Trans Women are not Women

[Darat]

Darat, I warned you this would happen. Arguments by analogy always fail. If you can't argue the thing in its own terms, you can't argue it at all.

But the strange thing is I wasn't using analogy to argue, I was using examples of what has actually happened in regards to minority rights and people not shutting up to show how I thought Joe's comments were not right.

 

[Belz...]

What's your solution, ponderingturtle?

More strawmen, probably.

 

[Belz...]

PT, what will you do if someone ever shows up who DOES hold positions as crazy and extreme as the strawman fantasies you make up?


PT: I suppose you want all the trans people to wear scarlet letters and use the bathroom in trenches outside, like animals, eh?

New Poster: Yes, that is precisely what I want.

PT: ...oh

Exactly. The only point of those posts is to put people on the defense. It's not to make a substantive argument or to acurately represent other people's points.

 

[Myriad]

That's internally contradictory. If it's segregated based on a person's sex (first highlight) then it isn't segregated based on a person's gender identity (second highlight). Gender identity is not the same as sex.

Not contradictory. Some existing places of public accommodation, such as rest rooms and changing rooms, are allowed by law to be segregated by sex without that being a violation of sex discrimination laws. The quoted passage gives the users of such facilities the right to choose which sex of the designated facility to use, according to their own gender identity.

Furthermore, the modern doctrine of gender ideology asserts that gender is a spectrum, so should we then have a spectrum of bathroom facilities?

Nope, there are only men's, women's, and undesignated bathrooms. Not always all three. (The usual cases are: men's and women's; men's and women's and undesignated; or only undesignated.) The law permits patrons to use their preferred facilities based on their gender identity (or more precisely, enjoins the owners/operators/etc from preventing them from doing so). It does not grant patrons the power to use facilities that don't actually exist, though. So if someone's gender identity is ungendered but there is no undesignated facility; or if their gender identity is the non-male non-female post-fertilization catalyzing third sex of a fictional dragon-pony species; or if they are a manly man who will only emit their manly man-waste in a sufficiently masculine place but there are only undesignated toilets at hand; then they must make do with the choices of facilities available.

How would that work?

So far, very well.

 

[caveman1917]

Not contradictory. Some existing places of public accommodation, such as rest rooms and changing rooms, are allowed by law to be segregated by sex without that being a violation of sex discrimination laws. The quoted passage gives the users of such facilities the right to choose which sex of the designated facility to use, according to their own gender identity.

If people can use the facility for the other sex then the facilities aren't segregated by sex. Indeed, if people can use any facility they choose then the facilities are, by definition, not segregated by anything. So yes, that paragraph you wrote is self-contradictory.

 

[d4m10n]

I would go for an infinitely broad list of different social sexual traits which are self diagnosed, self defined and immeasurable, which an individual wants to portray themselves as/feels they are, which can differ from those normally associated with the biological sex they were born as.

Well, now, that sounds pretty useless.

 

[Ziggurat]

But the strange thing is I wasn't using analogy to argue, I was using examples of what has actually happened in regards to minority rights and people not shutting up to show how I thought Joe's comments were not right.

It was still a crap argument which failed for the same reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would go for an infinitely broad list of different social sexual traits which are self diagnosed, self defined and immeasurable, which an individual wants to portray themselves as/feels they are, which can differ from those normally associated with the biological sex they were born as.

And should this definition control access to traditionally sex-segregated spaces like women's changing rooms?

 

[Darat]

It was still a crap argument which failed for the same reason.

They were statements of fact, rail against reality if you like but it won't change.

 

[cullennz]

And should this definition control access to traditionally sex-segregated spaces like women's changing rooms?

Well no

As toilets are based in most places on sex and not gender.

If the places can afford to either make unisex closed off cubicles then do it.

If the places can afford and have enough room to just make a different one called "extra bog" then do it.

As the vast majority can't just go with the flow

Head to the dudes. No one cares there. Male. Female. Spectrum... Whatever

 

[cullennz]

And should this definition control access to traditionally sex-segregated spaces like women's changing rooms?

Sorry. You said changing rooms

They are a whole different kettle of fish.

Find a pool with cubicles, which frankly most are these days, or find another pool that does if it makes you uncomfortable

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry. You said changing rooms

They are a whole different kettle of fish.

Find a pool with cubicles, which frankly most are these days, or find another pool that does if it makes you uncomfortable

How does that work for highschool girls who have to change for PE? Are they supposed to just find another school?

 

[Ziggurat]

They were statements of fact, rail against reality if you like but it won't change.

They were not just facts. They were chosen and framed in order to advance a particular argument. But they don't apply to the current debate in the way you think they do.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[cullennz]

How does that work for highschool girls who have to change for PE? Are they supposed to just find another school?

No idea

I have no idea why we have to even change from what we have

Dudes one side. Chicks other side

Trans-people are so rare if there is an issue just change in the bog

 

[JoeMorgue]

But the strange thing is I wasn't using analogy to argue, I was using examples of what has actually happened in regards to minority rights and people not shutting up to show how I thought Joe's comments were not right.

But used "minority" as the only criteria when it demonstrably isn't.

"There's not a lot of us" isn't an argument for why you are right.

________________

To the broader discussion we're so deep in the semantic weeds now with so many different meta-discussions about language we can't get anywhere.

 

[Myriad]

If people can use the facility for the other sex...

The facility is not intended to be used for sex. The facility is not intended to be used for someone else.

...then the facilities aren't segregated by sex.

Invalid premise, invalid conclusion.

Indeed, if people can use any facility they choose then the facilities are, by definition, not segregated by anything. So yes, that paragraph you wrote is self-contradictory.

I did not write it. I quoted it from current state law. You may direct your semantic objections here.

 

[Francesca R]

The facility is not intended to be used for sex.

Erm, what?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Listen no more "We're talking about gender, not sex" or any other variation thereof until someone explains what the difference is in a non-begging the answer you want way.

 

[Myriad]

Erm, what?

Just making guesses about what the phrase "use the facility for the other sex" is supposed to mean. For a post objecting to nuances of language in written law (which of course must refer to the body of previously existing law that it modifies, some of which is phrased in terms of sex), it's rather garbled.

 

[d4m10n]

Listen no more "We're talking about gender, not sex" or any other variation thereof until someone explains what the difference is in a non-begging the answer you want way.

Dude, this isn't rocket surgery.

I've attached a photo of an outfit intended to be worn by a young person at a wedding. Can you tell by looking at it what the sex of the person will be? If so, then you realize that (some) clothing is gendered, that is, typically associated by cultural consensus with either one sex or the other.

[Spoil]

[/Spoil]