eligible to play on the women’s team. —> male identifies as a man—> male is not eligible to play on the women’s team.

A male is not eligible to play on the women’s team —> male identifies as a woman —> male is still not eligible to play on the women’s team.

It didn’t matter how the male identified, he was not eligible to join the women’s team.

Because a woman is an adult human female. TRAs have tried to muddy the definition, and used circular logic, but they’ve never actually declared what a woman really is, so we’re perfectly free to use its actual definition.

If a male who identified as a woman was allowed on the women’s team, but the male who identified as a man was not, that would actually be discrimination based on “gender identity” wouldn’t it?

So discrimination based on sex =/= discrimination based on gender identity.

For all the crap Stonewall tried to tell people, even if they did manage to squeeze in “gender identity” into discrimination laws, we should still be able to refuse males entrance for female spaces or resources or organizations based on their sex and be in accordance with the demands.. no?

If more organizations and institutions did this, it would for TRAs to be more specific in their demands. Once their actual desires come out, it will be clear to people how unreasonable they are.

Just a thought.

I’ve been thinking, even though TRAs want the removal of sex based rights, that’s not what they actually say or ask for, so why aren’t more people rebelling by following their wording? What I mean; TRAs say it’s wrong to discriminate based on “gender identity”. I think the reason they aren’t facing more backlash is because people assume “gender identity” is just another way of saying “sex”. If TRAs just flat out said “we believe biological males should be allowed to play on women’s sports teams and use their bathrooms if they declare themselves to be women” to the general public, there would have been an outcry and it would have been shut down long ago. I think they use “gender identity” as a term for this purpose. The only people paying attention are either woke and on side, or... us few. But, even if we followed the “rules” as they’ve stated them, that there should be no discrimination based on “gender identity”, we could still keep the status quo. A male is eligible to play on the men’s team —> male identifies as woman —> male is therefore dismissed from the men’s team, *that* would be discrimination based on gender identity. *That* would be a violation of rights based on gender identity. A male is not eligible to play on the women’s team. —> male identifies as a man—> male is not eligible to play on the women’s team. A male is not eligible to play on the women’s team —> male identifies as a woman —> male is still not eligible to play on the women’s team. It didn’t matter how the male identified, he was not eligible to join the women’s team. Because a woman is an adult human *female*. TRAs have tried to muddy the definition, and used circular logic, but they’ve never actually declared what a woman really is, so we’re perfectly free to use its actual definition. If a male who identified as a woman was allowed on the women’s team, but the male who identified as a man was not, *that* would actually be discrimination based on “gender identity” wouldn’t it? So discrimination based on sex =/= discrimination based on gender identity. For all the crap Stonewall tried to tell people, even if they did manage to squeeze in “gender identity” into discrimination laws, we should still be able to refuse males entrance for female spaces or resources or organizations based on their sex and be in accordance with the demands.. no? If more organizations and institutions did this, it would for TRAs to be more specific in their demands. Once their actual desires come out, it will be clear to people how unreasonable they are. Just a thought.

9 comments

[–] BlackCirce 17 points (+17|-0)

If TRAs just flat out said “we believe biological males should be allowed to play on women’s sports teams and use their bathrooms if they declare themselves to be women” to the general public, there would have been an outcry and it would have been shut down long ago.

That was their entire political strategy. It was intentionally vague and carried out quietly without public input. Anyone aware of the threat was quickly dismissed as a right winger, a fascist, a genocidal bigot or an old fashioned prude.

[–] HarleyQuinn 9 points (+9|-0)

I have very much been wondering lately if they changed their slogan to “trans women are female” how many people would really support this madness?

[–] LOriginedumonde 7 points (+7|-0)

At this point they probably could without much backlash, they’ve done a very good job at confusing people while rendering words meaningless. I can’t tell you how many times I see oblivious people online referring to TIMs as “trans females” or using the words “woman” and “female” interchangeably when referring to TIMs.

This is exactly their plan.

People hear “transwomen” and think it’s a typical HSTS- femme, gay, and post op.

If they know most TIMs keep a functioning penis they’d never go for it.

[–] GCRadFem 6 points (+6|-0)

I don’t think the average person has a clue about what is really going on.

I wish we could show them all the receipts for AGP TW flashing their oh-so proud penis erections in all the women’s dressing rooms and bathrooms that they happily post.

I particularly liked the one from preddit, that we had added to it’s a fetish, in a women’s bathroom with the little old lady washing her hands right behind him.

[–] Hermione [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Yes, and I think they see HSTS as really a form of intersex, since they seem so feminine in many ways, they see it as a malformation of the body. Right?

[–] salty-tomorrow 6 points (+6|-0) Edited

The way I’ve understood their argument is that all women should be allowed on women’s teams, whether their gender identity is cis or trans, and so to deny a man a place on a woman’s team because she is a trans woman is discrimination.

The problem is no matter what you call the man or what mental gymnastics you use, men are male (and males are men) and everyone knows it.

[–] Hermione [OP] 0 points (+0|-0)

I thought “gender identity” wasn’t “cis” or “trans”, but “man/woman/non-binary/other/other-other” and you were either trans or “cis”.

(I appreciate some of the TRAs are now trying to claim they are “cis” to further obliterate all definition and meaning).

They’re obscure on what people see as women and men. That’s the whole “trans women are women” BS, I think most people see trans identifies males are really just a type of intersex person (another experience they hijack for their own means) who had to come to accept that their bodies are wrong. (Yes I see the lack of logic).

[–] Hermione [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

Even though it’s a purposeful strategy to be vague and not really define “gender identity”, as things are worded it doesn’t seem contradictory to refuse a male on a women’s sports team and say it’s not discrimination against gender identity