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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So pick one and answer the question.

I already did

Oh, is intent relevant now? I thought it wasn't yesterday when you argued that Rolfe's view on the characteristics assigned to women were irrelevant.

yeah I think I used the wrong word there. It's not so much intent as context. Neutral statements can be used in different ways that can affect their neutrality.

Consider the statement 'Immigrants place an additional burden on social services'. In the context of a report into the provision of services that may be perfectly neutral and simply a statement of fact that should be considered in say determining how many doctors need to be trained. On the other hand the same statement could be very problematic if used in the context of a political party attempting to reduce immigration by painting immigrants as a burden to society.

Rolfe never said that. YOU are the one who interprets what she argues as transphobic.

She didn't use those words, but she certainly said that. I would be very surprised if any kind of bigot admitted their own bigotry. It is pretty unusual. Though not unknown.

 

[Belz...]

Well you had better complain to Belz then, because it was him that asked for truth to be put aside.

Eh?

How about you keep Zig and I apart and not expect us to align entirely on the issue?

I already did

Where? Take "Women are good at skydiving". How is that misogynistic?

Consider the statement 'Immigrants place an additional burden on social services'. In the context of a report into the provision of services that may be perfectly neutral and simply a statement of fact that should be considered in say determining how many doctors need to be trained. On the other hand the same statement could be very problematic if used in the context of a political party attempting to reduce immigration by painting immigrants as a burden to society.

Why? Personally I don't think the statement is true, but if it were, why would it be problematic to point it out when you're trying to argue against immigration? Sounds perfectly rational to me.

She didn't use those words, but she certainly said that. I would be very surprised if any kind of bigot admitted their own bigotry. It is pretty unusual. Though not unknown.

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me. Why would you infer anything from something she didn't say?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Eh?

How about you keep Zig and I apart and not expect us to align entirely on the issue?

Erm, I didn't.

Where? Take "Women are good at skydiving". How is that misogynistic?

I don't think it is.

Why? Personally I don't think the statement is true, but if it were, why would it be problematic to point it out when you're trying to argue against immigration? Sounds perfectly rational to me.

The statement is true. Any additional person places a burden on social services. But its also absent any context and when selectively used to suggest that somehow immigrants are a problem its an issue.And I think that's why you said 'i don't think it's true' because you were reading in the context and subtext that wasn't stated and disagreeing with it.

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me. Why would you infer anything from something she didn't say?

It's certainly not an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Are you saying that you can't say something is racist unless the person saying it says 'I am a racist' for example? Because that's very unlikely to happen.

 

[Belz...]

Erm, I didn't.

Ok so why are you asking him to complain to me?

I don't think it is.

Marvelous. So where is our disagreement, exactly?

The statement is true. Any additional person places a burden on social services.

Only if they are a net beneficiary.

But its also absent any context and when selectively used to suggest that somehow immigrants are a problem its an issue.

Why? If it's true, it's true.

And I think that's why you said 'i don't think it's true' because you were reading in the context and subtext that wasn't stated and disagreeing with it.

No, don't put words in my mouth. I disagreed with the factual nature of the statement, not its moral implications.

It's certainly not an argument from ignorance. I'm not sure I follow your argument here. Are you saying that you can't say something is racist unless the person saying it says 'I am a racist' for example? Because that's very unlikely to happen.

Well, if you're going to use that example, one thing you can't say is that that person flat-out said they were a racist. My point is that there's a difference between interpretation (yours) and demonstration.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ok so why are you asking him to complain to me?

Because he took issue with your request to put aside whether something is true or not. And then directed it at me

Marvelous. So where is our disagreement, exactly?

I really don't know. You were disagreeing with me that a true statement could still be problematic I think.

Only if they are a net beneficiary.

No, people place demands on resources simply by existing. The net beneficiary part is the context that wasn't there.

Why? If it's true, it's true.

Because statements can be factually true while also communicating things to the recipient that are not true. That's why we have things like 'dog whistle' statements

No, don't put words in my mouth. I disagreed with the factual nature of the statement, not its moral implications.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. In fact you answered your own question with the 'only if they are a net beneficiary' because you are adding or seeing meaning in the statement that wasn't there. True statements can be used to mislead people - see the £350m Brexit bus as an example.

Well, if you're going to use that example, one thing you can't say is that that person flat-out said they were a racist. My point is that there's a difference between interpretation (yours) and demonstration.

No the point is that people can demonstrate something without saying it. If someone says 'I wouldn't want to live next to a Pakistani' I am quite happy to say they have shown themselves to be a racist. If someone says 'I wouldn't want to live next to a Pakistani and nor would any white person' then I am quite happy to say they are attributing racist views to white people. I don't need them to tell me they are a racist or for them to say they think all white people are racist.

Equally when someone says transphobic things and says all/many/most women agree with them then I am going to say they are attributing transphobic views to women whether they admit to be transphobic or not. You of course are free to disagree with me but I would probably be unconvinced. I'm certainly not convinced by a 'but she didn't say those exact words' argument.

 

[Belz...]

No, people place demands on resources simply by existing.

That's simply not true. You're making the same mistake as the "they're coming to steal our jobs!" crowd, who forget that the immigrants, through their own purchases, are creating demand and thus jobs. You don't think that there are people who pay more in taxes than they get in services? If that were true the economy would be unsustainable.

Because statements can be factually true while also communicating things to the recipient that are not true. That's why we have things like 'dog whistle' statements

Dog whistles don't need to be true to begin with. They just need to communicate subtly.

In any case, what they communicate is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that we withhold important truths because some people might interpret it wrong or be offended by them?

I'm not putting words in your mouth. In fact you answered your own question with the 'only if they are a net beneficiary' because you are adding or seeing meaning in the statement that wasn't there.

Now you're bordering on the dishonest. We were doing fine up to that point, so I can't understand why. The part that "wasn't there" was included in MY reasons for disagreeing with you. It wasn't something that I read between the lines.

True statements can be used to mislead people - see the £350m Brexit bus as an example.

Wasn't the 350bn bus thing simply not true?

My point is that there's a difference between interpretation (yours) and demonstration.

No the point is that people can demonstrate something without saying it.

You know, for someone who said just a few posts ago that they don't agree with speaking for other people you have a knack for telling me what my point is.

If someone says 'I wouldn't want to live next to a Pakistani' I am quite happy to say they have shown themselves to be a racist.

Sure.

If someone says 'I wouldn't want to live next to a Pakistani and nor would any white person' then I am quite happy to say they are attributing racist views to white people. I don't need them to tell me they are a racist or for them to say they think all white people are racist.

That has no bearing on the discussion.

Equally when someone says transphobic things and says all/many/most women agree with them then I am going to say they are attributing transphobic views to women whether they admit to be transphobic or not.

Interesting that you switch from two obvious, specific examples of bigotry to a general claim about Rolfe's post without quoting a specific example to demonstrate your claim in the actual case we're discussing.

What did she say, specifically, that you interpret as transphobic and that she attributes to most/all women?

 

[Meadmaker]

What did she say, specifically, that you interpret as transphobic and that she attributes to most/all women?

It's on page 24. Sorry, I didn't qoute it.


The place where Archie puts thoughts in other people's heads is quoted in post 1024.

 

[Lithrael]

Yo, since nobody really addressed MM’s post, I wanted to weigh in to say yeah this is more the level of debate and confusion, and over-correction, I usually see in real life.

(...)Another thing that struck me as odd was that there were some people who were not so keen on the trans-girl bunking with the cis girls. They brought up the possibility that "something could happen". Lots of people jumped all over this and noted that "something could happen" whenever same-sex people shared a hotel room, and they tended to chastise the complainers for being homophobic by not recognizing the possibility that sexual things could go on among same sex roommates. The objectors, though, noted that while it was always true that "something could happen" between two girls sharing a room, in the usual situations that wouldn't involve having to buy diapers.

In general, anyone who brought such things up (I abstained from that conversation) was criticized for attacking the trans-girl, assuming that just because she was trans she was going to do something awful. I thought that was really, really, weird. What the objectors were actually saying was that the trans-girl was normal in at least one sense. She, like most teenagers, probably thought about sex a lot, and maybe even wanted to have sex. Her sexual orientation was probably not known to the mentor and certainly wasn't discussed in the thread, except by a few as a hypothetical. Somehow, it just seemed like the supporters of trans-cis roommate pairs were insisting that, alone of all their species, trans people would certainly never engage in sexual activity on a high school trip. Sure, cis-people might do that, but to say a trans-person might was, it seemed, akin to calling them perverts. How dare anyone suggest that such a thing could take place?

If the truth be told, I think most of the time you could throw one cis boy in with three cis girls in a hotel room, and nothing would happen. They would change into sweats and t-shirts in the bathroom, and there would be just as many virgins in the morning as there had been in the evening. Since we're talking Robotics kids, the probabilities go up even higher. I don't think the trans-girl is any more likely to "do anything" than anyone else, but I also don't think she's less likely.

I feel like reacting that way to someone who brings up such a concern, like someone is impugning a stranger’s character or over-sexualizing them, is a sort of over-correction. The reacting person has seen that when kids ID as gay, some people react as though these kids are inappropriately sexualized (while they put their little boy in a ‘ladykiller’ onesie); they’re pushing back against the common idea that any orientation besides straight is inappropriate or disgusting to consider in young people.

But they’ve not applied it sensibly to the situation. As you say, if this would be a fair concern with any cis boy then it is the same concern with this trans girl. In this case, identification has no bearing on anatomy. (Though I agree with you too that there never appeared to be any risk whatsoever of shenanigans from any budding nerd kids back when I was that age, parents still worry.)

I’d look to places that are more typically co-ed for solutions here. A chaperone perhaps.

 

[cullennz]

Yo, since nobody really addressed MM’s post, I wanted to weigh in to say yeah this is more the level of debate and confusion, and over-correction, I usually see in real life.



I feel like reacting that way to someone who brings up such a concern, like someone is impugning a stranger’s character or over-sexualizing them, is a sort of over-correction. The reacting person has seen that when kids ID as gay, some people react as though these kids are inappropriately sexualized (while they put their little boy in a ‘ladykiller’ onesie); they’re pushing back against the common idea that any orientation besides straight is inappropriate or disgusting to consider in young people.

But they’ve not applied it sensibly to the situation. As you say, if this would be a fair concern with any cis boy then it is the same concern with this trans girl. In this case, identification has no bearing on anatomy. (Though I agree with you too that there never appeared to be any risk whatsoever of shenanigans from any budding nerd kids back when I was that age, parents still worry.)

I’d look to places that are more typically co-ed for solutions here. A chaperone perhaps.

Seems pretty simple to me.

If a girl volunteers to share a room with a trans girl all good, but don't demand any of them to.

And depending on the age of everyone, it needs parental permission.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Seems pretty simple to me.

If a girl volunteers to share a room with a trans girl all good, but don't demand any of them to.

And depending on the age of everyone, it needs parental permission.

The immediate problem being that isn't really fair unless the rule is applied equally the other way around (at which point the absurdity of it should become apparent). It basically boils down to "because of your immutable quality, you don't get the same experience as everyone else unless someone is willing to sponsor or vouch for you."

A.K.A. you're not equal unless we say you are (which is a self-defeating argument).

The person who chooses to have a bunch of caveats and exemptions applied to them is the one who should have to jump through the extra hoops, not the other way around. Bear in mind that long-standing sets of caveats and exemptions being "the norm" does not make them any less so. Having to make strenuous efforts to be recognized as equal is often dismissed as wanting special rights (which becomes a way to diminish that person as being selfish...for wanting to be equal).

The correct way to do this is to have the default be random assignments and when someone indicates they have an objection, then someone has to volunteer to facilitate that objection.

"Ok, listen up everyone. Kathy doesn't want to room with a trans girl, do I have a non-trans volunteer who is willing to room with her?"

ETA: This puts the stigma on the bigot rather than giving the bigot institutional support to attack the target of their bigotry.

Personally I go further, my preference is "we run a camp here that treats everyone the same. You may have to room with a trans person. If you don't want to room with a trans person, then you are not welcome at this camp." I have no problem reinforcing the idea from a very young age that they are going to need to figure out how to interact in a society full of people different from themselves.

 

[Roboramma]

The immediate problem being that isn't really fair unless the rule is applied equally the other way around (at which point the absurdity of it should become apparent). It basically boils down to "because of your immutable quality, you don't get the same experience as everyone else unless someone is willing to sponsor or vouch for you."

But when that immutable quality actually is immutable and real and has potential real world consequences, that doesn't seem like a horrible policy to have.

Meadmaker, for instance, mentioned the issue that the transgirl can potentially get the other girls pregnant. That seems to be a real and at least potentially valid concern.

In general whatever the reasons for segregating the sexes, when they are valid, they seem to apply to sex and not gender, in which case when the segregation should be maintained it should be maintained not based on gender but on sex.

To what extent any segregation should be maintained is another question.

 

[cullennz]

The immediate problem being that isn't really fair unless the rule is applied equally the other way around (at which point the absurdity of it should become apparent). It basically boils down to "because of your immutable quality, you don't get the same experience as everyone else unless someone is willing to sponsor or vouch for you."

A.K.A. you're not equal unless we say you are (which is a self-defeating argument).

The person who chooses to have a bunch of caveats and exemptions applied to them is the one who should have to jump through the extra hoops, not the other way around. Bear in mind that long-standing sets of caveats and exemptions being "the norm" does not make them any less so. Having to make strenuous efforts to be recognized as equal is often dismissed as wanting special rights (which becomes a way to diminish that person as being selfish...for wanting to be equal).

The correct way to do this is to have the default be random assignments and when someone indicates they have an objection, then someone has to volunteer to facilitate that objection.

"Ok, listen up everyone. Kathy doesn't want to room with a trans girl, do I have a non-trans volunteer who is willing to room with her?"

ETA: This puts the stigma on the bigot rather than giving the bigot institutional support to attack the target of their bigotry.

Personally I go further, my preference is "we run a camp here that treats everyone the same. You may have to room with a trans person. If you don't want to room with a trans person, then you are not welcome at this camp." I have no problem reinforcing the idea from a very young age that they are going to need to figure out how to interact in a society full of people different from themselves.

Sorry, but totally disagree.

When they privately apply to stay in a hall of residence before the even enrol, just have an extra tick box field on the form

"Are you happy to room with a trans girl? If yes we may need to discuss privately with your olds" (obviously not that wording)

Neither the trans person or any other students ever know who said no.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

But when that immutable quality actually is immutable and real and has potential real world consequences, that doesn't seem like a horrible policy to have.

Meadmaker, for instance, mentioned the issue that the transgirl can potentially get the other girls pregnant. That seems to be a real and at least potentially valid concern.

In general whatever the reasons for segregating the sexes, when they are valid, they seem to apply to sex and not gender, in which case when the segregation should be maintained it should be maintained not based on gender but on sex.

To what extent any segregation should be maintained is another question.

You probably meant mutable.

Which means you're going to run into that problem where I expect you can't explain to me when you "decided" that you were cis or trans.

not sure at all what "real" means in this context of a quality or attribute of a person. Can a person's qualities or attributes be "not real?"

 

[cullennz]

You probably meant mutable.

Which means you're going to run into that problem where I expect you can't explain to me when you "decided" that you were cis or trans.

not sure at all what "real" means in this context of a quality or attribute of a person. Can a person's qualities or attributes be "not real?"

Again, pretty simple to me

If they are biologically male sex yet identify as girl gender, they are trans, and it is up to the biologically female students to agree to room with them.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Sorry, but totally disagree.

When they privately apply to stay in a hall of residence before the even enrol, just have an extra tick box field on the form

"Are you happy to room with a trans girl? If yes we may need to discuss privately with your olds" (obviously not that wording)

Neither the trans person or any other students ever know who said no.

It still means there is a person who needs someone else's permission to do something other people do not need permission to do.

Hell, this system also places extra burden on those merely indicating they don't have an objection that needs extra administrative effort to work through.

Oh, excellent how the privacy of the objector is upheld, but the privacy of the trans person, upon being granted extra special permission (to be treated like everyone else), is forfeit.

 

[cullennz]

It still means there is a person who needs someone else's permission to do something other people do not need permission to do.

Hell, this system also places extra burden on those merely indicating they don't have an objection that needs extra administrative effort to work through.

Oh, excellent how the privacy of the objector is upheld, but the privacy of the trans person, upon being granted extra special permission (to be treated like everyone else), is forfeit.

No it doesn't

It simply asks whether young female girls are happy to room with biological male boys who think they should have been girls.

All done privately in the background.

Not sure what you mean by extra administration with one text box, they talk to the parents any way.

Sorry, but don't understand the last paragraph.

Look. Like it or not some girls don't want to walk out of the shower to see a person wandering round with bloke bits waving around.

Irrational?

Wouldn't worry me, but then I have never been a young girl

 

[Roboramma]

You probably meant mutable.

No, I meant immutable, as in a female is a female and a male is a male.

Which means you're going to run into that problem where I expect you can't explain to me when you "decided" that you were cis or trans.

I'm not talking about gender, but I also didn't mention any decision making process.

I didn't suggest that trans people decide to be trans, for instance, if that is what you were interpreting me as saying, though there is some evidence that some people who think of themselves as trans at one point in their lives don't later in life.

not sure at all what "real" means in this context of a quality or attribute of a person. Can a person's qualities or attributes be "not real?"

There are some qualities that would be unreal, for instance if someone claimed to have wings, but didn't. The wings wouldn't exist. Whereas the fact that I am a male is a real quality that's objectively testable.

Subjective qualities can certainly also be real, of course, but they are harder to test for.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sorry, but totally disagree.

When they privately apply to stay in a hall of residence before the even enrol, just have an extra tick box field on the form

"Are you happy to room with a trans girl? If yes we may need to discuss privately with your olds" (obviously not that wording)

Neither the trans person or any other students ever know who said no.

Is it only trans people that need special permission to be treated the same as anyone else or are there other groups you want to single out too?

If there was a tick box to ask are you happy to room with someone of another race or religion would that be ok?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Meadmaker, for instance, mentioned the issue that the transgirl can potentially get the other girls pregnant. That seems to be a real and at least potentially valid concern.

It's a cherry-picked concern though from a list of possible things that could occur. One of the girls might be a violent bully who could hospitalise your daughter, one of them might be carrying a transmissable disease that could affect your daughters health. There are a million and one 'real and at least potentially valid' concerns that could have been latched onto, so what makes this one special?

 

[Roboramma]

It's a cherry-picked concern though from a list of possible things that could occur. One of the girls might be a violent bully who could hospitalise your daughter, one of them might be carrying a transmissable disease that could affect your daughters health. There are a million and one 'real and at least potentially valid' concerns that could have been latched onto, so what makes this one special?

All of those concerns apply equally to people of both sexes so segregation according to sex wouldn't help to avoid them.

If we knew of one of the girls who had a transmissible disease, it would make sense to keep her separate from the others, for instance. But not knowing that any of them do, I'm not sure what steps could be taken to avoid that particular harm, except perhaps all members of the group having their own separate rooms.