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

[Belz...]

Because there isn't an exception.

<BZZZT>

Sorry, wrong answer. Every principle has exceptions.

Would you like to try again?

 

[BobTheCoward]

<BZZZT>

Sorry, wrong answer. Every principle has exceptions.

Would you like to try again?

Prove it

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

No, Archie. You're wrong.

If someone thinks that women are better than men in every way, and thus that men are worse than women in every way (because these are logically equivalent), is that misogyny or misandry? It's misandry, obviously. Misogyny and misandry are not the same. You know this. Your correction of me when I accidentally switched them confirms that you know this.

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.

But it's not racist against Asians. That "against" matters to the definition of misogyny.

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.

But it's NOT a negative characteristic to Rolfe, if Rolfe is herself transphobic as you claimed. You may think of it as negative, but if Rolfe thinks it's positive, then she isn't viewing women badly by thinking they have that characteristic. And it makes no sense to describe her views of women as misogynistic if she thinks well of them. You have obfuscated meaning, not communicated it, by doing so. That's a perversion of the entire purpose of language.

 

[Belz...]

Prove it

Is that your final answer?

 

[Ziggurat]

But by making a claim, they incur the burden of proof.

Do you think this burden is some sort of force of nature, which can act upon the world? Do you think something will happen to people who don't answer questions you ask even though they had this burden to do so? Is there a skeptics' Karma which must be satisfied?

In short, how do you think any of this actually works?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Do you think this burden is some sort of force of nature, which can act upon the world? Do you think something will happen to people who don't answer questions you ask even though they had this burden to do so? Is there a skeptics' Karma which must be satisfied?

In short, how do you think any of this actually works?

Nope. Which is why I have gladly told people that I wont provide evidence and won't stop making a claim. I'm fine with that. I'm happy for others if they are fine with it to. But I can't decide for them if they are fine with it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You clearly said that even making a neutral or positive statement about an ethnic group is racist.

Then allow me to clarify. I said that making a statement about an ethnic group can be racist EVEN IF you think it's a positive thing. That doesn't mean all statements are racist. It means that what YOU think about the statement is irrelevant.

It follows that any such statement is racist. Or is it just the statements you disagree with personally?

I think you are really struggling with the whole concept of racism. It's not my personal opinion that such statements are racist. It's a fairly widely accepted fact.

First: is it true?

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

Well since that isn't what we are discussing that would be odd.

 

[Belz...]

Then allow me to clarify. I said that making a statement about an ethnic group can be racist EVEN IF you think it's a positive thing.

Ok but how does that work?

I think you are really struggling with the whole concept of racism.

You could help by explaining what you mean by the term, then.

Well since that isn't what we are discussing that would be odd.

See above.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, Archie. You're wrong.

If someone thinks that women are better than men in every way, and thus that men are worse than women in every way (because these are logically equivalent), is that misogyny or misandry? It's misandry, obviously. Misogyny and misandry are not the same. You know this. Your correction of me when I accidentally switched them confirms that you know this.

OK, let me check. Do you realise why your example is not the same?

But it's not racist against Asians. That "against" matters to the definition of misogyny.

Yes, it is. I even gave you a link with someone explaining why to help.

I mean I am genuinely scratching my head to find clearer examples.

If I say 'All women are only good for cooking and sex' can we agree that would be a sexist statement? (I would say misogynist as well but let's not get tied up in definitions again)

If I say 'All women are only good for cooking and sex, and that's great because I love that about them' has it become un-sexist?

If I say 'All black men are violent thugs' that's racist right? And if I add 'and you have to respect that about them, they know how to deal with ********' that hasn't made it less racist, has it?

I mean ... meet me somewhere here. You don't think that would be OK do you?

But it's NOT a negative characteristic to Rolfe,

And I've explained with help of examples why that doesn't matter. Rolfe's view is irrelevant.

if Rolfe is herself transphobic as you claimed. You may think of it as negative, but if Rolfe thinks it's positive, then she isn't viewing women badly by thinking they have that characteristic. And it makes no sense to describe her views of women as misogynistic if she thinks well of them. You have obfuscated meaning, not communicated it, by doing so. That's a perversion of the entire purpose of language.

She is communicating a negative view of women that would impact on the perception of women. Whether she realises it or not or agrees with it or not is neither here nor there. She is demonstrating an ingrained prejudice against women by assuming they are transphobic.

This exchange is quite helpful for me in many ways I often wondered why some people say such blatantly silly things about racism and prejudice. I hadn't realised that so many people have only a very vague handle on any of this and can't see what is very obvious to me. It helps explain a lot of the reactionary bollocks that I see online.

Seems like a lot of people need a Racism 101 to be taught in schools.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rolfe's view is irrelevant.

No, Archie, it's not.

She is communicating a negative view of women

You view it as negative. But without some universal objective standard by which to evaluate that (and you don't have one), this is a statement of opinion, not of fact. So everything about whether a statement is misogynistic or not becomes subjective. That is, frankly, a bad basis for communication. The speaker's intent should matter. Communication works better when it does.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ok but how does that work?

You could help by explaining what you mean by the term, then.

See above.[/QUOTE]

I've given you several examples. You are going to have to help me out and tell me why you don't think they work.

Below is the wiki intro on racism. It clearly shows that racism is more than just the first sentence.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[1][2] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[1][2][4]

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, Archie, it's not.

And the fact that you chopped everything other than that to simply assert your position again shows you have no interest in actually discussing this sensibly or are genuinely seeking to learn anything.

That being the case... why would I continue to engage with you or give you the benefit of the doubt?

See Belz, that's the kind of thing that shows when people are mistaken or simply lying to defend a position.

 

[Belz...]

If I say 'All women are only good for cooking and sex' can we agree that would be a sexist statement? (I would say misogynist as well but let's not get tied up in definitions again)

If I say 'All women are only good for cooking and sex, and that's great because I love that about them' has it become un-sexist?

If I say 'All black men are violent thugs' that's racist right? And if I add 'and you have to respect that about them, they know how to deal with ********' that hasn't made it less racist, has it?

I like your examples. They actually illustrate your point very nicely.

But instead of the above, I think "women are great at cooking" would be a better analogy. Is that sexist, regardless of whether it's true?

 

[Meadmaker]

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

Skepticism requires that an adherent critically examine his own beliefs.

Convincing others is optional.

 

[Belz...]

I've given you several examples. You are going to have to help me out and tell me why you don't think they work.

Below is the wiki intro on racism. It clearly shows that racism is more than just the first sentence.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[1][2] Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.[1][2][4]

I don't think "people X are great at Y" is very prejudiced. I think it's broadening the word to an unworkable degree.

 

[Ziggurat]

And the fact that you chopped everything other than that to simply assert your position again shows you have no interest in actually discussing this sensibly or are genuinely seeking to learn anything.

That being the case... why would I continue to engage with you or give you the benefit of the doubt?

I can cut you some slack for having missed an edit, but even so, this is quite hypocritical of you.

See Belz, that's the kind of thing that shows when people are mistaken or simply lying to defend a position.

Shall we recall how our interaction started?

Questions answered: 0
Understanding demonstrated: 0
Sense talked: 0

Yep. Thanks for your input.

You didn't address anything I said. It's an assertion without an argument. If that's a marker of being wrong or lying, well....

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think "people X are great at Y" is very prejudiced.

I would like to continue circulating the rumors that Puerto Ricans from Chicago are excellent at cooking, dancing, and lovemaking.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't think "people X are great at Y" is very prejudiced. I think it's broadening the word to an unworkable degree.

Disagree.

What is the root of prejudice? Can we agree it means to pre judge someone? (g)You are applying attributes to a person without ever knowing if it's indeed accurate to that person. Well... that's fine. Think whatever (g)you want. But! It's the ensuing behavior that often follows based only on what (g)YOU have decided they are that is the problem.

Frex, I have read all kinds of issues arising from the "all Asians are good at math" nonsense; mainly, it puts incredible pressures on those Asians who suck at math to try and live up to something that others have decided.

That's the point. It doesn't matter at all if (g)you think a particular trait is positive or negative; it's the act of going from the general to the specific with no causal route other than the appearance of belonging in that general group.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's the point. It doesn't matter at all if (g)you think a particular trait is positive or negative; it's the act of going from the general to the specific with no causal route other than the appearance of belonging in that general group.

Of course it matters. Positive stereotypes may be a problem too, but they aren’t the same problem, or even as bad a problem, as negative stereotypes. Ignoring the difference makes no sense.

 

[Roboramma]

It's all 3 I think you could argue. It's neither here nor there with regards to the point though.

It's important to the point because you are trying to map the problems with these examples to Rolfe's attitudes towards women, so it's important that the underlying issue actually maps across.