Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Who would you guys say is the worlds’ highest profile transsexual?
'
Eddie izzard
babyfinland posted:
look at this noob "depoliticize" his politics lol. no wrong. youre just wrong here. youre wrong.
i'm not depoliticizing anything i'm saying trans identity wasn't cooked up by a bunch of pervert shrinks and bushwa doctors greedy for trans bux.
yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans. if gender is a matter of self identification then self identification matters. if it doesnt matter then youre doing the medicalization thing
they didn't identify as trans, they identify as the opposite gender from that suggested by their genitals. which today we call transgender. whether or not to call them trans is a semantic question because there's no, heh, 'essential' difference here. though something like two-spirit or harijan identity is arguably something entirely different.
Crow posted:
ah cool can you please delineate a point where this identity began? perhaps its some eternal identity?
we don't know. gender's a real puzzler.
discipline posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Who would you guys say is the worlds’ highest profile transsexual?
Aww that's so cute, how can you hold anything against him.
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
look at this noob "depoliticize" his politics lol. no wrong. youre just wrong here. youre wrong.i'm not depoliticizing anything i'm saying trans identity wasn't cooked up by a bunch of pervert shrinks and bushwa doctors greedy for trans bux.
if youre going to lose an argument lose it with dignity lessons. ive given you so many opportunities to lose with dignity and you've failed to take them up each time. here's your chance. moms spaghetti.
you are depoliticizing. you explicitly said "well yes, the expression of gender dysmorphic and gender nonconforming identities is subject to historical and cultural context. i don't think anyone would dispute that". and then in the next sentence you said "transgender politics as it exist today is a modern phenomenon, but the identity itself is not." so transgenderism, a modern expression of gender fluidity, is not reducible to historical factors because gender fluidity IS transgenderism. Depoliticization complete, would you like to know more?
Lessons posted:yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans. if gender is a matter of self identification then self identification matters. if it doesnt matter then youre doing the medicalization thingthey didn't identify as trans, they identify as the opposite gender from that suggested by their genitals. which today we call transgender. whether or not to call them trans is a semantic question because there's no, heh, 'essential' difference here. though something like two-spirit or harijan identity is arguably something entirely different.
THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT YOU IDIOT. MODERNITY IS NOT IMPOSABLE ON PREMODERNITY, HISTORICALLY CONTINGENT PRODUCTS DO NOT PROJECT ACROSS HISTORY. YOU LITERALLY CAUSED A HOLOCAUST JSUT NOW
babyfinland posted:
yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans.
this whole argument you guys are having seems a little silly because you're looking at transgender as an identity in itself, and lessons is looking at it as a way to describe someone who is living as a gender that isn't the one they were born as. im not gonna type anymore because ive had this tab open for a while and theres probably a whole new page now
Edit: Ya there is
babyfinland posted:Lessons posted:
also it's not really true that MtF identity is 'founded on' SRS, i know a couple people irl who have zero interest in it. transgender is not a monolithic category by any stretch.that's totally irrelevant to the conception of transgender identity and its foundations in modern technologies and gender modality. Always Historicize, U Idiot
oh i see, it doesn't matter that some trans people don't get SRS, because you've already declared trans is defined by SRS. well, carry on i guess
Lessons posted:Crow posted:
ah cool can you please delineate a point where this identity began? perhaps its some eternal identity?we don't know. gender's a real puzzler.
by "we" he means imperialist intelligensia, gatekeeper of the one true secular historical time
Skylark posted:babyfinland posted:
yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans.this whole argument you guys are having seems a little silly because you're looking at transgender as an identity in itself, and lessons is looking at it as a way to describe someone who is living as a gender that isn't the one they were born as. im not gonna type anymore because ive had this tab open for a while and theres probably a whole new page now
Edit: Ya there is
its not silly, because its not valid to do what lessons is doing. just as ahmadinejad is in a way right to claim there are no gays in iran (though obviously there are because iran is eminently modern in constitution, projecting modern western gender modalities across history is so so wrong and invalid. you cant just play mix and match across cultures, and to do so is not just a matter of being objectively wrong in some academic sense, it is the intellectual excercise that provides a launching pad for the brutal imperialist violence that is destroying premodern cultures across the globe, something which Gender Revolutionaries cheer on as the subversion of patriarchal norms etc. a disgusting orwellian perversion of ideology)
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
Who would you guys say is the worlds’ highest profile transsexual?
Chaz Bono
babyfinland posted:
if youre going to lose an argument lose it with dignity lessons. ive given you so many opportunities to lose with dignity and you've failed to take them up each time. here's your chance. moms spaghetti.
you are depoliticizing. you explicitly said "well yes, the expression of gender dysmorphic and gender nonconforming identities is subject to historical and cultural context. i don't think anyone would dispute that". and then in the next sentence you said "transgender politics as it exist today is a modern phenomenon, but the identity itself is not." so transgenderism, a modern expression of gender fluidity, is not reducible to historical factors because gender fluidity IS transgenderism. Depoliticization complete, would you like to know more?
i can't even tell what you're whining about here
Lessons posted:
THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT YOU IDIOT. MODERNITY IS NOT IMPOSABLE ON PREMODERNITY, HISTORICALLY CONTINGENT PRODUCTS DO NOT PROJECT ACROSS HISTORY. YOU LITERALLY CAUSED A HOLOCAUST JSUT NOW
would you say julius caesar was a man or is that just bourgeois imperialist nonsense being imposed on premodernity that has to be smashed with a figurative sledgehammer of postcolonial theory
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:Lessons posted:
also it's not really true that MtF identity is 'founded on' SRS, i know a couple people irl who have zero interest in it. transgender is not a monolithic category by any stretch.that's totally irrelevant to the conception of transgender identity and its foundations in modern technologies and gender modality. Always Historicize, U Idiot
oh i see, it doesn't matter that some trans people don't get SRS, because you've already declared trans is defined by SRS. well, carry on i guess
thats not what i said lessons. you are behaving in a manner unbecoming of noble goonkind. i explicitly said that transgender identity is founded on SRS but not defiend by having had SRS. we describe transpeople in terms of pre-op or post-op or whatever. transpeople should criticize this categorization, not deify it into some transhistorical semi-religious force of liberation
Skylark posted:babyfinland posted:
yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans.this whole argument you guys are having seems a little silly because you're looking at transgender as an identity in itself, and lessons is looking at it as a way to describe someone who is living as a gender that isn't the one they were born as. im not gonna type anymore because ive had this tab open for a while and theres probably a whole new page now
Edit: Ya there is
this is every argument we have lol
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
if youre going to lose an argument lose it with dignity lessons. ive given you so many opportunities to lose with dignity and you've failed to take them up each time. here's your chance. moms spaghetti.
you are depoliticizing. you explicitly said "well yes, the expression of gender dysmorphic and gender nonconforming identities is subject to historical and cultural context. i don't think anyone would dispute that". and then in the next sentence you said "transgender politics as it exist today is a modern phenomenon, but the identity itself is not." so transgenderism, a modern expression of gender fluidity, is not reducible to historical factors because gender fluidity IS transgenderism. Depoliticization complete, would you like to know more?i can't even tell what you're whining about here
You're just not very smart are you.
Lessons posted:Lessons posted:
THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT YOU IDIOT. MODERNITY IS NOT IMPOSABLE ON PREMODERNITY, HISTORICALLY CONTINGENT PRODUCTS DO NOT PROJECT ACROSS HISTORY. YOU LITERALLY CAUSED A HOLOCAUST JSUT NOWwould you say julius caesar was a man or is that just bourgeois imperialist nonsense being imposed on premodernity that has to be smashed with a figurative sledgehammer of postcolonial theory
did julius caesar not identify as a man or something
babyfinland posted:
just as ahmadinejad is in a way right to claim there are no gays in iran
Lessons posted:Skylark posted:babyfinland posted:
yes i can ebcause those people didn't identify as trans, so they weren't trans.this whole argument you guys are having seems a little silly because you're looking at transgender as an identity in itself, and lessons is looking at it as a way to describe someone who is living as a gender that isn't the one they were born as. im not gonna type anymore because ive had this tab open for a while and theres probably a whole new page now
Edit: Ya there isthis is every argument we have lol
true, every argument we have is you performing celebrations of ahistorical imperialist nonsense and me criticizing you with Knowledge and you going Buhh??/
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
just as ahmadinejad is in a way right to claim there are no gays in iran
if you dont let me pull little zizekian stunts like that i get really bored lecturing you
babyfinland posted:
its not silly, because its not valid to do what lessons is doing. just as ahmadinejad is in a way right to claim there are no gays in iran (though obviously there are because iran is eminently modern in constitution, projecting modern western gender modalities across history is so so wrong and invalid. you cant just play mix and match across cultures, and to do so is not just a matter of being objectively wrong in some academic sense, it is the intellectual excercise that provides a launching pad for the brutal imperialist violence that is destroying premodern cultures across the globe, something which Gender Revolutionaries cheer on as the subversion of patriarchal norms etc. a disgusting orwellian perversion of ideology)
yeah i agree with everything in this post. i think the only reason this argument came up in the first place was that someone brought up the fact that people living under a different gender identity than the sex they were born as can be traced back as far as possible, and they used the word "transgender". maybe "complex gender identities" would be a better way to put it to avoid modern usage or context because yeah certainly every culture sees things in a different way
babyfinland posted:
thats not what i said lessons. you are behaving in a manner unbecoming of noble goonkind. i explicitly said that transgender identity is founded on SRS but not defiend by having had SRS. we describe transpeople in terms of pre-op or post-op or whatever. transpeople should criticize this categorization, not deify it into some transhistorical semi-religious force of liberation
my point here is that you're conflating a very specific model of trans identity to Transgender Identity Itself, of course transgender people should resist that, duh, they already do. are you getting this from somewhere or did you think it up all by yourself
Skylark posted:babyfinland posted:
its not silly, because its not valid to do what lessons is doing. just as ahmadinejad is in a way right to claim there are no gays in iran (though obviously there are because iran is eminently modern in constitution, projecting modern western gender modalities across history is so so wrong and invalid. you cant just play mix and match across cultures, and to do so is not just a matter of being objectively wrong in some academic sense, it is the intellectual excercise that provides a launching pad for the brutal imperialist violence that is destroying premodern cultures across the globe, something which Gender Revolutionaries cheer on as the subversion of patriarchal norms etc. a disgusting orwellian perversion of ideology)yeah i agree with everything in this post. i think the only reason this argument came up in the first place was that someone brought up the fact that people living under a different gender identity than the sex they were born as can be traced back as far as possible, and they used the word "transgender". maybe "complex gender identities" would be a better way to put it to avoid modern usage or context because yeah certainly every culture sees things in a different way
right. and i wouldnt make such a big deal about it except that its literally the vanguard of cultural imperialism in occupied palestine ("pinkwashing") so its like actually a relevant political thing
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
thats not what i said lessons. you are behaving in a manner unbecoming of noble goonkind. i explicitly said that transgender identity is founded on SRS but not defiend by having had SRS. we describe transpeople in terms of pre-op or post-op or whatever. transpeople should criticize this categorization, not deify it into some transhistorical semi-religious force of liberationmy point here is that you're conflating a very specific model of trans identity to Transgender Identity Itself, of course transgender people should resist that, duh, they already do. are you getting this from somewhere or did you think it up all by yourself
ok fine. would it be better to say predominant transgender identity or whatever.
Edited by babyfinland ()
jools posted:
im not sure ur claim that western transgender identity is founded on SRS stands up.... its more like its founded on the medical transitioning process as a whole, and transgender activists do indeed criticise it
well ok. not sure that has much bearing on my point though
babyfinland posted:
You're just not very smart are you.
if you think you are your probably a degenerate.
Lessons posted:
did julius caesar not identify as a man or something
why would that matter. why would we have to historicize for gender nonconforming people but not for gender conforming.
Lessons posted:babyfinland posted:
You're just not very smart are you.if you think you are your probably a degenerate.
no really, i think more than anything youre just dumb and you argue above your station. know your role.
Lessons posted:Lessons posted:
did julius caesar not identify as a man or somethingwhy would that matter. why would we have to historicize for gender nonconforming people but not for gender conforming.
we do have to historicize all gender modalities. e.g. when caesar called brutus his lover we shouldn't read that as a coming out of a gay man. i just dont see what your point is
Lessons posted:Crow posted:
ah cool can you please delineate a point where this identity began? perhaps its some eternal identity?we don't know. gender's a real puzzler.
OH kool not. Its not cool. Its fucked up and not cool. Theres no 'eternal identity'. gender is obviously beyond sex, but any appeal to some sort of eternal gender identity is like appealing to some damn eternal political identity, or any eternal categories which are truly expressions of repetition (eternal return, Deleuze, infinite mathematical series, i'm sure you can draw millions of names for this). how can you grapple with this? what is the eternality here? it can only be truth (which is still temporal), and the truth of 'transexuality' has less to do with salient physical characteristics (hormone treatment, SRS, gender performativity) and more to do with the freedom of the Subject.
and before you try to worm out of this one: yes you are appealing to some eternal identity, you shroud the theoretical traumatic birth of the transexual identity ('since before recorded history') obfuscating the truth that it reveals: a particular subjective stance towards universal emancipation. as skylark says, what you can actually reveal is that gender belies complex identities. these complex identities arent eternal historical objects.
Skylark posted:
Lessons posted:
but yes caesar was trans.
is this a joke or has the effervescent troon community delved into some historical revisionism of late
babyfinland posted:
no really, i think more than anything youre just dumb and you argue above your station. know your role.
get over yourself degenerate. U know nothing.
Lessons posted:
we do have to historicize all gender modalities. e.g. when caesar called brutus his lover we shouldn't read that as a coming out of a gay man. i just dont see what your point is
the point is you don't seem to have a problem accepting gender itself as a transhistorical category, but when people don't conform to its prevailing standards all of a sudden they're just dislocated historical occurrences with no common thread, except where you arbitrary impose one like The Modern Trans Woman or The Bourgeois Gay Man
Lessons posted:Lessons posted:
we do have to historicize all gender modalities. e.g. when caesar called brutus his lover we shouldn't read that as a coming out of a gay man. i just dont see what your point isthe point is you don't seem to have a problem accepting gender itself as a transhistorical category, but when people don't conform to its prevailing standards all of a sudden they're just dislocated historical occurrences with no common thread, except where you arbitrary impose one like The Modern Trans Woman or The Bourgeois Gay Man
this is simply nonsense. youre just accusing me of bigotry or incoherence because im muslim again. i've made no such argument like what you've descriebd at all. your brain is weak, too frail to handle history. go back to engineering school
Goethestein posted:
Juliet Cisaer
lol
discipline posted:
Gender! Whata pickle
Can't live with it, can live without it.
a nation of women
together
forever