sadhatter
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 8,694
So then we are entering a scientific debate? What happened to self identification and not being a dick?
TERFs crash London Pride
- Thread starter Information Analyst
- Start date
So then we are entering a scientific debate? What happened to self identification and not being a dick?
I mean, does peer reviewed literature say anything about how we should entertain people's requests for pronoun usage? It's an assumption (maybe a fair one) that it is better long-term for people to use their pronouns that they prefer but maybe it's not. Especially for the weirder ones.
Just because someone prefers something doesn't mean it's actually better for them for you to follow their rules. Not that your decision has to be based on this, but it's food for thought
Just because someone prefers something doesn't mean it's actually better for them for you to follow their rules. Not that your decision has to be based on this, but it's food for thought
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
And again with the false equivalencies. The most popular fallacy. and one that woos and conspiracy theorists never seem to get tired of.
The line is drawn at "Is there scientific support for this belief/assertion", as it is with everything else. Where is the scientific support for the existence of dragons? Where is the peer-reviewed, replicated evidence for dragon neurology?
Funny how these assertions directly parallel those propounded by people who considered homosexuality a mental illness not a lifetime ago (and those who still do).
And for "Where is the scientific support for trangenderism", well, the only people who haven't seen it by now are those who have been steadfastly avoiding it in order to preserve their bigoted worldview, and it's clear nothing is going to change their deeply held beliefs. But I'll throw in a handful of citations in case there are still undecided lurkers. Not irrefutable conclusive proof, but that's not how science works; which certain people here should know, but apparently don't.
Despite the (expected) lack of conclusive proof, the weight of the peer-reviewed, replicated evidence is clearly pointing to transgenderism being a neurological phenomenon, with a genetic component as a strong possibility, not a mere quirk of psychology like the Otherkin phenomenon you tried to create an false equivalence to.
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-scientific-evidence-to-support-transgender-identity
Only three articles, I know; but each one has multiple citations and links to peer-reviewed studies, which should be good for weeks of reading by anyone who isn't a fanatical anti-trans radical, a religious bigot, or a denialist crank.
The fact that "don't be a dick" has to be explained to you indicates that you don't understand what it means. Hardly a surprise.
Last edited:
Dragons do not and never have existed so seems a rather strange comparison to use unless you contend "men" and "women" have never existed.
How do you refer to someone as a jaguar or unicorn that's different from how you refer to them as a human?
You don't say 'this is Jake, the human, he wants to come to lunch' so you don't ever have to face the possibility of getting stuck saying 'this is Samantha, the half-tiger half-dolphin, she wants to come to lunch' the way you have to get 'stuck' saying the 'wrong' pronouns.
I consider gender as a special case because people are generally required to supply a name and gender identity in a way they are absolutely not required to supply any other personal information.
I'll quote myself from earlier:
"There's no simple way to avoid gendered pronouns in day-to-day interactions with people. But there isn't even any moment in the course of a normal day where you'd have to refer to a person's weight, age, species, etc. That person is not expected to tell you or anyone else what they think of themselves in those ways in the first place. But people are generally expected to provide a gender and a name for other people to use when referring to them."
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,950
Poisoning the well... "some skeptics are misogynist anti-feminists", implying that people in this thread who don't agree with Rolfe are acting in bad faith to promote their anti-woman agenda.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
And a friend of mine body idenity is dragon. They don't claim to be a dragon or that dragons exist but that it bothers them to be human and have skin instead of scales.
But of course all mental health issues are funny and are best situated by laughing at them.
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
False dichotomy. Science can indeed inform us about the utility of accepting self identification for some conditions, and inform our moral stance so we can tell when some behavior is 'being a dick'.
You don't want to have a serious discussion then. What you want is the 'arbitrary line' to be moved arbitrarily towards not having to accept that calling people, trans or cis, by the wrong gender pronouns is in fact being a dick. The next fallacious argument you'll want to use is the fact that the line for 'being a dick' isn't unambiguously clear, but that doesn't matter when the act is well past where the line could possibly be.
If you don't want the line to be arbitrary, then you're going to have to start with facts, evidence, and proven research. 'I have a friend who says they're a dragon' (last time it was Napolean that you used) is not a rational argument for many reasons, most of them already pointed out by other posters. My question really should have been enough to get you thinking about why that's a poor comparison.
Yes, in fact it does. There have actually been many studies now that have supported the consensus of the medical community that the best way to treat trans gender people is as the gender they identify as. It's funny in a sad way, but the studies on why there is a higher suicide rate that transhaters love to cite as proof it's a mental illness (rather than just being a trait) also show the overwhelm risk factors driving the higher rate are NOT being trans, but, "lack of family and social supports, gender-based discrimination, transgender-based abuse and violence, gender dysphoria and body-related shame, difficulty while undergoing gender reassignment, and being a member of another or multiple minority groups." That's one of many.
As far as I know, there hasn't been any studies into the 'xir' style pronouns and I doubt there will be as that's an exceedingly rare demand. I have never in real life or online met someone who wanted to use those ones, and as the trans population is already very small, it would be effectively impossible to control for I would say.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,263
Yes, let's give the silly women a pat on the head, I guess.
If a blue plaque was erected in Stephen Hawking's honour, would you think it "important to mention" that he was a physicist rather than, say, an "anti-creationalist" or would it need a petition to get the word "physicist" mentioned on the plaque?
Who else would want to relabel a 'lesbian' 'gender non-conforming' besides transgender activists and their flying monkeys?
Last edited:
You're not happy with the wording on the new plaque?
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Someone who was just clueless and thought "gender non-conforming" was the new word for lesbian or something.
I guess you could call that a form of flying monkeyhood, though, I guess.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,263
Yes, the fact the words 'gender non-conforming" were used on the plaque celebrating a famous, pioneering lesbian. Someone must have wanted those words there! They appeared there as a result of a consultation process.
Sorry but that is not evidence for your claim that someone wanted to "relabel a 'lesbian' 'gender non-conforming'"
Or someone who looked at the entire life of the woman and how she lived her life rather than concentrating on just the sex of the people she had sex with? She was much more than simply who she choose to have sex with.
But we've been over this with JihadJane before and she obviously thinks that her being a lesbian is the most remarkable thing about her.
I hope they keep the term "gender non conforming" as well as add lesbian as I think both things are important if you want to highlight why she was a most remarkable person.
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
I thought it was the (I'm using scare quotes here to signify the overly general broadness of the groups I'm describing with hyperbole) "anti-trans" crowd that loved the concept of gender non-conforming, and the "pro-trans" crowd that hated it and thought it was a subtle way of invalidating transgenderism?
Last edited:
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
Well, unless the woman in question was concerned with lesbian erasure, which I do think is a real "thing" and not just anti-trans lesbians being hysterical.
Honestly, I kind of feel like I'm not necessarily qualified to make that sort of determination, not being a lesbian myself.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Those who recognise that she was actually gender non-conforming.
Last edited:
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,632
The problem comes in when the "gender-non-conforming" label eclipses the meaningful, important part of someone's identity they lived their whole lives with.
My sense is that, for a lot of lesbians, being gender-nonconforming is a minor (and not even necessarily existing or embraced) part of their sense of self compared to being a lesbian.
Last edited: