It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
"What gives you the right to deny my lived experience? Why are you trying to delegitimize my existance?" These are two actual complaints I heard a trans woman make last week*. I think they can just as fairly be asked by biological women of trans women.
I couldn't care less if someone is trans on a personal level, it's the fact that we now have laws and such being made which, in the name of "non-discrimination," discriminate against biological women that burns my ass.
originally posted by: Boadicea
Women are not trying to take anything away from trans women... they are the ones taking from women, starting with our very identity.
I think it's far more than discrimination against women, it is literally erasing women.
There is nothing transphobic about calling a trans woman a "trans woman." But it's definitely transphobic to refuse to own your identity as a trans woman and insist others deny your identity as a trans women.
originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: riiver
Just an opinion from experience but, I think one of the problems with "accepting" a man calling himself a woman, even after surgery, is that they still have a mans brain, still think like a man (whether they like it or not) some look like a man large hands feet etc and they will never be part of the female "inner circle". They can't chat about the woes of periods or childbirth because they have no experience of it, and many other things. This makes it very difficult for women to relate to these faux women....unpleasant perhaps but true.
I honestly believe a 3rd gender designation would be a damn good idea. This would hopefully stop the desperate need to be accepted by others as "real women" but with luck encourage acceptance of their preferred gender. Maybe it would also prevent trans women lying to men and being attacked as a result, maybe it would also give them an acceptable box to tick.
I honestly believe a 3rd gender designation would be a damn good idea. This would hopefully stop the desperate need to be accepted by others as "real women" but with luck encourage acceptance of their preferred gender.
originally posted by: riiver
a reply to: Boadicea
There are two things I find really interesting about the whole debate. One, of course, is how vehemently lesbians — who should, according to the "rules," be pretty high in the social justice hierarchy since they not only gay but also women (and maybe minorities, depending on the woman) — are being shouted down and demonized by the oh-so-inclusive left from all sides. It boggles the mind.
The other is how very often it's straight men* who want to jump in and attack us biological women for espousing the views that you, I, ketsuko, PhyllidaDavenport, etc, have put forward. I mean, why do straight men care? Like...who was it? TinySickTears? AProudLefty? I can't remember now, I've argued with both of them so much lately...but as one of them said, "it doesn't affect you" (in this case, straight men) "so why do you care?"
I'm also puzzled as to why, when the party line is that there are "unlimited genders" and the whole "gender-fluid" idea is a big thing, the trans/non-binary/gender-fluid/whatever other labels crowd aren't open to the idea of simply adding a third, neutral gender as PhyllidaDavenport said.
In any case, thanks for the reply. I always enjoy reading your posts, and it's been interesting to follow along over the past months and sort of watch your thoughts and viewpoint unfold and expand. I know you've certainly made me think. If you start that thread, expect to see me there.
originally posted by: aliensanonymous
a reply to: AProudLefty
I work at a Nursing Home.
In our home resides a melting pot of backgrounds and cultures, for example. First nations people some tribal elders who have lived in the outback speaking and practicing ancient tribal culture. Others have been hard working taxpayers, artists, ex-vetrans, retired police and professors. Some are disadvataged ex-addicts or homless basically people from every walk of life. Suffering a myriad of illnesses from alzheimer's, dementia, and chronic illnesses.
We have a dedactaed ward for pshyco geriatrics some retirees from mental institutions or prisons. It is hard work and very challenging but rewarding.
Recently our organisation has started rolling out LGBT training and if I was a man of the church I would say this is a "god send". As we also have a melting pot of staff primarily Africans. They come from countries where their cultures do not act kindly to people who do not conform too the biblical texts.
So this training is thouroughly needed to maintain equality of care and proper practice towards those not conforming to their care givers social norms.
So basically the staff are more of a headache and challenging than the clients due to their insular view of the world resulting in a lack of care and respect towards their clients.
originally posted by: sapien82
probably why women are treated the way they are still to do this day thanks to Monotheism!
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WalterTilley
Maybe because they want respect for who they are and aren't getting it? I didn't realize that there was a minimum threshold of membership that a particular group needs to achieve to be treated like a human being.
A wife was expected to be a companion to her husband, but she was always his subordinate.