Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

[Belz...]

Because, and this shouldn't be a surprise, differences between two things can be important in some contexts and not important in others.

That's very convenient for you. See below.

That's not the question at all. That's a different question.

No, how about you provide the legal definition that supports your point?

I call people liars when they are corrected and continue to repeat the false claims and know fine well that what they are saying isn't true.

The problem is that they either accept your interpretation and claims or they are liars. Sorry, but telling someone that they are wrong is not the same thing as them now knowing that they are wrong. You're missing a step.

Do you agree that it is incoherent to say on one hand 'the law says women can't rape by definition, therefore women can't rape' but on the other say 'the law says transwomen are legally women, but I don't agree with that so I will just insist they aren't'

Only if "it's the law" is stated to be the only relevant criterion. Is it?

Note that the question is not whether you agree with either of those positions but whether you agree that holding both simultaneously is disingenuous.

No, you said "incoherent", not "disingenuous". There you go again, assigning dishonesty to even mistakes, ignorance or logical errors.

 

[Darat]

Not at all from me,
I just think that having a special crime that only penis's can do is weird.

As I said earlier,
if a male cuts off their penis..then at a later date makes an artificial penis and straps it in the anatomically correct position, then goes out and does what rapists do, is it rape?

Yes would be my answer,
but legally there's a distinction without a difference, 'it's not rape because no penis was involved'.
Ridiculous.

Rape and nonconsentual penetration should be the same crime, why are penises getting special treatment.

RE:the highlighted:
What do you mean by "the particular horror of actual rape"?

are you coming from a position of all males are a threat or something?

Rolfe is quite behind the times with current women rights campaigners in regards to the definition of rape. Many women have been campaigning for a long time to get the legal definition of rape changed, and in many places they have succeeded. In general the change seems to be making the penetration not limited to a penis and not limiting it to vaginal penetration.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Only if you're using a definition of the words so broad that everybody fits within them in some way or another. Racism is belief in the inferiority of an ethnic group. Assigning, erroneously perhaps, a characteristic you admire to that group is not racism.

You are simply demonstrating your ignorance and in fact it is you who is using a weird and wonderful definition of racism. And I am really not sure where to start with demonstrating this to you because its so off the wall it would be like someone claiming that cheese isn't food or cars aren't a form of transportation.

 

[Belz...]

You are simply demonstrating your ignorance and in fact it is you who is using a weird and wonderful definition of racism.

"No you" and "you're wrong" thrown into a single sentence. That's impressive.

If I were another person I might be fooled to believe that those are actually convincing arguments.

According to you, any statement that distinguishes an ethnic group from another is racist. That's ridiculous. It would mean that pointing out that black people in fact have darker skin would be racist. Especially, I gather, if you think darker skin is a good thing!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But you didn't just claim prejudice. You specifically claimed misandry. And it's not misandry, even if it's prejudice of some other kind. That's not a hard concept to grasp, yet you keep failing to do so.

No I claimed misogyny. And I posted a definition to show that ingrained prejudice against women is misogyny. And assigning a characteristic to women based on your prejudices counts even if you don't think its a negative characteristic.

Evidently everyone except you doesn't understand prejudice.

Or perhaps it's just you. Occam's razor time.

'Everyone' being 2 or 3 random people on a internet forum who clearly demonstrate they haven't a clue.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Human nature does. You expended effort to ask. Not much, but maybe you don't care much. But you do care at least a tiny bit. Why?

Not interested in answering this question.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

According to you, any statement that distinguishes an ethnic group from another is racist.

Can you point out where I have said that? Or do you mean 'it would be convenient for me if you had said that, so I am going to pretend you did'

Just answer a simple question. Do you believe it is racist to think or say that all black men have large penises? if the answer is no, what would it take to convince you otherwise?

 

[Ziggurat]

No I claimed misogyny. And I posted a definition to show that ingrained prejudice against women is misogyny.

Sorry, misogyny, slip of the fingers. But your definition backs me up:

And assigning a characteristic to women based on your prejudices counts even if you don't think its a negative characteristic.

No, it doesn't count as prejudice against women if you think that characteristic is positive. The "against" requires that the characteristic be negative. If it's a positive, then the prejudice is for women, not against them. Thinking that women are better than men in all ways is prejudice, but it's obviously not misogyny.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, how about you provide the legal definition that supports your point?

What are you talking about? I did! That's where this started. Section 9.1 of the GRA 2004.

The problem is that they either accept your interpretation and claims or they are liars. Sorry, but telling someone that they are wrong is not the same thing as them now knowing that they are wrong. You're missing a step.

No sorry the problem is they either accept the facts or they are liars. I have shown you the law.

Only if "it's the law" is stated to be the only relevant criterion. Is it?

Yes. It was when we were talking about rape.

No, you said "incoherent", not "disingenuous". There you go again, assigning dishonesty to even mistakes, ignorance or logical errors.

Continuing to hold an incoherent position when it is pointed out to you is disingenuous. Its blatantly obvious. None of this is difficult. But you continue to insist that somehow it is.

 

[Belz...]

Can you point out where I have said that?

You clearly said that even making a neutral or positive statement about an ethnic group is racist. It follows that any such statement is racist. Or is it just the statements you disagree with personally?

Do you believe it is racist to think or say that all black men have large penises?

First: is it true?

if the answer is no, what would it take to convince you otherwise?

A definition of "racism" that includes mere statements of fact.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not interested in answering this question.

Strangely enough, people are losing interest in answering yours.

 

[Belz...]

What are you talking about? I did! That's where this started. Section 9.1 of the GRA 2004.

No, I meant a legal definition of "female". I admit it wasn't clear.

No sorry the problem is they either accept the facts or they are liars.

An interesting perspective. If I call something a fact will you automatically agree to it lest you be called a liar?

Yes. It was when we were talking about rape.

Sorry, did Rolfe say that it being the law was the only criterion? I didn't follow the whole conversation here.

Continuing to hold an incoherent position when it is pointed out to you is disingenuous. Its blatantly obvious. None of this is difficult. But you continue to insist that somehow it is.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the idea that people might not think they are wrong and continue to be wrong without being dishonest. I find that odd.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Strangely enough, people are losing interest in answering yours.

But by making a claim, they incur the burden of proof. The question is asking for the burden to be satisfied.

You are just asking me a question.

 

[Belz...]

But by making a claim, they incur the burden of proof. The question is asking for the burden to be satisfied.

You are just asking me a question.

Sorry, the principle of burden of proof is outweighed by the principle of not wasting time on those who have no intention of engaging honestly.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sorry, misogyny, slip of the fingers. But your definition backs me up:

No, it doesn't count as prejudice against women if you think that characteristic is positive. The "against" requires that the characteristic be negative. If it's a positive, then the prejudice is for women, not against them. Thinking that women are better than men in all ways is prejudice, but it's obviously not misogyny.

Which is why I provided you with two clear examples to show why you are incorrect in your thinking. Because it doesn't matter if you think the trait is positive or not.

I've now given a third example which I think is even more clear - it's racist to think that Asians are good at maths.

https://theracecardproject.com/arent-asians-good-math/

So the claim we are discussing is misogynist on at least 2 counts:

1. It assigns a negative characteristic to the majority of women - that they are transphobic.
2. It assigns a negative characteristic to women who don't agree with the claim by somehow asserting that they are failing or not thinking right by not sharing the view.

Furthermore, I would seriously doubt if its even true. Since in my experience the majority of women I have interacted with don't share the view at all. But then we are into the realm of anecdote and we don't have the data.

It's also something that is easily fixed. The claim could simply be altered to be 'i think...' or 'women like me think....' and it would be non-contentious. it could of course be a slip of the finger when typing but when called out on it then you would surely correct it rather than double-down on it and start his convoluted nonsense which we are now knee-deep in.

That someone wants to co-opt all or most women to their view without caring to consult them on it is again, i think, misogynist. And again, you demonstrated a misunderstanding of the point, by claiming that i was also engaging in the same when, in fact, I have never claimed to be speaking for any group or co-opting tacit agreement from anyone. My views are my own. My observations of others' behaviours is my own. I do not for a second think that anyone here who is being blatantly transphobic would agree with me that they are, quite the opposite in fact.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sorry, the principle of burden of proof is outweighed by the principle of not wasting time on those who have no intention of engaging honestly.

A cursory review of sources of skepticism principles reveals no exceptions along those lines.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, I meant a legal definition of "female". I admit it wasn't clear.

I'm not sure why that's relevant. Or if such a thing exists. I will repeat again that my point was a very simple one. You can change legally from a man to a woman or vice versa. So if you believe that legal definitions are key then you should accept that legally that can happen.

An interesting perspective. If I call something a fact will you automatically agree to it lest you be called a liar?

Calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact so no. But failing to accept facts is not the same as failing to accept whatever nonsense you make up. I showed you the law. It's not in the least bit complicated or vague. You went off on a tangent about other things which may be interesting diversions but don't change the fact of the matter.

Sorry, did Rolfe say that it being the law was the only criterion? I didn't follow the whole conversation here.

When it came to rape. Yes. That was the end of the discussion. Women can't rape because the law says they can't rape. Which is why I interjected to point out that the law also says that men can change their sex and become legally women.

Now you can look at the response to that point and judge whether it was a genuine attempt to understand and clarify or something else.

You seem to be completely oblivious to the idea that people might not think they are wrong and continue to be wrong without being dishonest. I find that odd.

No, I am not oblivious to it. In fact quite the opposite. I am very familiar with people being honestly wrong which is why I can recognise it when I see it and recognise what isn't it when I see that too.

I am also familiar with a lot of the arguments being put forward around these matters and dishonesty is a common thread with them. That being the case, benefit of the doubt has been exhausted.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

You don't know why it's relevant to define terms? Here's why: so that we're all sure we're talking about the same thing. So, how is "female" defined as far as the law is concerned?

Calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact so no.

Marvelous. We're in agreement.

But failing to accept facts is not the same as failing to accept whatever nonsense you make up. I showed you the law.

A moment ago you were talking about someone else. Why are you suddenly talking about me?

When it came to rape. Yes. That was the end of the discussion. Women can't rape because the law says they can't rape.

Sure but it didn't go further than that, yes? I mean how about we ask Rolfe whether "it's the law" is the only criterion? Let's do that. ROLFE! Is what's legal or not the only criterion?

No, I am not oblivious to it. In fact quite the opposite. I am very familiar with people being honestly wrong which is why I can recognise it when I see it and recognise what isn't it when I see that too.

Sorry, I'm not going to blindly trust your judgment.

I am also familiar with a lot of the arguments being put forward around these matters and dishonesty is a common thread with them.

Yeah, on both sides.

 

[Belz...]

A cursory review of sources of skepticism principles reveals no exceptions along those lines.

Oh, I'm sure you spent quite a bit of time looking that over before posting that.

Yeah, general principles rarely themselves enumerate their own exceptions. I'm sure you can figure out why.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh, I'm sure you spent quite a bit of time looking that over before posting that.

Yeah, general principles rarely themselves enumerate their own exceptions. I'm sure you can figure out why.

Because there isn't an exception.