GC: Why don't you get your gender identity legally changed?

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

If all GC feminists identified as transgender that would cause a major upset within transgenderism. If you truly don't believe in gender identity (as in, you're not attached to your own), & if you believe transgender identification gives you extra privileges, then what is stopping you from identifying as transgender?

Sure, what transgenderism refers to as "gender identity" may be undetectable, indefinable & inconsequential on the surface, but clearly there is something substantive to it, otherwise non-believers would en-masse identify as trans, not just Lauren Southern, since there is literally nothing to lose & quite a lot to gain.

And pls none of this "but I don't believe in transgender identity" or "but I'd be living a lie" cop-out. Transgender identity is a lie. The strategy I outlined would expose that lie, via mass lobby.

all 55 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]one1won 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No.

Gender Identity Ideology is now the Government instituted religion, IMO. Established government religion is unconstitutional in the US; I am not an adherent. I will not capitulate.

Signed, this GII Heretic

ETA:

If you truly don't believe in gender identity (as in, you're not attached to your own),

yeah, you’re a man. “stoopid females don’t know how they really are or what they’re talking about”. Pfphthhhh

if you believe transgender identification gives you extra privileges

Er, TI gives MEN extra privileges, it pisses all over me as a female, regardless of anything I could say.

there is literally nothing to lose & quite a lot to gain.

For MEN, for MEN, for MEN.

Have you mansplained this (how & what I could “gain”) somewhere for me to read? I’ve expressed my thoughts here:

https://www.saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8nq2/both_where_do_you_see_the_gender_wars_in_10_years/ (capturing my comment via permalink isn’t working for me tonight. ???)

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I am not an adherent

I predicted this response & addressed it pre-emptively. Apparently not effectively enough. Here is my second attempt. Heard of COINTELPRO? It was an operation instituted by the FBI to infiltrate & disrupt leftist groups. It's a winning strategy. Feminism has been breached by sexist male-privilege/entitlement via the transgender identity Trojan horse. So if anti-feminists can identify as feminists & implode feminism, why should the ostracised feminists be so opposed to overwhelming & re-defining transgender identity ideology?

Identity politics means if you have the "correct" identity, your speech becomes more valid on that topic. Most TRAs aren't trans-identified. If you were trans-identified you could go around saying "as a transgender person..." & use it to just call TRAs transphobes (which is what they fear most, calling everyone transphobic is their defence mechanism to avoid being called it themselves) & tell them to shut-up & let trans people speak i.e. you. Why accuse me of mansplaining when you literally needed it spelled out?

Sure "trans-men" & "NBs" don't have as much to gain, but I guess you could identify as a "trans-woman" lol that'd probably be a lot more effective, as among the transgender population there is a lot of "passing privilege" that you'd benefit from.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It won't work because everyone knows who is a man and who is a woman, even if TRAs won't say it out loud. And TRAs are unlikely to buy this farse if we don't look the part and we speak out against any TRA talking point.

[–]one1won 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nah, dude, your premise is faulty.

The strategy I outlined would expose that lie, via mass lobby.

Ffs, everyone (compos mentis) KNOWS it’s a lie. Women have spent decades publicly refuting the lie and warning of its consequences. Men are adding their voices. The problem is not “exposing the lie”, but counteracting the social meddling that’s been occurring for over a century. the indoctrination of children, the distracted, and the weak-minded for sexual access and control of the masses. Power, sex, control. So, () your condescension.

I predicted this response & addressed it pre-emptively.

No, you really didn’t. I stated GII is a defacto government instituted religion and I oppose it. Don’t hand wave that off. It’s not a “cop-out”. It’s a HUGE deal to informed American citizens. It’s against the First Amendment to the Constitution of my country. I get you aren’t American, but you just step back, dude.

Identity politics means if you have the "correct" identity, your speech becomes more valid on that topic…

Again, a faulty assumption. I submit relatively few are truly listening to the “identity” crew, evidenced by those who do, “peak”. Others who listen to TRAs support them out of their own interests (financial, political, social), but seriously, do you really think they think the “identifiers” words are valid?

The additional horror is the “identified” are being used, as marketing, as compliance drones, and worse. IMO, it’d be foolish and self harming for women to follow your suggestion.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought most people (moderates) went along with the trans thing, bc they think they are all transsexuals who have been surgically/magically transitioned into the opposite sex? I.e. not everyone knows it's a lie, some really are duped.

Again, most TRAs don't identify as transgender. By identifying as transgender you become harder to oppose or censor, as you could literally get them arrested for hate-speech (in places like the UK).

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Is this a joke? Why on Earth would I want to contribute to spreading chaos even further than TRAs are already doing? As for the supposed, privileges... Please, we all can see how females who identify as trans are talked over by the males all the time. At the end of the day even the most ardent believer of transgenderism knows who is a man and who is a woman.

And for the last time, I do NOT have a "gender identity". You act as obnoxious as QT every single time you insist I have one.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

And for the last time, I do NOT have a "gender identity". You act as obnoxious as QT every single time you insist I have one.

In this post I am using the transgenderist definition of "gender identity", which I don't believe anyone has, however, I do find it odd how attached some people are to their "gender identity". Whenever I incorrectly assume a woman's gender online (I mistake them for a guy) they are quick to correct me, even when it's irrelevant to the the short, transient exchange. This is baffling to me. You open yourself up to sexist abuse online if you're a woman, but whenever there is an opening to experience just the tinniest bit of male privilege for once, they shut it down. People seem to be very protective of this part of their identity, even when it makes no sense to, even to their own detriment.

Lauren Southern is the only trans-skeptic I know of who mocked transgender identity by legally identifying as trans. I just wonder why she was the only one. It seems to suggest there is something to the idea of gender identification. Do you think that LS spread "chaos"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I do find it odd how attached some people are to their "gender identity". Whenever I incorrectly assume a woman's gender online (I mistake them for a guy) they are quick to correct me, even when it's irrelevant to the the short, transient exchange. This is baffling to me. You open yourself up to sexist abuse online if you're a woman, but whenever there is an opening to experience just the tinniest bit of male privilege for once, they shut it down. People seem to be very protective of this part of their identity, even when it makes no sense to, even to their own detriment.

You are confusing sex and gender identity here. In the situations you describe, you are not mistakenly assuming the women's gender or gender identities, you are mistakenly assuming their sex.

Sex is an immutable and essential characteristic that is physical, objectively observable, evident to all - and which has an enormous impact on a person's "lived experience," especially for those human beings whose sex is female. Sex is material reality. It's not a feeling, a self-perception or a vague, indefinable, immaterial inner sense and matter of choice like "gender" or "gender identity" are.

When you assume that strangers on the internet are male, you are showing that you believe being male is the human default setting, the norm and the ideal. Which is sexist, misogynistic and male supremacist. It's a sign that you are arrogantly taking for granted that what is true of your own individual self must be true of everyone else. This tends to rub women the wrong way because most of us find it inherently insulting. Just like most people find it obnoxious and insulting when others we deal with online make assumptions about our sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, nationality, country of origin, native language, physical health status and so on.

When you automatically assume women who are unknown to you must be your same sex, you are not offering us the opportunity

to experience just the tinniest [sic] bit of male privilege for once

You are demonstrating your own male privilege - in spades and in a booming, resonant way that comes through loud and clear.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Online users often assume that I am female all the time based on what I'm saying. The only reason people on here don't is bc my username ends in "Man". Often women online will use their real name & picture for some reason & when they fill out the form to make their account, they put their real birth date too. Men generally try to remain anonymous. So when I see an anonymous/androgynous username & pfp in a Youtube comment section & the content of their comments seems like a guy posted it, at that point I'll assume it's a guy. I'd say I'm right 99% of the time, but there is no way of confirming it. Nothing to do with male as the default in this case, more to do with experience with trends.

There is no reason to be "female" online. If you create a masculine username & pfp then you haven't changed your sex, but you have changed people's perception of it (which is what transgender identity comes down to: being treated like the opposite sex, hence why I referred to this as "gender identity"). This would only benefit many women online, yet they'd still prefer to be recognised as female, regardless of the cost. Why is that? It seems to suggest to me that there is something substantive to "gender identification", that keeps people attached to theirs even when given the opportunity to be unsexed/cross-sexed arises.

Your go-to is personal attacks, which makes me think you aren't confident in your argumentation.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I'd say I'm right 99% of the time

You don't have to tell us this. It's clear from your posting history. LOL. Sorry I couldn't resist.

Your go-to is personal attacks, which makes me think you aren't confident in your argumentation.

You got me, mate. I never ever discuss policy, theory, law, history, biology, culture, language... I just launch personal attacks.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, I was mixing you up with BiR. Her go-to is to make it personal. You don't do it as often, but here you were casting aspersions.

I think my point in my previous reply still stands. Transgender identity is simply expecting everyone to treat them as if they were the opposite sex. Identifying as male in online forums, when you're female, is the equivalent of that. The fact that most women are protective of their female gender identification online, despite the negative & lack of positive consequences, seems to indicate that there may be something to transgender identification that makes it more substantial than the mere "nothing" that its lack of perceptibility & explicitly would suggest.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why should I care whether Lauren Southern, whoever she is, has legally "changed" her sex? I already told you why your idea makes no sense. Opting out of womanhood isn't working that well for females who identify as "men", Why would pretending we identify as "men" work better for us?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Because doing something stupid that appears to validate the stupid thing isn’t a solution.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

So if anti-feminists en masse started identifying as feminists, then defanged feminism from inside, ostracised all the feminists from the movement for "kink-shaming", & used the movement to promote patriarchal norms under the guise of feminism, they'd just be "validating" feminism?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

No, feminism isn’t something people can identify into. Gender is.

A bunch of fools “identifying” as feminists and selling porn didn’t make them feminists.

Don’t be ridiculous. The cointelpro shit is just..you can’t really think what you’ve suggested is anything like that? We aren’t playing spies here.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

A bunch of fools “identifying” as feminists and selling porn didn’t make them feminists.

But that's the point that I was making. Nowadays words speak louder than actions. If TRAs can't respect the meanings of words like 'feminism', why should we respect words like 'transgender'?

We aren’t playing spies here.

Translation: we aren't on the winning team here.

Lobbyists infiltrate both major political parties, that way no matter what the election outcome, the corporate party wins. This strategy has been proven time & time again as a winning strategy. So spare me the weak excuses. What's the real reason you're against GC people infiltrating the trans movement?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Fuck me you get combative and start assuming some really silly things snow.

I’m not making excuses, this discussion and your idea aren’t important or clever and there’s no excuses required.

I answered you. You not liking the answer given doesn’t mean there’s a grand conspiracy at play, or that you are some tactical genius throwing a perfect solution at these dumb feminists who won’t acknowledge your magic solutions.

It’s not that deep. Nobody is secretly not answering you truthfully because your post is such intimidating brilliance. It’s silly.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Contentless reply. It just boils down to "you think your idea is smart, but it's not". Of course I'm going to dismiss an unsubstantiated claim like that. You're not even trying to defend your position, which you're going to pretend to have pride in.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I love that you seem to really truly think that any silly thing you say deserves a deeply thought out essay reply from us.

You took yourself way too seriously and are taking responses that are mostly taking the piss out of you and your ideas as seriously as you take yourself.

Step back for a sec and realise that there’s a lot of playful prodding going on here because it’s hard to take you seriously when you try to lecture us and tell us we should go do espionage.

I know you’ll dismiss this the way you dismiss every comment that doesn’t treat you like an authoritative and serious font of ideas but you should know anyway.

You will only ever be pointed at and laughed at when you come in all puffed up like you’re our sergeant and we aren’t saluting quick enough.

Basically bud, you aren’t owed quality content in exchange for anything you shit out and tell us we should do. Every single time you, as a male, waltz in and start saying you have the answer to feminism and we better listen up for our own good, you will be pointed at and laughed at. If you need to ask why that is, we will laugh harder.

If you start demanding we take you seriously and answer you, more pointing and laughing at the little angry man.

If you declare we are all incapable of understanding how brilliant your ideas are some might just piss themselves with laughter.

But nobody is gonna take you more seriously or do as you want it demand them to.

~spreading chaos~ lmao righto Tyler durden

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yours are the only replies without substance, or are "us" & "we" your new preferred third person pronouns now? If you're not here to debate, then you're probably on the wrong sub. You can't blame someone for expecting a debate on a debate sub.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

If you think nobody else here is laughing at you I’ll leave that illusion alive for ya. I’m here to debate, just not silly ideas suggested by men who give marching orders to women then say the women are dishonest and unintelligent for not marching.

Go on, now you demand I treat your post with respect and answer you properly or go away again. Make sure to keep Ignoring everything that sums up why I’m not gonna invest time or effort into giving quality answers to foolish ideas, naturally.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I posted a debate question. You're the only one here not engaging in the debate, favouring ad hominem attacks instead. You're trying to justify your misuse of the debate sub by claiming that I'm giving "marching orders". FYI, "marching orders" don't end in a question mark. No one is forcing you to debate, but if you don't want to debate the question, what are you here for?

[–]BiologyIsReal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But that's the point that I was making. Nowadays words speak louder than actions. If TRAs can't respect the meanings of words like 'feminism', why should we respect words like 'transgender'?

Sorry, but I'm old-school and I think actions speak louder than words. Imo, the best defense against such liars is exposing the truth. I call nonsense when local politicians pretend to care about poverty in spite of them keep pushing for the same old economic receipts that only work for making them and their friends richer. I call nonsense when local politicians push for economic austerity under the excuse of attracting foreing investement when they have all their money abroad. I call nonsense when local politicians pretend to be democratic despite having ties to the dictatorships. I laugh at western Media and politicians pretending to be outraged by war just now despite all the wars they have supported or waged. I find completely absurd the US wants to held Russia accountable for war crimes despite not only all their own war crimes, but the fact the US have worked hard for not being held accountable in the International Criminal Court.

If anything, it would be incoherent on my part not to call out the "feminists" who push for the legal erasure of sex or the legalization of prostitution.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree with all of that. Of course actions speak louder than words. Problem is most people don't realise that a substantial number of people go by the reverse. A way to expose that is to beat them at their own game.

A lot of people are against the church being tax-exempt, bc it makes it easier for cults to spring up about the place. If enough businesses just claimed to be churches, the short-term benefits would be: not having to pay taxes for a while, while in the longterm you'd be drawing attention to the issue. What's the issue you have with this tactic?

I was reading Kathleen Stock's book, but the problem I found with it was that all the terminology is created by TRAs & so simply using the same terms already half-promotes transgenderism, by half-legitimising it. It's difficult to argue against an ideology without creating a whole new nomenclature, which you'd have to then convince everyone to agree with. So I think the conventional RadFem way to oppose transgenderism can somewhat backfire. If you infiltrate it, you can help decay it from the inside.

[–]one1won 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

From July 2021, FYI, referring to Stock:

she distances herself from “certain trends within feminism,” namely radical and gender-critical feminisms while taking issue with their “modern activism” (239). She hopes “for a better activism in the future”

And, about Stocks position:

sadly it is largely conformist to a reactionary politics.

See also the comments on the quoted review of Stock’s book. here: https://savageminds.substack.com/p/immaterial-girls

Women are not monolithic. Not every woman is a feminist, not every feminist is a Radfem. I read your comment as assuming Stock speaks as, or for, Radfems. Many women are refusing to say “cis” or “trans”, as there is no such thing outside the science of chemistry.

And, no. Infiltration is not the way for women. Detrans and Desisters are more likely to prove deleterious to the GII movement. But it’ll take time; some people do wisen up with life experience.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not all GC feminists are radical feminists either.

Do you think GC feminists identifying as desisters or detrains would be a better tactic then?

[–]one1won 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You seem really attracted to lying, what’s up with that?

Meaning, No. “Self ID” scam is BS.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

Have you done it? Have you changed your markers on your ID?

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

In the county that I'm in right now it costs about 2K bucks to get gender legally changed & this law hasn't been updated for decades. It certainly isn't as woke of a country that the majority of English-speaking countries are. I plan to move to the UK at some point, at which point I will most certainly be changing my gender legally. It's the only legal way to "boycott" gender identity laws, by giving them a taste of their own medicine. I asked on here if me doing so would be good or bad for feminism, the response was a unanimous: good for feminism.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Given the responses you have been given in this thread, I doubt the answer was an unanimous "good for feminism".

I seriously doubt this is going to change a thing, you will just be another who will take advantage of whatever benefit this might bring and swiftly change back when this is not beneficial or funny anymore.

Recognizing the danger of loopholes isn' t going to stop assholes from doing what they want, and the government isn' t going to change just because some people do what you are suggesting: they will just file this under "some transphobes are ruining the legitimate trans community" and nothing will change. This if they even acknowledge that it is happening.

Masses doing it will just result in these people claiming that "more acceptance" drove more people to do finally come out and live their authentic selves.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Given the responses you have been given in this thread, I doubt the answer was an unanimous "good for feminism".

Just check my post history if you don't believe me. Literally the same users who expressed having no problem with me identifying as transgender, are now pulling out every excuse when I ask why they don't do it too. They've done a 180.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I did check, the question you asked there was different compared to the one you are asking here. There, you were talking about men, here you are talking about women, and you' re being condescending about it, not to mention you are not accepting as answers two of the biggest reasons why we do not like the thought of changing markers.

But to analyze those answers you got: out of the those three responses, one was "go for it" (and she changed her mind once you changed the question because, as she and others have explained, women and feminists putting in motion your plan are not going to get the same benefits men who identify as women get and they aren' t exactly listened to in the first place), another said that it might do something if lots of GC men did it, and the third said that it wasn' t necessary because actual trans people are already doing a good job at ridiculing themselves.

Now, first of all, as I said, you are asking two different questions, so the fact that one poster is ok with what you asked back then and thinks what you' re asking now is ridicoulous is perfectly reasonable. Second, when someone says "I have had unanimous support" in the way you have done when you replied earlier, the implication is that it' s a huge number of people, not freaking three. When three people answer to your question it means that everyone else doesn' t think it' s worth engaging in the idea, let alone putting it in motion. And third, out of those three, it wasn' t even unanimous because at least one of them wasn' t having an opinion on your plan.

Literally the same users who expressed having no problem with me identifying as transgender, are now pulling out every excuse when I ask why they don't do it too.

Yeah, a user is fine with you doing something like this and is not fine with doing it herself. I am not really sure why you find this so weird: I am fine if my best friend eats oysters, but I wouldn' t touch those things with a ten foot pole. 🤷‍♀️

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Three, three three" – if the "go for it" reply gets 10 insightful points, then that's more than three. When it comes to replies that most GC people that frequent this forum up-vote, 10 is as high a number as you can expect. Nice gas-lighting attempt though.

Your first reply here was: "Have you done it? Have you changed your markers on your ID?" Basically trying to expose my supposed hypocrisy. But now you're suggesting that it's irrelevant whether I do it or not, since I'm not female. I'm okay with women doing it & you guys are okay with men doing it. Either both sides are hypocrites, or neither side is. So which is it? Either way you've got to back-pedal.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if the "go for it" reply gets 10 insightful points, then that's more than three.

Yeah, it' s 11, which is still a ridicoulous number to imply that you had huge support, and it still doesn' t change the fact that unanimous means "complete", and you didn' t have it and that the "support" you received on that thread was for something different than what you are talking about here.

Nice gas-lighting attempt though.

LOL, ok. I am totally gaslighting you by pointing out that a very small number of people agreeing to a question and then disagreeing to a different question is a perfectly legitimate position to have.

On the other hand, you 1) asked two different questions and pretended that the answer you received were to the same question, 2) said you had unanimous support when 1/3 of the people who answered actually didn' t show support, 3) talked as if 12 people were proof that you have huge support.

But I am the one who' s lying and "gaslighting"... 🙄

But now you're suggesting that it's irrelevant whether I do it or not, since I'm not female.

I didn' t know you were a man, and I don' t really care. The result of you setting in motion your "brilliant" plan is the same, and that is that it' s not going to bring any changes. If you' re a woman doing it, it won' t amount to anything because you won' t be listened to and you won' t get many benefits. If you' re a man doing it, you will just be another dude who "identifies" as a woman. Doing it to troll won' t change the fact that you will behave in the same way as all the other men who identify as women, you will just use "BUT I AM DOING IT FOR YOUR SAKE!" as an excuse.

I'm okay with women doing it & you guys are okay with men doing it. Either both sides are hypocrites, or neither side is. So which is it?

I don' t see why that is the case. Posters in this thread have already explained to you why they think your idea is ridioulous and they won' t participate, the fact that you don' t like those answers means absolutely nothing. Those are the answers, you can whine about it all you want, it' s not going to change a thing.

Either way you've got to back-pedal.

I don' t see why I should do that and I won' t. My position on this is "Do what you want since you will do it anyway, but I find the idea stupid and I don' t think it will amount to anything". There' s nothing hypocritical in it and considering that the vibe I got from those "unanimous support" comments you received were that the women in that thread thought "Meh, whatever, if it works great, otherwise things won' t change much from now." and not the "OMG, YOU' RE SO BRILLIANT! YOU' RE GOING TO SAVE FEMINISM AND WOMEN!!!!!!!!" you seem to read into their words, I don' t think there' s anything hypocritical in them either.

[–]one1won 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hold the phone! I’m not going back on hypothesizing that a critical mass of GC men may be capable of cracking the identity movement. So there’s no “180” here. I am NOT a man. (Man meaning adult human male. ie sexed)

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Let me guess, your boycot will involve going into the women's restroom, right? But "only" to make a point, right?

I asked on here if me doing so would be good or bad for feminism, the response was a unanimous: good for feminism.

You never explained what exactly you wanted to do, and you got only 3 replies, anyway.

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8qwr/gc_should_gc_men_identify_as_transgender_to/

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

only 3 replies? That's like 50% of the users here lol

boycotts are only effective if enough people do it. Individual use can help you avoid arrest for "transphobia" or avoid getting banned for "transphobia", but it can also help you identity-politics your way out of any debate, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f0MfGqQXH4&list=PLpHJ9aQruxVc_QfalD5sDoKyPo6tVG8fW&index=33 you might form a few cracks on the way. Why not use their own ideology against them? Why not use their own tactics against them?

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I know there are only a few active users here, but it's misleading when you claim to have unanimous support when only 3 people replied you and more so because you didn't explain you planned to get your sex "legally changed". Even now, you are not explaining what you plan to do after that. You're a man and you say you're living in a country that is not that captured by transgenderism, so what would you get out of this?

Do you even understand we're not spies? Do you understand that nobody really believes TWAW and, therefore, everyone will recognize us as women? Do you understand TRAs turn against their own all the time for not being idelogically pure enough?

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As I explained to another user, one of the replies got 10 up votes, so you & I both know I'm not over-estimating the results.

My previous reply already answered your question as to the value of me doing it.

I've drawn many comparisons, not just the spy example, to illustrate just how effective a strategy this is.

Straight people who don't even have GD are the most ideologically pure. It'd be great to overwhelm them by sheer numbers alone, but just a substantial number of free radicals would cause an upset. It's just important to go around calling anyone & everyone within the community "transphobic", without given them a chance to call you it. Once inside, you'd have no need to stand on a soap box, just reprimand anyone else who does for their transphobia (which should be easy bc they are constantly contradicting themselves). It'll disillusion gender identity allies the most.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

10 is not much better than 3. And Sloane's comment about there being already enough males who identfying as trans exposing the truth unintentionally got 11 likes. So, where is the unanimous support you are talking about? I remember when I saw your other thread months ago I though saying no because of the high probability of men acting like jerks under the excuse of "making a point". But I decided saying nothing because it would likely started another argument with you complaining I had something against you. But, really, you've proved me right, Snow.

Anyway, let's not forget you asked a very different question in the other thread. You never specified what exactly you meant by "identifyng" as trans. Even now, it's not clear what you plan to do once you got your documents changed. Do you know what this reminds me about? TRA making polls about public support for "trans rights" without specifying what those "rights" entail, so the can later claim the public supports the elimination of any women's space for instance. So, are you planning to all the TRA's tactics from now on?

Honestly, I'm not sure either what exactly you expect we do. You jump from saying we should do to "win" arguments (which would not require any paperwork) to pretending to be men online (which would not require paperwork either) to do infiltration work (which doesn't sound wise if you don't have the training or the resources to pull this off). At this point I can only think you have to be trolling us, Snow.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Those 11 likes are unlikely to be an additional 11 people, right? 10 of those 11 likely overlap with the other reply. As a former mod you should know that it's highly unlikely that the post we are talking about received the engagement of over 20 individuals. Please stop assuming I'm too stupid to see through these gas-lighting attempts.

Your entire reply is opposing my previous question on here, instead of the current one.

Just ask yourself: how did a supposed troll end up being more well-read on feminism than you?

[–]BiologyIsReal 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those 11 likes are unlikely to be an additional 11 people, right? 10 of those 11 likely overlap with the other reply. As a former mod you should know that it's highly unlikely that the post we are talking about received the engagement of over 20 individuals.

Those 2 comments are different enough that is not unlikely they've not been upvoted by the same people. At the very, as you cannot know who upvoted what, you cannot be sure that your idea had unanimous support. And, let's not forget you never specified what exactly you meant by "identfying as transgender".

Please stop assuming I'm too stupid to see through these gas-lighting attempts.

Pointing out the flaws and half-truths in your reasoning is not gaslighting.

Your entire reply is opposing my previous question on here, instead of the current one.

I already answered you in other comments why I think your "brilliant" idea won't work.

Just ask yourself: how did a supposed troll end up being more well-read on feminism than you?

eyesrolling Yes, Snow, it's wonderfull that you have learnt so well all the lessons of so many feminists books so you can teach all the silly women how they must fight sexism and misogyny. However, if you want to impress me even more, I'd suggest you pick up next some high school biology books, from which you can read very advanced concepts about genetics like the existence of sex chromosomes and sex-linked inheritance.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

I plan to move to the UK at some point, at which point I will most certainly be changing my gender legally. It's the only legal way to "boycott" gender identity laws, by giving them a taste of their own medicine

So you plan to move to the UK and obtain legal residency there with the intent to engage in actions you hope and believe will undermine and make a mockery of current British law and the UK government's official administrative procedures? Be sure to let the immigration officials at the Home Office know.

Most of the world's governments seek to grant legal residency only to persons from foreign lands who are willing to abide by its laws, and are willing to make a declaration saying they will do so. But I am sure that when you tell British officials that you've arrived on their shores with the plan of

giving them a taste of their own medicine

They'll welcome you in with open arms. But just to be on the safe side, you might want to add that you plan to try to disrupt Parliament and will spend a lot of your time slagging off Great Britain on social media too. That way, you'll be in like Flynn.

Also, please enlighten us as to why you think you have the right "to move to the UK" and obtain legal indefinite leave to remain so that you could get British identity documents. Exactly which specific criteria for settlement in the UK do you meet under British law? Or are you planning to tell British government authorities that you've decided to "boycott" their immigration laws just as you aim to "boycott" their gender identity laws?

https://www.gov.uk/indefinite-leave-to-remain

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration

Thanks for demonstrating that the attitude of male arrogance and disregard for other people's boundaries that has led to so much intrusivity today doesn't just apply to blokes who believe they have the right to identify into the female sex class; to invade and stake claim on female sports, spaces and services; and to deny female people our basic rights. Some blokes regard entire foreign countries as their own personal domains too, so much so that it never occurs to them that nations are supposed to be the ones to decide which foreigners they let onto their soil and grant residency to. Those who understand and respect borders and boundaries know it's not supposed to be up to foreign interlopers with brass necks just to barge in on other nations' turf and say "I've moved here and live here now because this is where I wanna be."

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm not a foreigner, so your tangent was a waste of time.

You're being inconsistent. I asked you what you thought about GC men identifying as trans & you said:

"Go for it. When Zuby identified as a woman so he could break the women's world record in weightlifting, he got a lot of mileage out of it and seemed to bring attention to the issue. Graham Lineham identified as a woman and a lesbian on a dating app to bring attention to all the "transbians" doing that"

https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/8qwr/gc_should_gc_men_identify_as_transgender_to/wfm8

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

How am I being inconsistent? Some time ago, you asked what others here thought about you claiming to be a woman/trans as some other men had done. I said "go for it."

Now you've come back months later to announce that you in your snowmanly wisdom have decided that feminist "GC" women should claim to be trans too because for some reason that isn't clear to me (nor to anyone else it seems) you are of the opinion that

If all GC feminists identified as transgender that would cause a major upset within transgenderism.

But since no GC feminists here said "yes boss man, brilliant idea, we'll get right on that," you're now berating women as bad feminists for not following your orders. LOL.

This is sorta like my kids asking if I think they should clean their bedrooms and I say "go for it," and hours later they come back to pester me, "Mom, why haven't you cleaned our rooms yet? When are you gonna hop to and start the hoovering?" And when I say, "I never said I'd clean your room, I said 'yes, go for it' when you asked if I thought you should clean your rooms," they start telling me I'm a crap mother for not cleaning their rooms and that I contradict myself besides.

As for the UK bit: if you're already a citizen or legal resident of the UK and you have UK-issued ID documents, then I don't understand why you would say

I plan to move to the UK at some point, at which point I will most certainly be changing my gender legally.

Coz when people are already citizens or legal residents of the UK, most wouldn't say "I plan to move to the UK at some point." They'd say something more along the lines of, "I plan to return to the UK at some point," or "I plan to resume residence in the UK again at some point." But maybe something is getting lost in translation due to my own USA-version of English. Like the saying goes, the British and Americans are "two peoples divided by a common language."

That aside, if you are a UK citizen or legal resident already, there's no need to wait until you return there to get your gender changed legally. You can change your gender by deed poll online, or by making a statutory declaration.

https://www.ngalaw.co.uk/knowledge-centre/changing-your-name-and-gender-marker-in-the-uk

This company will provide and fill out the paperwork for you to change your gender by deed poll for £18:

https://deedpolloffice.com/apply

https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/changing-your-gender#:~:text=You%20can%20use%20a%20change,the%20rest%20of%20your%20life.

Also, the whole process for getting a Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK is done by mail, so presumably it's possible for British citizens and residents living abroad to get a GRC. It just involves sending in an application. No personal appearance is required.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/995305/t451-eng.pdf

So rather than waste your time whingeing that women won't do as you tell us to, maybe your energies would be better spent putting your money where your mouth is by getting cracking on those UK gender change applications. Like you said before, that's the best way of

giving them a taste of their own medicine

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What would you be losing if you did it though? Answer: your "gender identity", which you acknowledge is nothing. But the fact that you're unwilling to lose it, suggests that gender identification is not as insubstantial as GC feminists claim. I'm not telling you to do it, I'm trying to spur on some introspection. I'm asking why don't (in general & in the past) GC feminists get their gender legally changed?

Thanks for the links, you've saved my a step. But I'm still not going to change it until I move to the UK (I've never properly lived there, hence why I didn't say "move back", so I haven't got an official "place of residence" yet). I have every intention of "putting my money where my mouth is" & as soon as I do, trust me, you'll hear about it. But as you said, it won't change your mind since I'm male & your female. For the record, I have no trouble acknowledging that male transitioners gain a hell of a lot more credence than female ones, however, that doesn't mean there is no political leverage to be gained by GC women en masse changing their gender. I firmly believe that if there had been a bunch of Lauren Southerns doing it in Canada, they'd be able to draw more attention to the issue.

P.S. I think it's totally legitimate for someone to point out the hypocrisy of someone with a messy room telling others to clean theirs, see: Jordan Peterson.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm not "unwilling to lose" my "gender identity," LOL. I don't have a gender identity! Stop telling me and others here that we do have gender identities. And FFS, man, stop telling women what to do.

You are trying to make it seem that the only reason feminists here are not compliantly rushing off to change the sex markers on our passports, driver's licenses, medical records, birth certificates and such the way you have decided we all should do in order to bring down transgenderism is that despite what we say, in our heart of hearts we really do all secretly have gender identities - and we are so wedded to our gender identities that we can't bear to part with them.

When, in fact, the reason no GC feminists here are jumping up and doing as you have decreed we must is that we find your idea unimpressive, without merit and think it would be a pointless, performative waste of time. Plus, we resent the officious, pompous, bossy way you have issued your diktat from on high.

Me, I personally think your idea is moronic, silly and puerile. You are free to call your idea a grand "strategy" and to believe that will strike a blow against transgenderism and cause the whole movement to crumble, but others are free to think your idea is a dumb brain fart that belongs in the bin.

P.S. I think it's totally legitimate for someone to point out the hypocrisy of someone with a messy room telling others to clean theirs, see: Jordan Peterson.

Huh? In the scenario I gave, I wasn't telling my kids to clean their bedrooms; I simply said yes when they asked me if I thought they should clean their bedrooms. Also, where do you get off suggesting I'm the one "with a messy room"?

Given your user name, I would've have thought that you understood the old adage "when you assume you make an ass out of u and me" but like so much else, the meaning of that little nugget seems beyond your grasp.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe I have a gender identity in the transgender sense, hence why I have no problem getting it changed, you say have no problem with me getting it changed either. But you seem to have a problem with getting yours changed. The reasons you give: it's silly, puerile, moronic. Inconsistent. So you're being disingenuous. Whatever the real reason is you're unwilling to give it, inexplicably.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

He seriously seems to think that he has single handedly solved sexism if only these stupid uppity women would listen and do what he says, without even a hint of irony. Male feminist poster child.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He also seems convinced that he's endowed with either omniscience or magical mind-reading skills, and as a result he knows what women on this sub - and women generally - really think and feel, which is the opposite of what we say.

In his view, feminists, female users of this sub and women generally are all either a) so stupid and lacking in self-awareness that don't know our own minds and hearts, or b) just plain liars who can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything, not even about our own "lived experience" and innermost thoughts. Typical brogressive.

[–]againstpedorights 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

🤢

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m not sure what you mean by changing your gender identity but changing your gender legally would create all sort of problems for you I feel like. It don’t really know what is involved with it now, but it used to require be a lot of work too with needing letters from doctors and surgeons. I’m sure with the push for self-ID, it is probably much simpler, but it stills seems like it would be super disruptive to do it just to make a point.