Things I learn from the radical feminist blogosphere:
-” Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights. It has nothing to do with feminism. As such, as feminists, just as we oppose men’s rights, in general, we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.”
– “Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.” To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda.”
– ” Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons. Transmen have not enjoyed male privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do. When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism. This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen. “
-“Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights. It has nothing to do with feminism. As such, as feminists, just as we oppose men’s rights, in general, we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.”
-” Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to. To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it, are impacted and affected by it is not “transphobic.” It is feminism.”
Apparently when Heart’s site visits go down, she needs to suck the life of transpeople, like a vampire sucks blood. Bite, suck, repeat.
There are two rules in when engaging in honest debate:
1. reveal errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. reveal errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
That’s difficult to do, because there are no facts to reveal. It’s almost all dogma. A commenter disagreed. I responded:
1. a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative.
2. a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
You have no empirical data to support your position, so it IS dogma. It’s a belief, based on an opinion, supported by faith.”
That’s it in a nutshell, for me. You can’t debate someone that brings only dogma. Belief isn’t debatable.