Transgender man gives birth

[DreamingNaiad]

Then why are you trying to argue with me at all?

If you don't want to know what I've had to say badly enough to actually read it, then what do you stand to gain trying to answer to it?

I'm trying to understand why your are so frightened. And placing the responsibility to make you less frightened on others.

I do want to know what you have to say. Which is why I asked all those questions you ignored.

I'm trying to understand your thought process and all I'm getting is that you are uncomfortable. But why? Where is the danger? Or even any imposition?

I don't want this to be an argument, I just can't understand what the problem is.

 

[DragonLady]

I'm trying to understand why your are so frightened. And placing the responsibility to make you less frightened on others.

I do want to know what you have to say. Which is why I asked all those questions you ignored.

I'm trying to understand your thought process and all I'm getting is that you are uncomfortable. But why? Where is the danger? Or even any imposition?

I don't want this to be an argument, I just can't understand what the problem is.

Fine; then I respectfully ask: go back a few pages, and read what I've said on the matter. Or just go to my profile, and read my last posts, as I don't think I've posted on any other topic for a couple weeks. Then, maybe we can reason together.

In the meantime, people who are trans gender or just claiming to be trans gender harm other people just as often as every other segment of society. All humans can harm each other, and there is nothing that sets this group aside in that regard.

So for now, I'll just leave the updated version of the ol' M&M argument here:

Here's a bowl containing 1,000 M&M's; representing allowing both genders into every bathroom.

900 of them are harmless and normal female M&M's.
50 of them are harmless and normal male M&M's
30 of them are normal male M&M's with unknown motives
10 of them are normal male M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are normal female M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are harmless, cross dressed male M&M's
1 of them is a cross dressed male serial rapist.
1 of them is a harmless trans woman.

Now how many handfuls should our grand children have to eat in their lifetimes?

EDA: I've not made any effort to match these numbers to any actual statistics or demographics. They are just random, to help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

 

[bruto]

I have to take issue with your wording here.

"share a named characteristic which causes discomfort"

vs

"only shared characteristic is expressed discomfort"

Is remarkably close, IMO, to saying:

"But, this group is in terrible pain and that group is telling lies!"

I would say: "expresses discomfort" means something "causes discomfort"; and its equally true -or equally false- with regards to both groups.

No. You are applying the very spin to the argument that I am trying to separate out. It may be nitpicking on my part but I think that even if both sides have good and valid points those points are not made by defective arguments.

I recall long ago trying to make that point to my then-teen aged step son, with whose politics I generally agreed, and I see it so often here. If you wrap a valid point in a bad argument you will never get where you want to go.

Ironically, though, I think your response sort of makes my point, by introducing emotional interpretations and explicitly unstated assumptions as if they were equivalent to what was said, by inferring that an unexpressed emotional meaning was hidden in what was said and implying a level of bias and dishonesty, and by blurring the division between the objective and the subjective.

It may be (and it's for others to hash out as far as I'm concerned right now) that the discomfort felt is real, valid, and well founded. It may well be (and that also is for others to hash out, endlessly no doubt) that the interests of one group outweigh those of another, and it may even be that the evidence for why and how this is so will be cogently and convincingly expressed. It certainly is a complex matter as well as an emotionally charged one. We are dealing here with something that causes deep discomfort to many, with implications that reach deeply into cultural and religious values. It's hard to separate speculation and rumor from fact, and statistical arguments are dwarfed by individual mishaps. Rape or murder statistics are cold comfort if you're one of those raped or murdered. Imagined risks and old wives' tales are harmful, but parents are right to be fierce in the protection of their children from real risks.

But in the mean time, I contend that whatever else is true or not true, the particular issue in CullenNZ's statement that I addressed remains. The fact that a resolution to the problem is likely to cause inconvenience to one or the other of two groups, while it might suggest a surface equivalence, does not mean that they are actually equivalent.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Fine; then I respectfully ask: go back a few pages, and read what I've said on the matter. Or just go to my profile, and read my last posts, as I don't think I've posted on any other topic for a couple weeks. Then, maybe we can reason together.

In the meantime, people who are trans gender or just claiming to be trans gender harm other people just as often as every other segment of society. All humans can harm each other, and there is nothing that sets this group aside in that regard.

So for now, I'll just leave the updated version of the ol' M&M argument here:

Here's a bowl containing 1,000 M&M's; representing allowing both genders into every bathroom.

900 of them are harmless and normal female M&M's.
50 of them are harmless and normal male M&M's
30 of them are normal male M&M's with unknown motives
10 of them are normal male M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are normal female M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are harmless, cross dressed male M&M's
1 of them is a cross dressed male serial rapist.
1 of them is a harmless trans woman.

Now how many handfuls should my grand children have to eat in their lifetimes?

EDA: I've not made any effort to match these numbers to any actual statistics or demographics. They are just random, to help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

I have read all of your posts here. From '20% of men are rapists' to this weird m&m thing. Which is literally just made up numbers that have no relevance to anything. And shows transgendered people as not being a danger.

If you answer the questions I asked on the last page (?) I might be able to get into your mindset.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What part of it is on-topic?

The part having to do with attitudes about communal nudity.

I wasn't alive when communal bathing was popular, and I highly doubt you were either. So we don't really know how public bathhouses functioned, what kinds of problems they faced, or what real benefits they offered. For that, we can only turn to archeology and whatever historical records there are, and then try to extrapolate from that data to a society now which is far, far different in almost every regard.

Or we can look at written thoughts of people who lived at the time.

While I certainly do believe a working knowledge of the past is important, I don't think bringing back something that was almost entirely abandoned is the answer.

It was abandoned when the aqueducts no longer worked and nobody knew how to repair or replace them, it wasn't a conscious choice.

Gee, "A" isn't working; let's try "B".
Nope, "B" isn't working; let's try "A" again.

It's a textbook case of chasing one's tail, and I don't see any real benefit or progress to be had there.

Or a demonstration of your lack of understanding of history.

 

[DragonLady]

It was abandoned when the aqueducts no longer worked and nobody knew how to repair or replace them, it wasn't a conscious choice.

You mean that's when one or more of the bath houses was abandoned?

I'm talking about the practice being abandoned. If it was such a popular, everyone is happy and no one is ever sad-sad practice, it would be the ongoing way of the day because one big happy bathhouse is a whole lot cheaper for a city to build and provide plumbing for than a bunch of individual public washrooms all around town.

And shows transgendered people as not being a danger.

I've not once tried to show that transgendered people are a danger.

Maybe you didn't read my posts as well as you thought?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In the meantime, people who are trans gender or just claiming to be trans gender harm other people just as often as every other segment of society. All humans can harm each other, and there is nothing that sets this group aside in that regard.

Do you propose encumbering freedom of access to public spaced for "every other segment of society?" Black people harm other people just as often as every other segment of society. So separate bathrooms are needed, right?

Right?

So for now, I'll just leave the updated version of the ol' M&M argument here:

Here's a bowl containing 1,000 M&M's; representing allowing both genders into every bathroom.

900 of them are harmless and normal female M&M's.
50 of them are harmless and normal male M&M's
30 of them are normal male M&M's with unknown motives
10 of them are normal male M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are normal female M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are harmless, cross dressed male M&M's
1 of them is a cross dressed male serial rapist.
1 of them is a harmless trans woman.

Now how many handfuls should our grand children have to eat in their lifetimes?

EDA: I've not made any effort to match these numbers to any actual statistics or demographics. They are just random, to help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

Nor made any effort to contextualize them against other harms (with real data) that reveals what a farce it is when you compare the proportionality of threat to proposed solution.

Just for curiosity, are you be okay with barring convicted sex offenders from public bathrooms?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You mean that's when one or more of the bath houses was abandoned?

I mean over time.

I'm talking about the practice being abandoned. If it was such a popular, everyone is happy and no one is ever sad-sad practice, it would be the ongoing way of the day because one big happy bathhouse is a whole lot cheaper for a city to build and provide plumbing for than a bunch of individual public washrooms all around town.

What you're missing is that nobody was doing plumbing any more.

By your own logic, that means we should never have re-introduced it.

It was abandoned in the sense that they literally lost the knowledge of how to keep them running.

It was not a social policy planning choice.

I've not once tried to show that transgendered people are a danger.

It's a constant thing that analogies on this topic involve invoking a direct safety threat while denying that anyone is being maligned.

Well, pick analogies that aren't about direct bodily harm.

 

[DragonLady]

Do you propose encumbering freedom of access to public spaced for "every other segment of society?" Black people harm other people just as often as every other segment of society. So separate bathrooms are needed, right?

Right?



Nor made any effort to contextualize them against other harms (with real data) that reveals what a farce it is when you compare the proportionality of threat to proposed solution.

Just for curiosity, are you be okay with barring convicted sex offenders from public bathrooms?

I respectfully ask again:

If you can't answer to my arguments without intentionally mischaracterizing what I've said; then please don't answer my posts at all.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I respectfully ask again:

If you can't answer to my arguments without intentionally mischaracterizing what I've said; then please don't answer my posts at all.

You have no rebuttal and blame me for it.

Fits the pattern, I suppose.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[sylvan8798]

They aren't being excluded from a society and what exactly causes their discomfort?

The other groups discomfort has been discussed, and ridiculed by some at length, so maybe looking closer at the others might be useful

I'm assuming you are joking with amputees.

No, it's an actual thing. I don't really understand your other comments.

 

[DragonLady]

Well, pick analogies that aren't about direct bodily harm.

Okay, fine.

Should a group of people who represent less than 5% of our population, and whom haven't bathed in over 20 years be given free vouchers for meals during the dinner hour of the most popular restaurants around the country?

Should those who are offended by the stench be told to "get over it"?
Should those who see bugs on their clothes be told that unless they can prove those lice carry typhus, they aren't allowed to complain?
If one of those people randomly wanders each room dropping bugs into the soup of the other diners, should everyone else jump up to tell them just to fish it out and go on eating it, because there's no proof of any lasting harm being done?

Should they be able to force every other person in the country who is offended by their body odors to change their dining habits?

 

[sylvan8798]

So for now, I'll just leave the updated version of the ol' M&M argument here:

Here's a bowl containing 1,000 M&M's; representing allowing both genders into every bathroom.

900 of them are harmless and normal female M&M's.
50 of them are harmless and normal male M&M's
30 of them are normal male M&M's with unknown motives
10 of them are normal male M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are normal female M&M's with harmful motives
4 of them are harmless, cross dressed male M&M's
1 of them is a cross dressed male serial rapist.
1 of them is a harmless trans woman.

Now how many handfuls should our grand children have to eat in their lifetimes?

EDA: I've not made any effort to match these numbers to any actual statistics or demographics. They are just random, to help illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

I have zero idea what you are doing here, so as an illustration, it doesn't.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

I've not once tried to show that transgendered people are a danger.

Maybe you didn't read my posts as well as you thought?

They are not a danger but if they use the toilet of their choice you will be in danger?

So you think bad people will use TG people as a shield to commit bad acts? And that these bathroom laws will prevent them committing bad acts?

That's like banning male teachers and childminders because paedophiles might hide among them.

 

[sylvan8798]

Okay, fine.

Should a group of people who represent less than 5% of our population, and whom haven't bathed in over 20 years be given free vouchers for meals during the dinner hour of the most popular restaurants around the country?

Should those who are offended by the stench be told to "get over it"?
Should those who see bugs on their clothes be told that unless they can prove those lice carry typhus, they aren't allowed to complain?
If one of those people randomly wanders each room dropping bugs into the soup of the other diners, should everyone else jump up to tell them just to fish it out and go on eating it, because there's no proof of any lasting harm being done?

Should they be able to force every other person in the country who is offended by their body odors to change their dining habits?

This is not an improvement on your argument. Maybe actually getting closer to your profound truth, however.

 

[DragonLady]

I have zero idea what you are doing here, so as an illustration, it doesn't.

Fine. I thought the "M&M argument" was pretty well known and would be understood by at least most. Obviously, I was wrong.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Okay, fine.

Should a group of people who represent less than 5% of our population, and whom haven't bathed in over 20 years be given free vouchers for meals during the dinner hour of the most popular restaurants around the country?

Should those who are offended by the stench be told to "get over it"?
Should those who see bugs on their clothes be told that unless they can prove those lice carry typhus, they aren't allowed to complain?
If one of those people randomly wanders each room dropping bugs into the soup of the other diners, should everyone else jump up to tell them just to fish it out and go on eating it, because there's no proof of any lasting harm being done?

Should they be able to force every other person in the country who is offended by their body odors to change their dining habits?

So now we have an analogy comparing them to those who are covered in the rotting stench of 20 years of neglected hygiene and active lice infestations.

Still disgustingly pejorative.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Okay, fine.

Should a group of people who represent less than 5% of our population, and whom haven't bathed in over 20 years be given free vouchers for meals during the dinner hour of the most popular restaurants around the country?

Should those who are offended by the stench be told to "get over it"?
Should those who see bugs on their clothes be told that unless they can prove those lice carry typhus, they aren't allowed to complain?
If one of those people randomly wanders each room dropping bugs into the soup of the other diners, should everyone else jump up to tell them just to fish it out and go on eating it, because there's no proof of any lasting harm being done?

Should they be able to force every other person in the country who is offended by their body odors to change their dining habits?

They aren't being given anything. We all have the right to pick a bathroom and pee in it. They are not contaminating anything so the bug example is a tad worrying.

We all pee seperately in a cubicle. Do you imagine they will demand to pee in your lap or something?

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Fine. I thought the "M&M argument" was pretty well known and would be understood by at least most. Obviously, I was wrong.

The last time I saw it used was to justify dead children so it was probably a bad idea. As was pulling numbers out of thin air.

 

[DragonLady]

I saw it used was to justify dead children

I'm sorry; I haven't seen that.

Do you imagine they will demand to pee in your lap or something?

Who? Intact males in the women's restroom with harmful intentions? No...they never do any such thing. Really.