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

[Belz...]

I don't think she said anything about anyone being a mentally ill pervert.

See, that's what I've been saying for a while: some posters judt can't keep two thoughts in their heads at once. If one disagrees on any aspect of this topic, then they must believe the exact opposite of you on every other aspect.

ETA: In fact, it seems to me like they believe that if you think a trans woman is not a real woman, then you must also think that they should be discriminated against, or worse. That says more about them than about anyone they engage on the subject.

 

[d4m10n]

It is entirely possible, by the way, to hold a moral opinion despite hard facts. You don't need to pretend that the two align.

And indeed, they may have little to do with one another. I don't believe that any moral truths (re: sex or gender discrimination) would be altered by the finding that people with GID⁠—prior to treatment⁠—have measurably different brain physiology than those without it, but I'm happy to discuss what those differences might actually be. As a skeptic, I'm not about to take it on faith that such differences are significant or not, but as a humanist, it's not about to change my stance on when discrimination is wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

Sure, just like Quillette's articles about skull shape and algorthims had nothing to do with race-realism or neo-phrenology. They were just talking about skull shapes and neat facts about human biodiversity, how could they have known all these weirdo racists would have misunderstood their point?

The point about Quillette is that they curate content in a way, taken in its whole, is quite clearly meant to advocate a broader, reactionary ideology. It shows in the numerous examples when they've been duped by obvious frauds, it shows in the the way the tip toe up to reactionary pseudo-science, and it shows in the generally bad faith way they conduct themselves.

It's not ad-hom to say that Quillette is a rag for hacks. Everything read there should probably be cross-checked with some other publication that doesn't have such a unsavory reputation. So why even bother reading it if it can't be trusted, just read a better publication.

My entry into this long and winding thread was about JK Rowling and her constant sniping at trans people. I have no interest in getting into some tedious "facts and logic" arguments about a dogwhistling Quillete piece.

Are you accusing Roboramma of advocating a broader, reactionary ideology in making this post? Because all I can see him talk about is that sex is not a spectrum. Is your post in response a demonstration of you having no interest in getting into some tedious "facts and logic" arguments about a dogwhistling Quillette piece? Lastly, yes, rejecting an argument on the basis of a property of the arguer is an ad-hom - as is accepting an argument on such basis, for that matter.

 

[d4m10n]

Rowling is a troll.

So she doesn't really believe all this TERFy stuff, she just likes to publish shocking things which tank her reputation among her own peers?

 

[caveman1917]

To be fair, this thread did get bumped as a result of Rowling's statement. In forum threads, "what we are talking about" might vary a bit from one person to another.

But that's not what we (SuburbanTurkey, Roboramma, and myself) were talking about. We were talking about whether sex is binary or a spectrum. Personally I don't give a **** about what Rowling has or doesn't have to say.

 

[Meadmaker]

So she doesn't really believe all this TERFy stuff, she just likes to type shocking things which tank her reputation among her own peers?

That's why I said "troll" is not the best word. I prefer to use that word only to describe people who do not believe or are indifferent to the truth of what they say, but only say it because they are amused at the reaction.

Other people use it more broadly to include people who say things to be deliberately inflammatory. I think Rowling's recent comments fall into that category. (As an aside, her essay was tl;dr for me, but I did read a part of it. I think it supports the idea that she was being deliberately inflammatory. That isn't always a bad thing.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But that's not what we (SuburbanTurkey, Roboramma, and myself) were talking about. We were talking about whether sex is binary or a spectrum. Personally I don't give a **** about what Rowling has or doesn't have to say.

It is what I was talking about. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Rowling's comments and the reaction is what brought me to this thread.

My point about Quillette is that it's not a reliable source for good information. Even if whatever they publish is true, it's a waste of effort to find out. Good information can be found elsewhere.

Sure, a good skeptic will fact check everything and it doesn't really matter the source, because truth will out. In reality, there's so many hours in the day, and sometimes it's practical to filter content based on prior reputation. When it comes to scientific facts adjacent to cultural issues, Quillette is not reliable.

That's why I said "troll" is not the best word. I prefer to use that word only to describe people who do not believe or are indifferent to the truth of what they say, but only say it because they are amused at the reaction.

Other people use it more broadly to include people who say things to be deliberately inflammatory. I think Rowling's recent comments fall into that category. (As an aside, her essay was tl;dr for me, but I did read a part of it. I think it supports the idea that she was being deliberately inflammatory. That isn't always a bad thing.)

Fair enough. I don't think Rowling in insincere in these posts, so maybe troll isn't the best word. her original post seemed like deliberate baiting of an inflammatory response, but I think it's a pretty close reflection of her real views.

 

[Rolfe]

Nobody actually intending to read what Rowling herself has said about it?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Nobody actually intending to read what Rowling herself has said about it?

I read it. Lots of comments about her speculating that trans men are just mentally ill women permanently damaging their bodies and that she's not a bigot because she has a trans friend. She also characterizes the lesbian community as largely hostile to transgender people, which I suspect is not widely true and may only be a reflection of the circles Rowling travels in. And she repeats the argument that trans women represent a danger to women only spaces.

 

[Roboramma]

It is what I was talking about. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Rowling's comments and the reaction is what brought me to this thread.

My point about Quillette is that it's not a reliable source for good information. Even if whatever they publish is true, it's a waste of effort to find out. Good information can be found elsewhere.

I'm happy to agree that if I had posted the Quillette article as evidence of some facts, that you should double check those facts.

Instead, I was simply posting an article that makes an argument. You don't need to double check the accuracy of arguments, you just need to consider them, that how you find out if they are valid.

It's true that there are some facts in that article. If your claim is that the article's argument fails because it presents false facts, then I'd agree that we should double check them.

I don't find any of the facts presented in the article controversial. But if you do, please let me know which ones you disagree with.

If, instead, it's not the facts but rather the logic that you think isn't valid, well, that needs to be assessed, whatever the source. If the article had been printed in the New York Times, I'd still have expected you to read it and consider its logic.

If you thought the logic of my post was something like "this article says sex isn't a spectrum, therefore sex isn't a spectrum", then you misunderstood. Of course I expected you to actually read the article, and quite possibly disagree with it.

Or not read it. I posted it because I thought it was a well argued piece that impacted on the discussion here, not as an argument from authority.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm happy to agree that if I had posted the Quillette article as evidence of some facts, that you should double check those facts.

Instead, I was simply posting an article that makes an argument. You don't need to double check the accuracy of arguments, you just need to consider them, that how you find out if they are valid.

It's true that there are some facts in that article. If your claim is that the article's argument fails because it presents false facts, then I'd agree that we should double check them.

I don't find any of the facts presented in the article controversial. But if you do, please let me know which ones you disagree with.

If, instead, it's not the facts but rather the logic that you think isn't valid, well, that needs to be assessed, whatever the source. If the article had been printed in the New York Times, I'd still have expected you to read it and consider its logic.

If you thought the logic of my post was something like "this article says sex isn't a spectrum, therefore sex isn't a spectrum", then you misunderstood. Of course I expected you to actually read the article, and quite possibly disagree with it.

Or not read it. I posted it because I thought it was a well argued piece that impacted on the discussion here, not as an argument from authority.

I haven't read it, nor intend to, because I'm not willing to put in the rigorous work to ensure that I'm not being willfully deceived in a field of expertise I'm not familiar with, something Quillette has a repeat history of doing.

 

[Joe Random]

See, that's what I've been saying for a while: some posters judt can't keep two thoughts in their heads at once. If one disagrees on any aspect of this topic, then they must believe the exact opposite of you on every other aspect.

ETA: In fact, it seems to me like they believe that if you think a trans woman is not a real woman, then you must also think that they should be discriminated against, or worse. That says more about them than about anyone they engage on the subject.

Ironically when the thrust of many arguments is "gender/sexuality isn't a binary, it's a spectrum" there's also the 'and if you're not 100% for me then you must be 100% against me' mentality behind it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ironically when the thrust of many arguments is "gender/sexuality isn't a binary, it's a spectrum" there's also the 'and if you're not 100% for me then you must be 100% against me' mentality behind it.

 

[caveman1917]

It is what I was talking about. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Rowling's comments and the reaction is what brought me to this thread.

My point about Quillette is that it's not a reliable source for good information. Even if whatever they publish is true, it's a waste of effort to find out. Good information can be found elsewhere.

Sure, a good skeptic will fact check everything and it doesn't really matter the source, because truth will out. In reality, there's so many hours in the day, and sometimes it's practical to filter content based on prior reputation. When it comes to scientific facts adjacent to cultural issues, Quillette is not reliable.

As you might have noticed, a mere couple posts before Roboramma's post I had already referenced Wikipedia (which in turn references textbook definitions) as well as a statement on the matter by heaps of experts. As such, the claim of sex being binary was already established, making an ad-hom rejection of said claim because of it being in Quillette even more counter-productive: assuming your characterization of Quillette is accurate, to convince someone that a clock is broken you're better off doing it when the clock is out of sync rather than on those two times per day when the clock happens to be right.

 

[Belz...]

Ironically when the thrust of many arguments is "gender/sexuality isn't a binary, it's a spectrum" there's also the 'and if you're not 100% for me then you must be 100% against me' mentality behind it.

Yes, it's related to the "be tolerant of everything except differing opinions." routine.

 

[Joe Random]

Yes, it's related to the "be tolerant of everything except differing opinions." routine.

I think it's one of the more genuinely tragic parts of these types of conversations. The need to put someone who is really close to your opinion on the opposite side of the aisle, so to speak. It's something like :

"I shouldn't be beaten for my gender identity"
-damn straight

"Despite having male wedding tackle I should be able to wear a frilly dress and makeup if I want"
-right on

"Don't call me Steve, even when I forget to shave, but call me Sheila"
-will do my level best

"I should be able to compete in women's leagues in sports without restriction"
-well, I'm not settled on my opinion yet (one way or the other) on the effects of HRT and the like so I'll pass

"Lesbians who don't want to cherish my LadyPenis are bigots"
-yeah, can't agree with that part beca-

"BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE! SHAME SHAME SHAME!".


I mean you'd think it'd be a simple notion : not agreeing that transwomen are identical to biological females in every way doesn't mean you therefore think they're all deviant perverts who need a good dose of the Bible and the belt to get sorted.

 

[Belz...]

I mean you'd think it'd be a simple notion : not agreeing that transwomen are identical to biological females in every way doesn't mean you therefore think they're all deviant perverts who need a good dose of the Bible and the belt to get sorted.

It's quite sad that many posters on a forum specificallyt dedicated to critical thinking can't even get this basic principle straight.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As you might have noticed, a mere couple posts before Roboramma's post I had already referenced Wikipedia (which in turn references textbook definitions) as well as a statement on the matter by heaps of experts. As such, the claim of sex being binary was already established, making an ad-hom rejection of said claim because of it being in Quillette even more counter-productive: assuming your characterization of Quillette is accurate, to convince someone that a clock is broken you're better off doing it when the clock is out of sync rather than on those two times per day when the clock happens to be right.

Damn you all, you made me do it. I read a Quillette article. May God have mercy on your souls

Strikes me as a lot of strawmanning of what is the position most trans-rights advocates.

What the Quillette article, and Rowling, seem to be trying to do is conflate the clinical definition of sex, which is rightly mostly binary, with the more complicated issue of gender presentation and human psychology.

People like Rowling either strawman or cherry pick silly people who believe there is no difference between XX and XY people, which is of course absurd.

Really, the argument is that gender identity is something that exists beyond the basic facts of simple biology, and that trans-gender identification is neither a choice nor indication of mental illness.

It's a straw man to say that there is no difference between trans-women and cis-women. What TERFs like Rowling are really saying is that these differences are significant enough to justify sweeping discrimination and that efforts extended to grant trans people civil rights endanger "real" women and cheapen (this seems especially true for Rowling) Womanhood^TM
So yeah, we have Quillette, once again, trying to frame a cultural/social issue as a matter of right wingers who understand facts and illogical SJW's who deny easily observed reality. Big shock there.

 

[theprestige]

Lol quillette. Every subscription comes with a free pair of skull calipers.

Imagine having an argument so bad that you have to resort to slander to address the rebuttals.

 

[Belz...]

Really, the argument is that gender identity is something that exists beyond the basic facts of simple biology, and that trans-gender identification is neither a choice nor indication of mental illness.

And there's plenty of place to discuss all of that without relation to the question of whether trans people deserve equality, dignity or accomodation.