Trans Women are not Women

[Belz...]

Well, you guys know my solution: make ALL restrooms unisex. That way everybody is uncomfortable for a time, and then we get used to it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's not very helpful. Obviously you think the solution is better because the alternatives are worse.

I don't know how to explain preferring one thing to another without reference to feelings or desires. How would you do it?

Incidently could you retract your accusation of trolling?

Not unless you cease demanding I explain basic concepts like preferring a good thing to a bad one.

Which is not an option.

It's one possible outcome. That nobody wants it makes it less desirable to the other possibilities. Hence it is the least-preferred of the possibilities. I don't understand how you can declare something is "not an option" without that being an exercise in preferring one thing to another. But as you won't permit me to use the concept of preference I can't account for how you could conclude this.

Yes, those are our basic options.

How do you propose selecting one without determining whether any are preferable to the others?

And here's the crux of the problem: what's your basis for that? You think they'd prefer option 3 to option 2 if they can't get 4, but I'm not sure that's true.

Conduct a survey, then. Include the chocolate vs cat turd question on it, because clearly it's insane assumption on part to believe people prefer eating the former to the latter.

 

[Darat]

Again, in at least some places where option 3 has been made available, it has been explicitly rejected by trans activists.



I think it's a fine idea myself, but let's keep expectations reasonable. Not everyone wants compromise.

The very idea of a compromise is something no body wants but they will make do with!

 

[JoeMorgue]

My issue is that no solution is ever going to be good enough by definition because there's always going to be one group for whom the problem is "I want there to be a problem."

 

[Darat]

TM is making sense.

From where we are at the moment is that we have two groups of extremists, you are never going to satisfy both of those groups with any solution. Therefore a third way has to be found and the idea of not forcing anyone to use a toilet that is the "wrong" one for them would seem to be the only way of compromising.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Again, in at least some places where option 3 has been made available, it has been explicitly rejected by trans activists.

I think it's a fine idea myself, but let's keep expectations reasonable. Not everyone wants compromise.

Then my interest ends. I don't care to offer suggestions for a solution that doesn't involve a fair compromise.

 

[Darat]

My issue is that no solution is ever going to be good enough by definition because there's always going to be one group for whom the problem is "I want there to be a problem."

Extremists on any issue will always be with us and by their very nature they can't compromise and that's when society has to step in and say "You aren't going to get what you want, here is what there will be".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then my interest ends. I don't care to offer suggestions for a solution that doesn't involve a fair compromise.

Okay but where does a compromise that... the defining variable in the entire debate rejects leave us?

Basically your compromise is to leave out the group that is the only reason we're having the debate in the first place.

Like basically your solution is functionally the same as just saying "there's no issue."

Which is a fine and valid opinion, hell I don't really disagree all that much that the solution sort of really is "there is no problem to solve here" but... that doesn't get us anywhere.

If you reduce all your fractions what's left is "Why are talking about this?"

And again I agree but "This shouldn't be a problem" isn't the same thing as a solution.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Extremists on any issue will always be with us and by their very nature they can't compromise and that's when society has to step in and say "You aren't going to get what you want, here is what there will be".

And that's fine in some perfect fantasy world, but here in the real world that solution is taken off the table when the group in question is granted "victim" status.

 

[Francesca R]

The very idea of a compromise is something no body wants but they will make do with!

The idea of a compromise isn't really letting one side win and the other side lose. That's . . . .letting one side win and the other side lose.

The floated idea is seeking to "compromise" an issue which is not the conflict of objectives.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm reminded of the stem cell debate.

Side 1: We don't want to kill the innocent fetuses for stem cells.
Side 2: Stem cells have huge medical potential.

Solution: Okay we'll keep killing the innocent fetuses, but not use them for medical research.

Stuff like that is not compromise. That's "Nobody gets to win-ism."

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay but where does a compromise that... the defining variable in the entire debate rejects leave us?

Basically your compromise is to leave out the group that is the only reason we're having the debate in the first place.

Like basically your solution is functionally the same as just saying "there's no issue."

Which is a fine and valid opinion, hell I don't really disagree all that much that the solution "there is no problem to solve here" but... that doesn't get us anywhere.

If you reduce all your fractions what's left is "Why are talking about this?"

And again I agree but "This shouldn't be a problem" isn't the same thing as a solution.

I never offered to solve the problem of "what is a real woman", I was just offering a compromise on bathrooms so everyone could make turdies. I admit this proposal doesn't define womanhood forever, or solve the issues of Olympic competor qualifications, or even bring about lasting peace in Palestine. It wasn't intended to do those things. I'm not even interested in them.

I just thought that in the meantime while those are being debated a goddamn bathroom might be nice to have around while we wait. But I guess not. All philosophical questions must be resolved in full before anyone may use the toilet!

 

[Belz...]

I don't know how to explain preferring one thing to another without reference to feelings or desires. How would you do it?

Who said anything about doing that without reference to these things? You keep pretending that I'm saying things that I didn't say, and it's getting more than a little frustrating.

Not unless you cease demanding I explain basic concepts like preferring a good thing to a bad one.

Now you're downright lying. Just two posts ago I explained to you very clearly that I wasn't doing that, and now you're pretending that it never happened. It's impossible to believe that you're debating in good faith at this point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The idea of a compromise isn't really letting one side win and the other side lose. That's . . . .letting one side win and the other side lose.

The floated idea is seeking to "compromise" an issue which is not the conflict of objectives.

Then ignore my suggestion. You are unwilling to compromise because you won't accept anything less than victory. Good luck with your struggle, I'm sure you can achieve an uncompromising victory within two centuries.

 

[Francesca R]

From where we are at the moment is that we have two groups of extremists, you are never going to satisfy both of those groups with any solution. Therefore a third way has to be found and the idea of not forcing anyone to use a toilet that is the "wrong" one for them would seem to be the only way of compromising.

Apparently you refer to women who oppose natal males having unfettered access to female-only space as extremists.

But you also apparently endorse a proposal that fully accedes to their demand.

I assure you that you are going to satisfy this ("extremist") group with this third way.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I never offered to solve the problem of "what is a real woman", I was just offering a compromise on bathrooms so everyone could make turdies. I admit this proposal doesn't define womanhood forever, or solve the issues of Olympic competor qualifications, or even bring about lasting peace in Palestine. It wasn't intended to do those things. I'm not even interested in them.

But that's my point. "Defining womanhood" (or similar related concepts like gender identity) isn't some minor side issue, it's the discussion. Take that away and there's no debate to have that we need to compromise over.

Your solution doesn't "work" because if you could implement the compromise you suggest, the debate we're having by definition wouldn't exist in the first place.

It's like if you have a group of people arguing over whether to have burgers or pizza for dinner and your solution is to make a third group; "Not hungry."

If you're not hungry you're already not arguing over if you want to eat pizza or burgers.

The people who don't have some valid interest in defining womanhood (again or some similar topic perhaps conceptualized a different way) already aren't in this discussion.

 

[Francesca R]

Then ignore my suggestion. You are unwilling to compromise because you won't accept anything less than victory. Good luck with your struggle, I'm sure you can achieve an uncompromising victory within two centuries.

I am not willing to call victory/defeat a compromise.

You seem to have overlooked that I support the proposition you make, since it hands victory to the point of view that I agree with. You have not proposed anything less than victory. I don't need luck!

It just isn't a compromise. Crikey, talk about alternative reality . . .

 

[TragicMonkey]

I am not willing to call victory/defeat a compromise.

You seem to have overlooked that I support the proposition you make, since it hands victory to the point of view that I agree with. You have not proposed anything less than victory. I don't need luck!

It just isn't a compromise. Crikey, talk about alternative reality . . .

My suggestion gets people a bathroom. I thought that was the problem.

Damn, I had no idea everyone was such bastards that the notion of compromise was anathema and no solution good enough to consider. I give up. The problem is unsolvable without violence. Let the transwomen and "real women" fight it out. Only in death will either group find peace.

 

[Francesca R]

My suggestion gets people a bathroom. I thought that was the problem.

No, it isn't

 

[Belz...]

My suggestion gets people a bathroom.

They already have one!

I mean, if you can't get the basics of the topic straight, how can you hope to discuss it?

Damn, I had no idea everyone was such bastards that the notion of compromise was anathema and no solution good enough to consider.

More lies. You know for a fact that this isn't what's being discussed. Hell, you can't even get the concept of compromise right.