Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Paul2]

Not employing someone isn't denying them their basic human rights. No one has a "right" to be employed at a job that you created and offered.

Just for clarification, do they have a right to *not* be employed merely because they are black? Does this type of right extend to trans folk?

 

[Lithrael]

Transwomen don't want access to female spaces out of a sense of safety and privacy, out of a real recognition of the risk that males present in general. Transwomen don't want to be placed into female wards for their protection alone. Transwomen don't want to be counted as female for women's scholarships, grants, recognition, and short-lists in order to support the equality of females relative to males. Transwomen want it so that you feel better about themselves, so that your belief about yourself is affirmed by external audiences.

From reading your posts here it seems that at one time you had the opposite opinion, but over time you just saw so much evidence that your first impression is now wrong that you changed your mind.

I have simply not seen enough of the supposed evidence of this borne out in a way that makes me worry that trans women in general are or are being encouraged to the degrees of overreach that you see, or that there is serious damage to womens’ progress, equality, or safety because of trans inclusion.

There’s obviously a little bit of damage, since for example your stress over the subject is itself damage. But I don’t think it’s ever worth anyone trying to make anything completely risk free. It’s impossible, and it’s stagnating.

An example of people I actually feel sympathy with are the women athletes who lose out to people who have them solidly beat by a testosterone/build type advantage, a situation that clearly is not yet universally approached in a reasonable way (in either direction). But do I feel worse for them than for any gymnast who got stuck competing with Kohei Uchimura during his career? No.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I said, I don't think it's ever going to be a big enough problem that pregnancy tests are routine for everyone in the ER. My only point is that the cost of a pregnancy test and the ease of running one is such that there is absolutely no harm in doing so if there was ever any doubt.

And mammograms, pelvic screenings, etc don't even enter into the argument about treating an unresponsive patient in the ER.

The larger point is that the objection, "But what about treatment in the ER," doesn't seem like a valid one when we are discussing the rights of transgendered people. The solution to that problem is so simple as to be trivial.

Fair point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Horse is out of the barn now. Passing trans people exist, including post operative passing trans people.

I see no reason why unnecessary testing need be done, but medical staff will have to be trained to not make assumptions based on gender presentation.
Seems like the easiest solution would be to ask people if they are trans as part of routine medical history collection.

Or, you know, the incredibly straight-forward approach where transgender people are very clear with medical staff up front and make certain that the doctors and nurses are fully aware of their biological sex? Is it really too much to ask that the 0.5% of transgender people out there take responsibility for themselves instead of expecting the doctors to make special accommodations for them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are some posts in Volume 1 that I absolutely adore. Like this one:

Er... guys, I can't really follow here. What's the disagreement?

Damion is making an argument that assumes it's possible to have meaning, comprehension, and communication even though natural languages are not systems of formal logic, and depend heavily on social norms and context for understanding.

Joe counters that he can't understand or respond to Damion's argument because Damion isn't defining his terms according to a rigid system of formal logic.

 

[Tippit]

Just for clarification, do they have a right to *not* be employed merely because they are black? Does this type of right extend to trans folk?

I reject the premise of the question, since I already explicitly showed why idiosyncratic employment has nothing to do with rights. As someone who thinks employment quotas, affirmative action, and hirings without merit have gone way too far, I think employers should have the freedom to not hire or fire whoever they want.

As for whether it's fair to reject the application of a black candidate solely on the basis of their immutable skin color, I would say that it's grossly unfair, because being black is immutable.

Trans is more of a choice, surely an awful, irrational choice made under the suffering of mental illness, but nevertheless a choice.

Should I be forced under threat of law to hire heroin junkies?

 

[Tippit]

I have simply not seen enough of the supposed evidence of this borne out in a way that makes me worry that trans women in general are or are being encouraged to the degrees of overreach that you see, or that there is serious damage to womens’ progress, equality, or safety because of trans inclusion.

The best evidence that this has gone too far is the criminalization of speech in Canada, a subject that Jordan Peterson has talked about in a number of youtube videos.

 

[Tippit]

Fair point.

I don't think it's a fair point, when considered in the aggregate. Having to run additional tests on someone who may be a gender imposter consumes valuable time and resources that ER staff are already thin on. If law enforcement in Canada is busy arresting people who don't conform to tyrannical "pronoun laws", then who are they busy not arresting? Violent criminals, perhaps?

These may seem like small injustices when zoomed in, but in the aggregate they represent big burdens to society, and for what? To coddle the few unfortunate people who don't feel at home in their own bodies? Insanity.

 

[d4m10n]

The best evidence that this has gone too far is the criminalization of speech in Canada, a subject that Jordan Peterson has talked about in a number of youtube videos.

Come now—you cannot simply drop the name of some random lecturer and the word "YouTube" and expect skeptics to conclude that the Canadian criminal code currently includes misgendering.

 

[Paul2]

I reject the premise of the question, since I already explicitly showed why idiosyncratic employment has nothing to do with rights. As someone who thinks employment quotas, affirmative action, and hirings without merit have gone way too far, I think employers should have the freedom to not hire or fire whoever they want.

So I think you Would think that the government should not penalize an employer if they don’t hire someone merely because they are black. Do I have that right?

 

[Elaedith]

I have no idea why you think this is relevant to a discussion of the validity of treating gender dysphoria as a valid condition and treating those with trans identities along the lines of the gender with which they identify?

Yes, extremist trans-activists wanted crazy extreme elements and rights to be included within DSM-5 and embraced by mainstream medicine (that's why they're labelled "extremists".

No, they largely wanted it removed from the DSM altogether (although this would have caused problems with accessing treatment).

The downfall of Zucker relates to the activist narrative that gender identity is a stable, innate characteristic (like sexual orientation) and so must always be affirmed in children. Zucker disagrees, since the evidence does not support this. Treatment now proceeds along the lines that activists want, despite their claims about gender identity in children being contradicted by every study ever conducted. These are not the fringe. They are the ones that get to determine policy, based purely on ideology.

Are you actually trying to argue that the actions and aims of extremist trans-activists somehow invalidates or weakens the argument for a moderate - but still firmly affirmative - recognition of transgender identity/rights?

Because I can't think of any other reason why you might be highlighting the (disgraceful) activities of these extremist activists.

Because from the outset you seem to have been peddling a nonsensical narrative along the lines of ‘researchers made some amazing new discoveries about gender, and discovered the true nature of 'gender identity', and that people literally are whatever gender they say they are, and revised the DSM-5 because of this, and governments and institutions consulted with medical experts and updated their definitions and policies accordingly'.

In fact, there were no amazing new discoveries underlying the DSM revision, just routine updating (which failed to reduce the risk of gender non-conformity being medicalised) within a context of intense activist pressure.

There is still no solid evidence on the nature of ‘gender identity’, no operational definition of what it is, no credible way to separate it from gender expression that does not render it devoid of meaning and unfalsifiable, and very little understanding of the nature and causes of gender dysphoria (but enough to know that it is definitely not a unitary phenomenon). And there is little chance to make progress with any of these questions as researchers are too afraid of upsetting activists.

Activists do not care about gender dysphoria or the DSM-5. They want to remove any connection between transgender identity and gender dysphoria. The ones that influence policy are fighting to restructure society according to a postmodern ideology which is not based on logic, reason or evidence (these things are just tools of oppression if they lead to the wrong ideological conclusion, the correct one being pre-determined). Research is also 'transphobic' if findings fail to confirm the narrative. The agenda of 'respectable' activist groups like Stonewall that conduct 'diversity training' is not 'moderate'. Stonewall defines transphobia in a way which precludes academics from being able to engage in normal enquiry (which requires the right to question current wisdom and conduct research without pre-determined conclusions).

You cannot seem to make the logical inference that we cannot rely on research or expert opinion unless researchers are free to conduct research and state opinions without fear of political interference, censorship and career damage if they find or conclude something that goes against orthodoxy.

(And I wonder if you've ever bothered to read what actually IS in DSM-5)

No.
I've managed for more than ten years to teach a university course on science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, with a focus on how disorders are defined and revised in the DSM, and the implications for the scientific status of these diagnoses, without once ever reading the DSM. I mean, I may have glanced at it once or twice, but when it was revised in 2013 right in the middle of teaching my course I didn't bother to check the revisions or take advantage of them as a teaching exercise to encourage students' critical thinking about the process or anything. I just make stuff up and nobody ever notices, not the moderators or external examiners or anybody.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've managed for more than ten years to teach a university course on science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, ...

Fascinating. But, wouldn't that make you one of the experts we've heard so much about?

To my way of thinking that suggests that the experts aren't quite unanimous, as some would have had us believe.

 

[Elaedith]

Fascinating. But, wouldn't that make you one of the experts we've heard so much about?

To my way of thinking that suggests that the experts aren't quite unanimous, as some would have had us believe.

I don't claim expertise in this specific area, because I'm not a clinical psychologist (I'm interested in the application of work in cognitive errors and biases and evidence evaluation to understanding practice in different areas). I do know how to spot ideological interference in research and policy, and this area is probably the most blatant case ever.

I also have first hand experience of attempts by trans activists to take down academics at my institution, and it was the most disturbing thing I've ever encountered in academia. I think I agree with Cantor that we are on teetering on the verge of an intellectual dark age, and sex research is the 'canary in the coal mine' as he puts it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No.
I've managed for more than ten years to teach a university course on science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology, with a focus on how disorders are defined and revised in the DSM, and the implications for the scientific status of these diagnoses, without once ever reading the DSM. I mean, I may have glanced at it once or twice, but when it was revised in 2013 right in the middle of teaching my course I didn't bother to check the revisions or take advantage of them as a teaching exercise to encourage students' critical thinking about the process or anything. I just make stuff up and nobody ever notices, not the moderators or external examiners or anybody.

 

[d4m10n]

Presumably Elaedith knows exactly where the DSM says something substantively equivalent to "Trans women are women" but he/she/they refuse to tell us b/c TERF.

 

[LondonJohn]

One way to respond is to show them why homosexuality is real (citing It’s presence in the rest of the animal kingdom, for instance), is not a mental disorder (citing presence of happy well adjusted homosexuals), etc.

Well firstly, it would be effectively impossible to show that transgender identity (stemming from gender dysphoria) is real by citing experiences among other animals - because the condition does not manifest itself in specific observed behaviours in the way that homosexuality might (although, incidentally, it's really not scientifically valid to point to (say) male lions having sexual activity with other male lions as evidence of homosexuality per se as we would define it for humans...).

Rather, a fairly handy way of demonstrating that gender dysphoria is real and valid is simply to point to the fact that the world's mainstream expert community - people whose job it is to work this sort of stuff out, using their combined expertise and experience (expertise and experience which far, far outweighs that of, say, anyone within this thread) - now consider it to be real and valid. I don't see that as an appeal to authority at all*

And secondly, it's also scientifically questionable to say that because someone with a certain psychiatric condition is "happy (and) well-adjusted", this therefore means that the psychiatric condition is not a disorder. Very many psychopaths, for example, present as happy, well-adjusted, "normal" people (e.g. Ted Bundy as an exemplar).

I have done precisely that type of thing with people, in person, in a bi-weekly forum, for years, with regard to one aspect of my identity that makes me a minority and a markedly distasteful minority to some at times. These arguments were very heated early on, until I learned to stay calm and I understood the benefits of keeping the discussion on an even keel, because there is absolutely no chance for my interlocutor to hear me when things got heated.

Insofar as the discussion here goes, I think that perhaps the most frustrating thing (as I see it, of course) is that certain arguments are being presented
as being in support of transgender rights, while at the same effectively denying the validity of gender dysphoria (and thus seemingly approaching transgder identity as something which should be "tolerated" and "accommodated")

There is a time, perhaps, for not staying calm and for not insulting someone . I’m not aware of evidence that shows that insulting someone eventually helps to get through to them, whereas we do have evidence that rational discussion *can* - not in every case, maybe not in a majority of cases, and probably not immediately, and maybe only after a long period of time, with repeated application - help, and maybe not by itself, change minds.

I'm not sure what your definition of "insulting someone" is, within the context of this thread? Again, I have no problem with a robust attack on an argument (just as there have, er, been many such attacks on my arguments within this very thread...). And in this specific case, there's only so many times one can ask someone here quite how, why, and on what basis of expertise/experience they are contradicting or otherwise manipulating the views of the world's experts.



* If, for example, someone argued against the concept that electrons within atoms cannot ever be definitively isolated (for the purpose, say, of counting them), but that in fact the best one can ever do is work out the probability of any given electron being in any given place at any given time..... I'd have no philosophical trouble referring them to the collective judgement of the world's best particle physicists as a dismissal of their refutation (i.e. without having to - or needing to - get down to the granular first-order layer of proof using particle accelerators etc.

 

[Tippit]

So I think you Would think that the government should not penalize an employer if they don’t hire someone merely because they are black. Do I have that right?

Obviously. I don't think the government should be involved in who private businesses hire or don't hire, much less sanctioning them.

 

[dudalb]

I'm pro-discrimination. Discrimination is the mark of intelligence. I'm also pro-fairness, from an individual philosophical perspective. The possibility that I, a prospective employer, might deny you, a (hypothetical) transwoman, a job that >I< am providing, at my risk, and my discretion, says nothing about your ability or inability to earn a livelihood somewhere else. The solution to this insidious type of virtue signaling, is always an all-powerful state that stands ready to intervene on behalf of the "oppressed", and punish employers for enjoying their freedom of association. The reality is that people discriminate all the time. Sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. If you believe that restaurant employers should ultimately be forced to hire a bearded man who likes to wear dresses as their "hostess", then you have already indulged in this insanity, and you will eventually concede to demands 3-10 in your list above.



Not employing someone isn't denying them their basic human rights. No one has a "right" to be employed at a job that you created and offered.

I'm a conspiracy theorist. I am accused of being any combination of stupid and/or mentally ill all the time - and on this forum. Thankfully I'm rich, mostly because I'm intelligent, and I have a very thick skin. That people would not want to associate with me, is their right. That people might want to ban me or censor me from their forum, is ultimately their right. This is the cross I've chosen to bear in my pursuit of what I believe is the truth. Transpeople have made the same choice - the difference is that they have an entire society of virtue-signaling idiots indulging them and supporting them, and I don't.

And this is why my yourthful flirtation with Libertarianism did not last very long. Reality set in.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well firstly, it would be effectively impossible to show that transgender identity (stemming from gender dysphoria) is real ....

Seems to me you might as well have just stopped there.

Well, ok, not really. Is it easy to show that transgender identity is real? Yes. That isn't the interesting question, though. There clearly is a phenomenon whereby people see themselves as something other than what their biological sex would suggest. No one can deny that and be taken seriously.

The question is what is its nature? It is real, and the "world's mainstream expert community" acknowledges that. However, you have taken that two steps further. The first step is to say not just that it is real, but that it is valid. In reality, that isn't actually a step, because, of course it's valid. If one had a deeply held sense of self that was invalid, what would that even mean? They didn't really have that sense? So of course the mainstream experts say it is valid.* You take it one more step, though, and say that the mainstream experts agree that transwomen are women.

In doing so, you are attributing to the mainstream experts a position that they do not actually hold. If that was their position, they would write it down. They don't, because that isn't their position. Look at what they actually write down, and you will find their position.

ETA:*Though I'm not sure that they would use that word. It is so easily misunderstood. Scientists prefer something a bit more precise.

 

[Tippit]

Come now—you cannot simply drop the name of some random lecturer and the word "YouTube" and expect skeptics to conclude that the Canadian criminal code currently includes misgendering.

https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/04/04/canadian-man-guilty-of-misgendering-fined-55k-coming-to-america/

That’s all I can find. I’ve watched a lot of Jordan Peterson because I admire his ability to articulate an argument, but I confess that I cant remember whether the legislation is proposed, pending, or passed. Obviously if the story linked above is true...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk