Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's only a "trouble" if you care so much about what other people say about you

You know that's a bad argument in any case.

It's a really bad argument in this discussion.

You can't play the "Well just don't worry what people think about you" in a discussion that is literally about having to accept people's personal gender headcanon as the truth. I'm allowed to worry about people thinking I'm a bigot exactly as much as a person with a penis and an XY chromosome is allowed to worry that people aren't thinking of him as a woman.

"Don't worry about what people think about you, just shut up and think about me the way I want you to" is turning into the Left's backward version of "You're a bigoted because you're bigoted against bigotry."
 
Last edited:
2. Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread. Size and shape of genitalia, levels of sex hormones, etc, vary widely even within cis males and females.

"Because you have a smaller penis, you're closer to the 'woman' end of the spectrum than someone with a larger penis. You're 100% XY and 0% XX, but it's still a continuum because reasons."

"Also, canine-feline is a spectrum. A maine coon is actually more of a dog than a chihuahua."

"And don't forget that the Tu-95 is more of a jet airplane than the ERJ 140."

Turns out that size does matter after all. Take that, Yoda!

(And take that, less-endowed men everywhere. Having a small penis really does make you less of a man.)
 
Last edited:
You know that's a bad argument in any case.

It's a really bad argument in this discussion.

You can't play the "Well just don't worry what people think about you" in a discussion that is literally about having to accept people's personal gender headcanon as the truth. I'm allowed to worry about people thinking I'm a bigot exactly as much as a person with a penis and an XY chromosome is allowed to worry that people aren't thinking of him as a woman.

You're also allowed to worry that Tiffani-Amber told Asheigh and Stacie-Khate that you looked fat in your coral pink top that you wore to the sock-hop, but that doesn't mean such worry wouldn't be a ridiculous waste of time.

What people think in their heads doesn't matter so long as they behave decently. Aren't you the guy who says he judges people on their actions, not their stated principles? So what if Person A thinks you're a bigot? So what if Person B thinks you don't respect zeir gender-presentation in the proper social context? As long as you're behaving decently you can think what you like in your own head, and they can in theirs. Person C thinks she's a glamourous cougar, Person D thinks he's a dude, Person E thinks they're She-Ra. It shouldn't affect you in the least until C hits on you, D borrows your jockstrap, and E comes at you swinging a sword and screaming for blood.

"Don't worry about what people think about you, just shut up and think about me the way I want you to" is turning into the Left's backward version of "You're a bigoted because you're bigoted against bigotry."

I don't think I'm "The Left" and qualified to speak for it. You're certainly not, either, so it seems an odd entertainment choice to imagine arguments with it.
 
Rowling wrote that Forstater was "asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law." It doesn't really sound like you are disagreeing with her characterization here.

Nor should you, since the summary of the judgment was "The specific belief that the Claimant holds as determined in the reasons, is not a philosophical belief protected by the Equality Act 2010."

If you think Rowling was factually wrong here, which specific claim of hers are you looking at?

I direct you to the parts of my post that you snipped out, in order to ignore them.
 
What people think in their heads doesn't matter so long as they behave decently.

And that's my entire point. If how I "behave" was all that matters we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"I literally believe you are this gender" is not behavior. You can go in whatever bathroom you want, you can play in any sports league you want, I'll call you whatever pronoun you want.

I will not literally believe I think you are a sexual category you are not nor will I pretend that's what I'm doing.
 
And that's my entire point. If how I "behave" was all that matters we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"I literally believe you are this gender" is not behavior. You can go in whatever bathroom you want, you can play in any sports league you want, I'll call you whatever pronoun you want.

I will not literally believe I think you are a sexual category you are not nor will I pretend that's what I'm doing.

Are you afraid of transgender agendaed telepaths monitoring your thoughts for acceptability? If not then why are you concerned about your thoughts, confined entirely to your head and not your behavior, upsetting anybody?
 
Are you afraid of transgender agendaed telepaths monitoring your thoughts for acceptability? If not then why are you concerned about your thoughts, confined entirely to your head and not your behavior, upsetting anybody?

The exact same reason they are worried that someone out there thinks they are this gender instead of that gender.

Your argument works just as good against transgender people. "Just don't ask people what gender they think you are and problem solved!"
 
I direct you to the parts of my post that you snipped out, in order to ignore them.
Your writing is not proving as clear to me as it is to you, but I'll try again.

Can you please just quote the part where Rowling said "A" but actually "not A" is the truth, or vice-versa? (Seems to me you're just giving her guff for accurately but briefly paraphrasing Forstater's actual beliefs, as opposed to misstating them.)

Remember, you're the one claiming Rowling has made several demonstrably false claims here. It should be super easy to say Rowling said X but actually not X because reasons. Andrew Carter did so over and over again.
Rowling is characterising it as a philosophical belief.
Do you disagree with such a characterization? Not all philosophical beliefs are legally protected when acted upon, last I checked.
 
Last edited:
The exact same reason they are worried that someone out there thinks they are this gender instead of that gender.

Your argument works just as good against transgender people. "Just don't ask people what gender they think you are and problem solved!"

I think all people can expect is that if they ask to be treated as a particular gender, and it doesn't harm you to do so, you should do so. What you think in the privacy of your head is not anybody's business but yours.
 
You misspelled debunked as "explained" - biological sex is binary, homo sapiens produces two types of gametes and not a spectrum of them, and is a sexually dimorphic species and not a sexually infinity-morphic species. The power of ideology to make people deny simple observable facts is astounding.

I am willing to believe that “not willing to accept it” is different from “debunked.”

Humans do produce two types of gametes. Big deal; that does not make sexual development binary. It’s not that simple. Cis-males typically get both kinds, an X and an Y, so they already are a mix. Cis-females get two X’s but they go through a lot of trouble to avoid gene dosage effects by turning off one of the two pairs of genes on the duplicated X’s so they don’t express double the X gene products. There may be two kinds of sperm but the actions they produce on sexual development are far from two binary effects.

And I know there have been discussions of Y only, XXY, androgen insensitivity, etc. people upthread that have been dismissed as too rare to worry about. Why rarity matters in this conversation I don’t know.

But more so how can one look at the range of phenotypes produced even by XY and XX humans and say sex is binary? I probably look a lot more like many women than I look like the young Arnold Schwarzenegger and I know I have an XY karyotype. Conversely I know a lot of very masculine looking XX women. Sex hormone levels are not exclusively binary. There are XX women who naturally make more testosterone than many XY men and vis versa for estrogen. There are pictures in biology books that demonstrate a continuum of genital structures ranging from “fully” male to fully “female” and at no one stage one can say, “okay this is no longer male genitalia and now is female.” Same about breasts. Or faces. Or...

But to move away from biology to psychology: why should it matter so intensely to you or to any one? It is relevant if you intend to have children with someone else. It might be relevant, depending on your open mindedness, if you intended to have sex with someone. But if you think about it the sex you believe yourself to be is rooted in your brain, not your genitals. That is what is crucial to us and how we identify, and biologically the brain and genitalia don’t always match perfectly.

If someone feels they are female what the hell business is it for me to question them in most circumstances? I mentioned there are some issues that can come up which I will discuss, but fundamentally they know better than I who they are. They deserve to be addressed and treated in the fashion they request. Am I to question that on the basis of the angular nature of their face? To demand they strip so I can measure the length of a sexual organ? Ask for a blood draw to run a karyotype? It is none of my business in most situations!

Finally we in our society often seem obsessed with sex/gender. It’s one of the first traits we ask when a baby is born. We look at a stranger and mentally assign them as male or female. But if you think about it, how does it matter so much? What if it isn’t that important to the person themselves? Is that going to be the end of civilization?
 
Last edited:
It's the solution if you only want to see men in pro sports.

Listen someone's walking away unhappy here.

And since every argument is some variation on "You're a bigot/intolerant because you don't understand what it's like to be X" all I can do is spin the wheel and hope to get yelled at the least.
 
Call me weird but I think several very simple principles apply:

1. If only for the sake of politeness, people should be referred to in the manner they themselves wish.

Call me "master" from now on, then.

2. Biological set is not binary, as explained multiple times upthread. Size and shape of genitalia, levels of sex hormones, etc, vary widely even within cis males and females.

The former does not follow from the latter. So far in this thread I haven't seen a serious attempt to put forth actual examples of people who can't be readily identified as male or female.

And from your later post:

But more so how can one look at the range of phenotypes produced even by XY and XX humans and say sex is binary? I probably look a lot more like many women than I look like the young Arnold Schwarzenegger and I know I have an XY karyotype.

So? What does that have to do with sex as a spectrum? Is there any question about your biological sex?

3. When I think of my sex/gender it involves what I think.

Funny, I was always under the impression that what I thought about my sex or gender was entirely irrelevant to the reality of it.

4. I don’t see how someone coming out as a trans-women diminishes in any way the “value” or “worth” of cis-women, or their struggles for equality.

Agreed.
 
It's very difficult indeed to tell the sex of many mammals without quite close inspection of the genitals. That doesn't mean they aren't one or the other. Come to that, while many birds are extremely sexually dimorphic, many others require a five-year training course to tell them apart. They're still either male or female, one or the other.
 
You have no more right to be protected from a man then I do.

Again I'm sick of this insulting demarcation.

"Not wanting a gay man in my locker room because he might rape me" is homophobic.

"Not wanting transgender people because they might sneak into a shared private space as the other gender and molest/rape me" is transphobic.

"You have to protect me from the straight cis-men because they might rape me" is exactly the same thing. A random straight cis-male in your locker room is exactly the same threat to you as a random gay male in mine is to me. Or a random transgender person in somebody else's.

If the lines people really want drawn in the sand is "Straight Cis-Men" and "Everybody else," which always seems to be the actual goal bubbling under the surface in the discussion, then they need to own it.

Your response has nothing to do with the content of my post.

And regarding this bit: "You have no more right to be protected from a man then I do."

Okay, fine. I have no more right to be protected from men than you do. I do, however, have far more reason to want protection. How many times in your life have you been sexually assaulted? How frequent an occurrence is it for you? What percentage of men do you think have been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes?

Do you think it's about the same as it is for women?
 
Last edited:
I'm as willing to commit to as much I am to the premise that men are more violent by nature. Or straight men. Or straight cis-men.

Alright, let's provisionally accept that males are no more violent than females by nature. What factors do you think produce the dramatically disparate rates of violence committed by men? What factors do you think produce the enormous difference in the volume of rapes and sexual assaults between males and females?
 
Alls I'm saying this idea that straight cis men (and let's be honest if we start pulling at the strings hard enough straight cis white men) are the only group that are supposed to just be happy with it just being assumed that they are going to turn sexually violent the moment society lets its guard down is, to the point that people react with honest confusion and even hostility when anyone doesn't just go along with it something I'm not anywhere near as onboard with as I'm being told I have to be.

"I don't want that gay man in my locker room because he might rape me" is homophobic.

"I don't want that black man in my neighborhood because he might robe me" is racist.

"I don't want that transgender person in my kids school because they might use it to sneak into the wrong bathroom and peeping Tom on my kid" is homophobic.

"I don't want that man near me because he might rape me" isn't just not sexists, it's seen as obvious, indeed self evident.

I'll grant there's legit concerns in there (and no that's not an invitation for hair splitting and drawing lines in the sand) but nowhere near enough for that kind of night and day disparage.

Yeah sure I know you have facts and figures that prove it's necessary. And like I said every racist has the "Blacks are 13.4% of the population but commit 51.1% of the murders" thing memorized too.
I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed any of the caricatured comments that you've presented here.

I'm genuinely unsure what your position is, or what you're arguing, or who you're arguing with.

And no "But you just don't know what it's like being a scawwed widdle woman" isn't a valid counter to any of this.
That's really quite derisive and insulting, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom