Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Post Reply
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Daryl »

pelmut wrote:
Daryl wrote: The victims of your ideology are what you called the "regretters".
I'll just try to clear up this one point:

The 'regetters' are the gullible victims of drug dealers who have have persuaded them they are transgender when they are not.  They have not been victimised by anyone transgender (unless the dealer happened to be transgender too) and they have not gone through the usual channels which transgender people are obliged to do before any form of treatment can be considered.

I am transgender, I know I am transgender and it took me a long time and a lot of research to be sure of that.  There is no ideology involved and I have not used my knowledge to victimise anyone.
One might think that something so close and near to oneself would not take a long time and a lot of research. It sounds like something a lot of us here have experienced, due to the social discomfort of our different preferences and inclinations: a need to have an explanation. So, after a long time and a lot of research, an explanation presents itself, well enough developed, and sanctioned by enough other people, that it seems a good explanation, even one that "feels right". But, that doesn't make it knowledge, or not an ideology. It just makes it a belief that many people subscribe to and find satisfying.

"Regretters" are going to occur no matter what, even without your hypothesised "drug dealers". Medical advice at one time was to perform sex changes on very young children whose sexual development was so indistinct that it was thought it would be a source of distress for them later. The prevailing belief about sex at that time was that it was entirely learned, so a boy who was made a girl would be fine as a girl if he was simply raised as one. We discovered this was an error later on and today we don't do that. History is full of examples of medicine that was as informed by prevailing sentiments and ideologies, and ambitions, as by anything else, and it's hard to even imagine a time when that risk will be zero.

The thing is, the harms are enabled by the same systems that attempt to do good. Without the medical knowledge and surgical skill necessary to perform them, and some confidence based in evidence, the fad of performing lobotomies would not have taken off. They were defensible in their time, as were the sex-changes for youngsters mentioned above. Authorities believed in them and it was considered unkind to withhold such treatments. People who opposed these treatments were ineffective at banning them, because the "knowledge" of the day was against them, and the moral pressure to permit "treatment" was high.
Daryl...

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Daryl »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:CRFriend said
Throw in the complete marginalization of men in modern society


You. Have. Got. to be. Kidding.

Less than 7% of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 are women, 0% of US Presidents were women and men are marginalized in our society? In whose reality?

To me, this kind of false victimhood is misogyny of the worst order.
Oh boy, the cry of "misogyny!" Thoughts. All. Stop.

Those stupid, hackneyed, propaganda statistics are meaningless. Here's how.

Firstly, the Fortune 500 is 500 companies, which means 500 CEOs. There are roughly, what, maybe 50 million men and women in the United States of the age to even be potential candidates for those jobs. That means that only 0.001% of the entire "eligible" population (or 0.00015% of the full US population) are Fortune 500 CEOs. Making any generalisation of any kind about the relative status of all women vs. all men based on that tiny group is absurd.

Secondly, like other propaganda statistics used for the same purpose, they represent an unstated presumption that they inform us of a wider truth than the mere data they reflect; in this case, obviously, the idea that women are oppressed. The proposition goes like this: if a group is oppressed it follows that it would not be allowed in high positions, therefore, if high positions do not have members of a particular group then that group must be oppressed. That is a logical error because it excludes reasons other than oppression for a group's possible non-presence. More subtley, and insidiously, it promotes a habit of making oppression a default explanation, because it shifts the burden of explaining the data to those who point out the logical error, by saying, in essence, "well if not oppression, then what else?" Pure propaganda, rhetoric not reason.
Daryl...

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Daryl »

Dust wrote:...
I'm just trying to point out some of the issues you might not be aware of, because they rarely get attention. This is not a case of who's got it worse. Treating people with humanity and compassion is not a zero sum game, and men really do have problems. Let's stop dismissing the problems of one half of society simply because of their sex.

I wish I could say I'm surprised I have to explain this, here of all places, but I'm not. We've been brainwashed our whole lives to think that women are helpless victims and men are privileged. The fact is, that both men and women have their strengths and weaknesses, their advantages and disadvantages, their privileges and burdens. Those things are simply different for each group, and even each person. We can overcome the negatives only by working together as a community, instead of pitting groups against each other, and isolating people as individuals. We can be better than that.
Your entire post (which I shortened to just the last bit) is spot on Dust.
Daryl...

pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by pelmut »

Daryl wrote:
pelmut wrote:
Daryl wrote: The victims of your ideology are what you called the "regretters".
I'll just try to clear up this one point:

The 'regetters' are the gullible victims of drug dealers who have have persuaded them they are transgender when they are not.  They have not been victimised by anyone transgender (unless the dealer happened to be transgender too) and they have not gone through the usual channels which transgender people are obliged to do before any form of treatment can be considered.

I am transgender, I know I am transgender and it took me a long time and a lot of research to be sure of that.  There is no ideology involved and I have not used my knowledge to victimise anyone.
One might think that something so close and near to oneself...
We have been asked by the moderators to drop this topic, please stop trying to bait me.

For those who wish to pay their respects to the real victims of being born transgender, people who have been murdered or driven to suicide in the past year just because of who they are, Transgender Day of Remembrance is on 20 November.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Sinned »

Hanna Rosin wrote an excellent book called "The End of Men" outlining the recent rise of women's status. As Dust says women are more adaptable and are becoming more successful in academia and business, getting better grades and are an increasing proportion of undergraduates in every sphere. Whereas young men can become distracted by all sorts of things the young women apply themselves and are pulling ahead of them generally. Women show more flexibility in employment and thus tend to have a steadier level. OK, so maybe more billionaires are men but there again how much money do you need to be classed as successful? How many women want the levels of stress and time needed to get there? It's a thought-provoking read and recommended to anyone interested in the sociology of this particular field.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Daryl »

pelmut wrote:We have been asked by the moderators to drop this topic, please stop trying to bait me.
Oh, are you feeling baited Pelmut? And here I thought I was merely taking the chum you spread in the water.
Daryl...

User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Daryl »

Sinned wrote:Hanna Rosin wrote an excellent book called "The End of Men" outlining the recent rise of women's status. As Dust says women are more adaptable and are becoming more successful in academia and business, getting better grades and are an increasing proportion of undergraduates in every sphere. Whereas young men can become distracted by all sorts of things the young women apply themselves and are pulling ahead of them generally. Women show more flexibility in employment and thus tend to have a steadier level. OK, so maybe more billionaires are men but there again how much money do you need to be classed as successful? How many women want the levels of stress and time needed to get there? It's a thought-provoking read and recommended to anyone interested in the sociology of this particular field.
Well, I object to the idea that women are more adaptable than men. That seems as sexist as the reverse proposition. However, I think it is true that in the current economic, social and industrial climate, women are more able to find adequate employment (acknowledging that even the definition of "adequate" is different for men and women).

I maintain a Kiva account that allows me to direct microfinancing to various applicants based on a number of categories. Sex is the category that seems most employed for preferential funding by many Kiva supporters. The common knowledge causing this is the idea that money is better given to women than to men, because it will do their whole communities good, with the reverse implication about men being left unstated. I rebel, and make sure that my money is spread evenly between the sexes and also across a full spectrum of businesses from farms to factories to liquor stores. One thing I have discovered is that women are being used as fronts for loan applications, in order to capitalise on the bias of the common knowledge about it being better to finance women. Perceptions are the real battleground today, it seems.

Yours is the second recommendation for "The End of Men" I have received. I may just have to read it.
Daryl...

Yonkas
Active Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:28 am
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Yonkas »

BobM wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:23 pm
Yonkas, as I said, delusional.
For the future, you should understand that I (and many other people) find curt ipse-dixit responses that don't address the arguments they are responding to rude.

If you didn't wish to engage in an invitation to a discussion, you could have said nothing at all, or, if you really wished to respond, but put little effort into it, you could have written something like, "Sorry, but I am not interested in discussing this." It would have been no skin off my back.

But to respond with a reiteration of your premise, as if I didn't spend at least an hour of my time trying to respectfully convince you of why I believe you are mistaken, communicates to me that you don't respect me enough to listen to and put effort into understanding what I have to say, and are interested only in hearing yourself talk. It is the internet equivalent of rolling your eyes. That might not be true, but that's how responding like that comes across to me

bobmoore
Active Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:45 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by bobmoore »

Yonkas wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:14 pm
BobM wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:23 pm
Yonkas, as I said, delusional.
For the future, you should understand that I (and many other people) find curt ipse-dixit responses that don't address the arguments they are responding to rude.

If you didn't wish to engage in an invitation to a discussion, you could have said nothing at all, or, if you really wished to respond, but put little effort into it, you could have written something like, "Sorry, but I am not interested in discussing this." It would have been no skin off my back.

But to respond with a reiteration of your premise, as if I didn't spend at least an hour of my time trying to respectfully convince you of why I believe you are mistaken, communicates to me that you don't respect me enough to listen to and put effort into understanding what I have to say, and are interested only in hearing yourself talk. It is the internet equivalent of rolling your eyes. That might not be true, but that's how responding like that comes across to me
Anything that is believed in the face of evidence to the contrary is, in point of fact, the definition of delusion. If you are XX you are female, and if XY you are a male. What you "feel" has no bearing on genetic facts. Current social philosophy disagrees and stipulates that you can be something it is impossible for you to be if only you insist loud enough. I do not dispute that there are rare cases of genetic sex problems, but aside from those special cases the rest is delusion. You are perfectly welcome to disagree.

I have just read through page after page of sometimes good, sometimes sophomoric discussion all of which was as far from my original opening post as as it could get. If the purpose of this forum is to promote skirts, then why is it necessary to venture into the realm of abnormal psychology? Why should any man feel the need to advance any other justification beyond, " I like it. Bugger off"?

BTW, my comment was not ipse dixit, it was a personal observation on the evidence.
"You can lead a liberal to truth, but you can't make it think."

User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 783
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Jim »

bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
Anything that is believed in the face of evidence to the contrary is, in point of fact, the definition of delusion. If you are XX you are female, and if XY you are a male. What you "feel" has no bearing on genetic facts. Current social philosophy disagrees and stipulates that you can be something it is impossible for you to be if only you insist loud enough.
You can be more understanding if you realize "current social philosophy" has different definitions than biological definitions. This is similar to a cook calling rhubarb a fruit while a biologist would say it is not a fruit. We just need to make it clear what definitions we are using.

bobmoore
Active Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:45 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by bobmoore »

Jim wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 5:06 pm

You can be more understanding if you realize "current social philosophy" has different definitions than biological definitions. This is similar to a cook calling rhubarb a fruit while a biologist would say it is not a fruit. We just need to make it clear what definitions we are using.
Indeed, but misidentifying a vegetable does not have potential life altering consequences, nor does the mistaken person insist that everyone else affirm the same error.
"You can lead a liberal to truth, but you can't make it think."

Yonkas
Active Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:28 am
Location: Buffalo, NY
Contact:

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Yonkas »

bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
Anything that is believed in the face of evidence to the contrary is, in point of fact, the definition of delusion.
Hypothetical situation: I was born without my lower legs due to a genetic condition. However, my internal image of myself is that of a person who has lower legs, and it's so troubling that want to have an operation to get prosthetic lower legs. Am I delusional, or not?

People, who find out my lower legs are prosthetic insist on telling me that I don't have legs, because, "only people born with legs can be considered as having legs." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?

Hypothetical situation: I am a biologically short person. However, my internal image of myself is that of a tall person, and it's so troubling that so I get cosmetic surgery to be taller. Am I delusional or not?

People, who find out that I had cosmetic surgery to increase my height refuse to refer to me as tall, because, "only people born tall can be considered tall." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?

Hypothetical situation: I am infertile. However, I really want to have a daughter. So, I adopt a girl, and call her my daughter. Am I delusional?

People, who find out that my daughter is adopted refuse to call her my daughter, because she isn't my genetic daughter. Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?

Hypothetical situation: I was born male, and forced to wear pants for my entire life up until this point, because, by definition, dresses, and skirts, are "women's wear." It's so troubling that I decide, "to hell with it," and start wearing skirts and dresses in public. I also refuse to call it "women's wear," because I recognize that societal concepts change over time as our understanding of gender expression changes. Am I delusional, or not?

People who see me wearing skirts call me a transvestite because, "only women can wear dresses and skirts." Should I tell them to "bugger off" or not?
bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
If you are XX you are female, and if XY you are a male.
But the whole point of this that those aren't good definitions. They aren't useful--not even biologically. It isn't even accurate.

This aspect of chromosomes (strongly) correlates with gender. It doesn’t determine it.

Most people have 46XY or46XX, and are correspondingly, male, or female. However, there all kinds of deviations from this. There are even males with 46XX and females with 46XY. It is not a function of whether their chromosomes are 46XX or 46XY. In particular, https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html says,
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) is an X-linked recessive disorder in which affected individuals have external female genitalia and breast development despite being genetically male (46XY). Tissues of affected individuals are unresponsive to male hormones (androgens) yet respond to estrogens.

Wisniewski et al. assessed the physical and psychosexual status of 14 women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) by questionnaire as well as medical examination in order to determine the participants' knowledge of their disorder as well as their opinion of medical and surgical treatment. (34) Most of the women questioned expressed satisfaction with their psychosexual development and sexual function. All of the women who participated in the study were satisfied at having been raised as females, and none of the participants desired gender reassignment. (35)
What you are advocating for is to tell these people they aren't women, because they are genetically male. Worse, you are calling them delusional.
bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
What you "feel" has no bearing on genetic facts.
And genetic facts have no bearing on what you "feel." They are two separate things, which you are trying to force to be the same thing.

This is precisely what all of this hoopla is about. Some people born genetically male feel that they are female. They know they are genetically male. They want to be outwardly female to match how they feel inside. What is delusional about that?

Furthermore, as the existence of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome indicates, genetic facts have very little bearing on society considering a person "female." Their genes might not be female, but their outward characteristics certainly are. This does not magically change just because they get genetically tested and find they have 46XY rather than 46XX.
bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
Current social philosophy disagrees and stipulates that you can be something it is impossible for you to be if only you insist loud enough.
Exactly. And skirts and dresses are women's wear, so I don't know why we're being so loud and insisting that we aren't transvestites. Some people might call us delusional. :P
bobmoore wrote:
Fri Jan 31, 2020 4:30 pm
I do not dispute that there are rare cases of genetic sex problems, but aside from those special cases the rest is delusion. You are perfectly welcome to disagree.
First, this is inconsistent, though. Your first definition was that XX means a person is female and XY means a person is male. Now you are contradicting yourself by making these provisions (and I would argue that you have made them, because you understand that, as our understanding of the world progresses, our definitions change to accommodate it. So why not be more accommodating?)

Second, if I am welcome to disagree, then you are tacitly saying that your premise is an opinion, and not a fact. Which is it? It is logically inconsistent to respect a person's opinion (by welcoming them to disagree) and then to tell them their opinion makes them delusional.

Indeed, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion--that XY==male and XX==female (with the exception of genetic abnormalities). I strongly disagree, but I can respect it. What I take issue with is that you then openly refer to anyone as disagreeing with you as being "delusional." This is, of course, also an opinion. But it is also needlessly derogatory and offensive.
Last edited by Yonkas on Mon Feb 03, 2020 1:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.

pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by pelmut »

Very well explained, Yonkas; I agree with everything you have said.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Sinned »

Yonkas,that is a very well-written piece of work. Easy to follow even for a non-sociologist like me. Well done.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.

Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

Post by Ray »

Yonkas,

Cogently constructed, and presented in a polite manner with a dash of humour. I like it.

I've also marked you out as someone I would have trouble debating with! I'd probably lose.... :-)

Post Reply