• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Earthborn said:
How is it "off limits" ?

Politics is kind off a spectrum too, you know. : p There is more than just "conservative" and "liberal".
Click to expand...

It's "basically off limits" because it's the extremists who tend to control resources for a particular effort. In this case, neither the rightward nor the leftward factions are interested enough in answering the question to allocate resources to do so. Thus it's basically off limits. Even if a moderate academic wanted to study it, they'd still have difficulty convincing their institution's gatekeepers that it was worth allocating resources. Thus, "basically off limits".

Also, "politics is kind off [sic] a spectrum too" begs the question that biological sex is a spectrum. Which it isn't.
 
theprestige said:
Have you actually followed up on those citations?
Click to expand...

I followed up on one of those provided by tyr, I had to look 3 steps deep to find the actual data before learning it was a sample size of 21. I didn't bother following up on any others after that.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Also, "politics is kind off [sic] a spectrum too" begs the question that biological sex is a spectrum. Which it isn't.
Click to expand...

Are trans-inclusive individuals referencing biological sex or are they referencing gender?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I'd be interested in why you think that my standards are double.
Click to expand...

Because your own source consisted of an opinion piece by one person who doesn't even have a PhD, yet you reject a list of numerous people who do on grounds of non-expertise.

But I didn't say that there weren't relevant experts who signed the statement. I said that the list was clearly driven by ideology, which the inclusion of numerous non-experts and non-relevant people can attest to.
Click to expand...

If anything is clearly driven by ideology it would appear to be that opinion piece you cited. Besides, you may not agree with the publisher's approach (ie "Academic and professional signatories from other disciplines are welcome but will be listed separately.") but that does not, in and of itself, attest to any particular ideology.

i can find you climate scientists who argue against anthropic climate change, if you like. Making a list of them will tell you nothing about how true anthropic climate change is.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, a perfect analogy! Several options in such case are available to us:

- Comparing numbers. Plenty more climate scientists argue for AGW than against it. For another example, comparing 1 student versus numerous experts.

- Checking third-party references, such as Wikipedia. Where we will find a clear statement for AGW and not against it. For another example, checking that Wikipedia defines sex as a binary and not a spectrum.
 
caveman1917 said:
Because your own source consisted of an opinion piece by one person who doesn't even have a PhD, yet you reject a list of numerous people who do on grounds of non-expertise.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that it was written by someone with a PhD. I linked to that specific article because it was well-sourced.

It was you who was reliant on the "experts" in your link. My pointing out that many of them are nothing of the kind is not an example of hypocrisy, no matter how much you try to massage it into being so.

Still, if that's what's important to you and citations aren't, why not read this piece? The author has a PhD in developmental genetics and is a professor of biology and gender studies.

I expect you'll find some excuse to hand-wave away what she has to say, too.

If anything is clearly driven by ideology it would appear to be that opinion piece you cited.
Click to expand...

Sure. If you ignore the citations.

Besides, you may not agree with the publisher's approach (ie "Academic and professional signatories from other disciplines are welcome but will be listed separately.") but that does not, in and of itself, attest to any particular ideology.
Click to expand...

Well, even if that policy were adhered to, I think it does - because it's attempting to bolster its argument with an agrumentum ad populum mixed, weirdly and incorrectly, with an appeal to authority (this person's opinion should be given weight, because they're studying French at university!).

But it's not adhered to. It's a list masquerading as being indicative of scientific consensus, while padding out its numbers with people who have no connection to the science. And, again, I'm talking about people listed as signatories.

Yes exactly, a perfect analogy! Several options in such case are available to us:

- Comparing numbers. Plenty more climate scientists argue for AGW than against it. For another example, comparing 1 student versus numerous experts.
Click to expand...

This is highly disingenuous, and you know it.

- Checking third-party references, such as Wikipedia. Where we will find a clear statement for AGW and not against it. For another example, checking that Wikipedia defines sex as a binary and not a spectrum.
Click to expand...

Is "if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true" really the stance you want to sign your name to?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I didn't claim that it was written by someone with a PhD. I linked to that specific article because it was well-sourced.

It was you who was reliant on the "experts" in your link. My pointing out that many of them are nothing of the kind is not an example of hypocrisy, no matter how much you try to massage it into being so.

Still, if that's what's important to you and citations aren't, why not read this piece? The author has a PhD in developmental genetics and is a professor of biology and gender studies.

I expect you'll find some excuse to hand-wave away what she has to say, too.
Click to expand...

If you want to call her later admission that it was "only tongue in cheek" that she had proposed more sexes than two an "excuse" then sure. Oh and, even if that weren't a joke, that's still only one PhD vs let's call it dozens - your confirmation bias keeps showing.

Sure. If you ignore the citations.
Click to expand...

Have you followed up on those citations? (I'm getting a deja-vu here)

Well, even if that policy were adhered to, I think it does - because it's attempting to bolster its argument with an agrumentum ad populum mixed, weirdly and incorrectly, with an appeal to authority (this person's opinion should be given weight, because they're studying French at university!).

But it's not adhered to. It's a list masquerading as being indicative of scientific consensus, while padding out its numbers with people who have no connection to the science. And, again, I'm talking about people listed as signatories.
Click to expand...

Talk about finding excuses to hand-wave away what experts have to say on the question.

This is highly disingenuous, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Not at all, you have one PhD candidate and one PhD - who later claimed to be joking, but nevertheless - versus dozens of PhD's. It is what it is, by any objective metric this does not constitute evidence for sex being a spectrum. And that's of course only going by authority and not even bothering with all the problems of the "sex is a spectrum" notion as such.

Is "if it's in Wikipedia, it must be true" really the stance you want to sign your name to?
Click to expand...

No, and neither was that the argument. None of which changes the fact that I have at least 1 textbook supporting the "sex is binary" claim (ie the one referenced by that Wikipedia article) whereas you have none for the "sex is a spectrum" claim.
 
Garb said:
What bathroom should trans men use, in this case?

So much kerfuffle about potential "predators" pretending to be trans women, which leads to the argument that biology should determine what bathroom you use, but I find it hard to believe someone like Rowling would be willing to allow a passing trans man to enter a woman's bathroom, either.
Click to expand...

Use the bathroom of the gender for which you can pass. Regardless of how you identify, base bathroom selection on what strangers are going to assume. So if you're a transperson who has just come out, and hasn't yet made much progress in the visual aspect of transitioning, stick with the bathroom that matches your biological sex. Once you can reasonably pass, switch.

It doesn't seem like it should really be an issue. It really seems like anyone with some common sense would adopt this approach.
 
Garb said:
Are trans-inclusive individuals referencing biological sex or are they referencing gender?
Click to expand...

Yes.

More seriously, this is how I see it:

Gender is a social construct built on a biological fact. Society hews to binary gender because that's intuitively the most reasonable accommodation of the underlying biological fact of binary sex.

The main thrust of gender dysphoria and transgenderism as a treatment of that condition is to preserve the binary distinction in society, and to let the dysphoric choose which of the two social constructs they would prefer to identify as.

Mainstream transgenderism says, basically, "I believe in binary gender as a social construct. I was born XY, but I think of myself as XX. I want society to think of me as XX. I want to be able to embody the full social construct for XX, and be accepted in society on that basis."

I.e., the transgender goal can only be achieved if society values and retains the binary gender construct.

Obviously there are some people who want to abolish the binary distinction in society altogether. And there are some people who don't want to be locked into either option. Those are related, but separate issues.

A born man who feels like a woman and wants to wear dresses and all the other stereotypical accessories of womanhood is not helped by the abolition of the stereotype. Living the opposite-sex stereotype is the whole point.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Use the bathroom of the gender for which you can pass. Regardless of how you identify, base bathroom selection on what strangers are going to assume. So if you're a transperson who has just come out, and hasn't yet made much progress in the visual aspect of transitioning, stick with the bathroom that matches your biological sex. Once you can reasonably pass, switch.

It doesn't seem like it should really be an issue. It really seems like anyone with some common sense would adopt this approach.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but we have also seen cis women admonished for going into bathrooms because of this, so I'm not sure what kind of solution that is providing.

I also am not sure of the number of trans people who don't pass who try to enter bathrooms of their assigned gender, so I can't speak to whether this is a major issue worth addressing.
 
theprestige said:
Yes.

More seriously, this is how I see it:

Gender is a social construct built on a biological fact. Society hews to binary gender because that's intuitively the most reasonable accommodation of the underlying biological fact of binary sex.

The main thrust of gender dysphoria and transgenderism as a treatment of that condition is to preserve the binary distinction in society, and to let the dysphoric choose which of the two social constructs they would prefer to identify as.

Mainstream transgenderism says, basically, "I believe in binary gender as a social construct. I was born XY, but I think of myself as XX. I want society to think of me as XX. I want to be able to embody the full social construct for XX, and be accepted in society on that basis."

I.e., the transgender goal can only be achieved if society values and retains the binary gender construct.

Obviously there are some people who want to abolish the binary distinction in society altogether. And there are some people who don't want to be locked into either option. Those are related, but separate issues.

A born man who feels like a woman and wants to wear dresses and all the other stereotypical accessories of womanhood is not helped by the abolition of the stereotype. Living the opposite-sex stereotype is the whole point.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any citations regarding this?
 
theprestige said:
Would you prefer a snarky response, or a good faith attempt to turn this objection into a productive discussion?
Click to expand...

:( I provided several on-topic posts yesterday which garnered almost no responses. I'm stuck trying to figure out whether it's because I was simply too reasonable and had too many good points to provide for exciting verbal jousting... or whether I was simply not heard for... reasons that are relevant to the thread topic...

Belz... said:
Shut up and make me a sandwich!
Click to expand...
:bowl: There it is! That's the kind of humorous tip of the hat I was hoping for!
 
Emily's Cat said:
:( I provided several on-topic posts yesterday which garnered almost no responses. I'm stuck trying to figure out whether it's because I was simply too reasonable and had too many good points to provide for exciting verbal jousting... or whether I was simply not heard for... reasons that are relevant to the thread topic...
Click to expand...

For what it's worth I agree with your position as I understand it, and I thought your posts were sensible and worthwhile.

That said, I don't see many men in this thread telling women how they should behave. Is there a specific argument you see being made here, that should be addressed on that basis?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
...irrelevant bits removed...
Click to expand...

I've removed all the unnecessary answers to questions I didn't ask so we can focus on why you didn't answer the only question I did ask, and that you completely avoided, so I'll try again:

The Atheist said:
What have you done for them [trans people] apart from internet warrioring?
Click to expand...

I'll hazard a guess that you didn't answer it, because the answer is "nothing".

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom