Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Interesting theory. How many of these "we can't tell if this is a human or not" cases are you aware of?

Another odd question. You're trying really hard to create some kind of gotcha, but I don't think you really know what you're trying to achieve other than that, or how you're trying to achieve it. Instead you seem to be flailing around, hoping that you'll find something that sticks.

You do understand that "species" isn't a rigid category, don't you? That the idea of there being a single entity that is considered "the first human", born from something that was not human is nonsense. That instead it was a gradual progression from creatures that we would classify as not human into creatures that we would classify as human. Do I really have to explain this to you? I suspect I don't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

How would anybody know what you're accepting or not? Do you issue a press release announcing to the world what you think about every topic? If you don't act in a bigoted way you won't be considered a bigot, no matter what you think in the privacy of your mind.

I'm reminded of someone I internet-knew a long time ago. They were absolutely gobsmacked when they were 18 to find out that their dad was a massive racist. Like, full-on KKK-loving, "kill the *******" racist. But he'd never even hinted at any of those views to his son until he was an adult because he thought that his son deserved to make up his own mind about things.

It's an unusual case, but it does demonstrate that you absolutely can keep things in your own head.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If you spend any time hanging out in lesbian spaces, it'll quickly become apparent that a lot of young girls had the "don't ogle people as they're getting changed in front of you" problem in school. I imagine many a gay man can testify to having had a similarly difficult time in high school.

So segregating on the basis of neither sex nor gender will get rid of the problem that any given person may be ogled when taking their clothes off in front of strangers. Especially when the people in question are teenagers.

 

[d4m10n]

Then your guess is that it's pure coincidence, and she had no idea that the phrase she was using had a legal meaning which was core to the case she was directly referencing.

Nope. My guess is that Rowling knows the phrase has various valences, as do we. She probably knows the phrase had a broader meaning for decades before it became a term of art in British case law, and that it is up to a reasonable reader to figure out whether the phrase is meant in a broader sense or a narrower sense. So far as I can tell, there is only one reasonable interpretation left open to us in this case, since otherwise Forstater would have been asking the judge to conclude something which has already been determined.

Suppose you came upon this sentence: "A conscientious objector feels duty bound to act according to deeply held religious or philosophical beliefs." What meaning would you assign to the phrase here? What is preventing you from assigning that same meaning in other contexts?

 

[d4m10n]

No, I'm the one asking that those who characterize her essay as a "factually inaccurate anti-trans screed" actually take a bit effort to show that the essay in question actually got at least few facts wrong.

And I have already pointed you to a long deconstruction. Which you, sceptical thinker that you are, have chosen not to read.

I have chosen not to make the case that the lengthy deconstruction in question is (or is not) actually pointing out a series of factual inaccuracies. You are free to do so yourself, of course, but I don't think you are going to get very far.

Here is how that could work, if you wanted to have a go:

• Rowling said "X"
  
• But "not X" is true because reasons A, B, C.
  
• Rowling said "Y"
  
• But "not Y" is true because reasons D, E, F.
  
• Rowling said "Z"
  
• But "not Z" is true because reasons G, H, J.
  

I remain skeptical as to whether Rowling made any factually inaccurate claims about anyone's philosophical beliefs (in any sense of that phrase) but you are free to point out which false conclusions she was attempting to foist upon her readership.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nope. My guess is that Rowling knows the phrase has various valences, as do we. She probably knows the phrase had a broader meaning for decades before it became a term of art in British case law, and that it is up to a reasonable reader to figure out whether the phrase is meant in that broader sense or not. So far as I can tell, there is only one reasonable interpretation left open to us, since otherwise Forstater would have been asking the judge to conclude something which has already been determined.

Then you think it likely that she did know the phrase had a specific legal meaning, which was used in the legal ruling that she was describing, and nonetheless used it intending a different meaning.

Suppose you came upon this sentence: "A conscientious objector feels duty bound to act according to deeply held religious or philosophical beliefs." What meaning would you assign to the phrase here?

If it were being used in the context of discussing UK law, I would expect it to be referencing the definition in UK law.

What is preventing you from assigning that same meaning in other contexts?

In the context of discussing UK law, it is that it has a specific definition in UK law.

This isn't just true of this phrase. If, for example, someone were talking about a court case and said of the defendant "she was convicted of manslaughter, but received a pardon", I would consider that misleading if what was meant by "received a pardon" was that at one point in the trial she spoke softly and was asked to repeat herself, rather than that she was legally absolved of her crime.

Context matters.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you spend any time hanging out in lesbian spaces,

Not since that restraining order.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have chosen not to make the case that the lengthy deconstruction in question is (or is not) actually pointing out a series of factual inaccuracies.

Indeed. You have, in fact, chosen not to even read it;

I remain skeptical as to whether Rowling made any factually inaccurate claims about anyone's philosophical beliefs (in any sense of that phrase) but you are free to point out which false conclusions she was attempting to foist upon her readership.

Exhibit A.

 

[d4m10n]

Exhibit A.

Are you claiming that Rowling did make a factually inaccurate claim about someone's philosophical beliefs? If so, which factually accurate claim would you care to put forward to rebut hers?

(I'm asking that you use your own words here, if you don't mind.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Arcade22]

My friend who is especially attracted to trans women got heated when I mentioned this thread. I cited arguments about protecting women's spaces. He said protection is exactly what trans women are looking for and that they need it more than anybody. I didn't ask him about women's sports or changing rooms. But on the bathroom aspect he was adamant and he made a good argument. I had to remind him that I don't really have a dog in this fight, but obviously he had thought about it.

I tend to agree that if no one thought it was a big deal to change in the presence of the opposite sex it would not be the problem it apparently is. I am a cis-hetero-woman, and I (and several girlfriends) have always been modest even in the presence of other women. I ascribe this to something I call emotional privacy. It's not polite to stare. I really hope that straight cis men trying to pretend that they're pretending to not be interested in women's bodies is a vanishingly small segment of so-called humanity. Unfortunately "girls in the locker room" fantasies are a real thing for some men. I can just about get my head around the concept that it could happen. It leaves me not knowing what the best public policy would be. But I tend to agree that being ogled by anyone would be uncomfortable, and that trans women create a no greater threat to me than any other woman-identifying person.

Where I live thousands upon thousands of guys, including teenage boys in the prime of their youth, get completely naked and shower together (usually unknowingly) with raging homo/bisexual men when they are at public swimming pools and yet it's very rare that anyone experiences any significant discomfort let alone sexual harassment or worse.

It's almost like people forget that sexual harassment is illegal. Wheter they are gay or straight, male or female, black or white, creepy perverts are not allowed to use public bathrooms to perv on people with impunity even when it doesn't go that far.

With that in mind I'd say that transwomen are at far greater threat of being subject to uncomfortable stares and sexual harassment if they were forced to share undressing and showering facilities with men, given how exposed they would be.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Are you claiming that Rowling did make a factually inaccurate claim about someone's philosophical beliefs? If so, which factually accurate claim would you care to put forward to rebut hers?

(I'm asking that you use your own words here, if you don't mind.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Exhibit B.

 

[d4m10n]

Does anyone else understand what Squeegee is saying here?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[d4m10n]

If I really wanted to show that Rowling was providing her readers with some number of factual inaccuracies re: trans activism, what I would do is quote what she said and show how it is false.

For the sake of example, here are a few counterfactuals:

I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets.

In fact, Maya Forstater never lost her job, she was placed on paid administrative leave.

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists...

In fact, there are only twelve women who feel this way, but they have 1,000 Twitter handles between them.

None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people...

In fact, three of them have expressed both fear and loathing [examples].

The upside of this quoting-and-refuting approach is that we know precisely which claims are being addressed, why they are considered false, and (perhaps most importantly) we have someone willing to make the counterargument themselves, on this very forum.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm still waiting on anyone to answer how I'm supposed to treat a biological male who "identifies as a woman" differently from either a biological male or a biological female in anyway that matters.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In fact, Maya Forstater never lost her job, she was placed on paid administrative leave.

You're actually close with this one. Her contract wasn't renewed.

But you knew that, because it's the very fist point in the twitter thread you read critically, rather than just skimming for something you could jump on in order to hand-wave the whole thing away, right?

 

[zooterkin]

You're actually close with this one. Her contract wasn't renewed.

But you knew that, because it's the very fist point in the twitter thread you read critically, rather than just skimming for something you could jump on in order to hand-wave the whole thing away, right?

Remember the five D’s.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Remember the five D’s.

Indeed.

 

[d4m10n]

Her contract wasn't renewed.

Is that more like keeping a job or losing one?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm still waiting on anyone to answer how I'm supposed to treat a biological male who "identifies as a woman" differently from either a biological male or a biological female in anyway that matters.

Assuming you're not running a facility or a league or a robotics competition (etc.) exclusively for women, why should it matter how someone identifies? There isn't good reason to treat women/men (whether trans or cis) differently in everyday life, IMO.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Assuming you're not running a facility or a league or a robotics competition (etc.) exclusively for women, why should it matter how someone identifies?

*At a volume slightly louder then it strictly needs to be* THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER IT.