Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Ziggurat]

Why blame? Why are the stats inherently bad?

Because no sane person should think abortions are good things in and of themselves. They are at best a less bad option, but there is never a case in which getting an abortion is preferable to not getting pregnant in the first place.

 

[Minoosh]

This seems like an odd comparison to me. Watching the World Cup has almost nothing to do with the social status of women, whereas the sort of head coverings encouraged by holy writ generally do.

Yeah, World Cup a bad example. Watching World Cup on Al Jazeera? Smoking hookahs? I was trying to find analogies to behavior not mainstream in the US or Western countries. Cultural practices tied to nation of origin. It's actually not super-clear in the Quran what hijab requirements are. It varies so widely by country that I see it as mostly cultural and not a reliable indicator of hatred for the US.

 

[Elaedith]

For definitional purposes, I’m going to start with the traditional definition of woman = adult human female. I had not thought much about these issues until earlier this year when the JKR controversy erupted. I was disturbed to see people on Twitter referring to sex as a spectrum and/or mutable within an individual, often in concert with the TWAW mantra. These folks often pointing to opinion pieces in Nature and Scientific American to justify these beliefs. Diving into it, I saw that people were conflating primary sex with sex development/secondary characteristics as well as sexuality and sexual identity.

Thanks for the informative post.

There is an attack on the reality of biological sex itself. It is obvious on reading the 'sex is a spectrum' and 'scientists now think sex is not binary' nonsense in Nature and other journals that this is an ideological exercise. It is based, as you pointed out, on pretending that biological sex is based on the secondary characteristics associated with sex, which are on spectra that overlap, then pointing out that none of these characteristics is adequate for classification. Inter-sex conditions which have nothing to do with transgender are brought in to blur the boundaries further. Yet having a reproductive system for the production of one of two types of gametes classifies almost all humans as being one sex or the other and the distinction is fundamental for biology and other fields. I think the authors of these articles actually know full well that they are misrepresenting the basis of biological sex in order to attack it. Moreover, there is no 'new science' behind this at all. It is simply redefining biological sex and exploiting intersex conditions that we have already known about for decades, for purely ideological reasons.

The motivation behind this is of course to replace biological sex with 'gender identity', which is facilitated by pretending that biological sex is useless for classification anyway. There is a deeper ideological basis in postmodernist ideas underlying gender identity ideology. According to this ideology, there is no objective truth and knowledge is constructed in the service of power. Science, reason and logic are not means to find a more accurate answer (since there is no way to define accuracy without a concept of truth), but are only useful if the produce the desirable answer (where desirability is determined by ideological correctness) - else are tools of oppression. So if it is determined that binary sex is not politically desirable, the concept of binary sex must have been socially constructed as a means of oppression. There is no reason to favour one theory or approach over another, other than ideology or wishful thinking. Therefore anyone who argues in favour of sex being binary and immutable must be an oppressor and a bigot who needs to be silenced (no point in debating according to this worldview).

Moreover, postmodernism loves 'deconstruction' of binaries, but in the case of sex this requires making it appear socially constructed in the first place. By pretending that secondary rather than primary sex characteristics are the basis of sex classification, it becomes possible to make silly statements such as 'what if a woman doesn't have X characteristic anymore, does that mean she isn't a woman' which have been produced in some of these threads. The characteristics that do reliably classify almost everyone as male and female are simply ignored.

There is a good article by Georgi Marinov 'In humans, sex is binary and immutable'. Unfortunately I don't think it is freely accessible, but there is a Twitter thread about this with quotes.

Here is another good analysis by Amanda MacLean which goes into this in some depth. It does a good job of debunking the 'problems with categorisation' and 'what about intersex' and 'defining people by biological sex is biological determinism/reductionism' arguments (it is in a far-left publication, but the analysis is based on science, not politics). In particular, she points out that applying the rule 'each member of a category must have all features of the category, else the categorisation is invalid' would leave scientists unable to distinguish between humans and chimpanzees.

 

[Minoosh]

Because no sane person should think abortions are good things in and of themselves. They are at best a less bad option, but there is never a case in which getting an abortion is preferable to not getting pregnant in the first place.

Yeah, I never said that.

Thinking they are good things in and of themselves is insane. Thinking availability of them is preferable to forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world is not insane.

 

[Minoosh]

The selfish gene probably doesn't take long-term species-level fitness into account. There is a perfectly good and venerable explanation as to why natural selection tends to drive towards a 50:50 sex ratio, however.

I don't have a great foundation in evolutionary biology. I stared at that link for a while and didn't quite get it. I'm thinking about it, and may try again.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I never said that.

Thinking they are good things in and of themselves is insane. Thinking availability of them is preferable to forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world is not insane.

Right. The stats are inherently bad. When we see that black women are getting abortions at a 233% higher rate than white women, we shouldn't be celebrating the availability of that option. We should be asking, as a society, why black women are using this option at such a disproportional rate.

In the past thirty years we've gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to abortions of convenience. To the point where people actually ask why abortion stats are inherently bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, I never said that.

I never claimed you did. But it's still part of the answer to your question.

Thinking they are good things in and of themselves is insane. Thinking availability of them is preferable to forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world is not insane.

Sure. But even given that position, the significantly higher abortion rates among blacks is still a problem for the reason I gave. Even if you think it's better than taking an unwanted pregnancy to term, it's a worse outcome than avoiding that pregnancy in the first place. So there's still a widespread failure going on, that's a bad thing, for some reason it's worse among blacks than among whites, and it's right to be concerned about that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now that we have proven that trans people don't exist it is time to prove the same for gays.

 

[d4m10n]

Now that we have proven that trans people don't exist it is time to prove the same for gays.

Such a lovely non-sequitur, it could perhaps qualify as a useful example for teaching critical thinking to kids. Not only have you drawn a pointless analogy, but you've also completely failed to provide any examples of people doing the sort of thing you claim they've done.

 

[Minoosh]

Right. The stats are inherently bad. When we see that black women are getting abortions at a 233% higher rate than white women, we shouldn't be celebrating the availability of that option.

In what way am I celebrating the option?

In the past thirty years we've gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to abortions of convenience. To the point where people actually ask why abortion stats are inherently bad.

Every stat I'm finding shows the abortion rate on a steady downward trend since 1980. It's gone from "safe, legal and rare" to "safer, legal and rarer." If it's an individual's choice, I don't know whose interest is served by making abortion less convenient. Since the pandemic, medical abortions have become available in the UK by post. Unwanted pregnancies are being terminated earlier which is safer. More convenient = safer.

If you can provide a sound reason to make abortions less convenient, I will listen.

 

[theprestige]

In what way am I celebrating the option?

You redirected from a point about usage demographics to an irrelevant point about availability.

Every stat I'm finding shows the abortion rate on a steady downward trend since 1980. It's gone from "safe, legal and rare" to "safer, legal and rarer." If it's an individual's choice, I don't know whose interest is served by making abortion less convenient. Since the pandemic, medical abortions have become available in the UK by post. Unwanted pregnancies are being terminated earlier which is safer. More convenient = safer.

If you can provide a sound reason to make abortions less convenient, I will listen.

Once again I commend your marksmanship skills. It's not about making it less convenient. It's about asking why it's still the most convenient option for so many people, and why black women are so disproportionately represented among those people.

If you can provide a sound reason why you should ignore that question in favor of reminding yourself that it's good they have the option, I will listen.

 

[Louden Wilde]

So if it is determined that binary sex is not politically desirable, the concept of binary sex must have been socially constructed as a means of oppression. There is no reason to favour one theory or approach over another, other than ideology or wishful thinking. Therefore anyone who argues in favour of sex being binary and immutable must be an oppressor and a bigot who needs to be silenced (no point in debating according to this worldview).

Moreover, postmodernism loves 'deconstruction' of binaries, but in the case of sex this requires making it appear socially constructed in the first place.

Vey well put. The situation makes me think of Lysenkoism - the Soviet block alternative to genetics - in some ways.

Per your post and that quote by Strangio, both suggest that any effort to assert female rights (spaces, positions reserved for females, female orgs, etc.) will be met with hostility by the movement. My sense is that there is a prominent misogynistic streak in the movement (at least among the activists).

Here is another good analysis by Amanda MacLean which goes into this in some depth. It does a good job of debunking the 'problems with categorisation' and 'what about intersex' and 'defining people by biological sex is biological determinism/reductionism' arguments .

Excellent essay - the chimp/human distinction is a great example of the perils of DSD type arguments. The take home that I wish trans-activists would get is this: But tolerance and understanding of the trans experience will fail if they are based on bad and disingenuous interpretations of science. Trans people are perfectly capable of recognizing the reality of biological sex, while having difficulty accepting it on a personal basis. Sound arguments for acceptance can be made without twisting and distorting our understanding of the whole of humanity and indeed the natural world...

 

[Elaedith]

Such a lovely non-sequitur, it could perhaps qualify as a useful example for teaching critical thinking to kids. Not only have you drawn a pointless analogy, but you've also completely failed to provide any examples of people doing the sort of thing you claim they've done.

But remember, evidence and logic are tools of oppression!

I found a couple of interesting interviews looking at the ideological basis of these ideas.

Helen Joyce interviewing Helen Pluckrose. From 12.00 on she discusses postmodern ideas about language being dangerous (hence cancel culture) using TWAW as an example. At 24.00 she discusses why race and sex are treated differently in terms of violating category boundaries due to different ideological bases.



Another interesting interview on gender identity ideology with Helen Joyce (interviewed by Benjamin Boyce). At 15.30 she discusses postmodern deconstruction of the binary, and why it's the subordinate part of the binary (i.e. women/females) that needs to be 'blown open'.

 

[Minoosh]

Sure. But even given that position, the significantly higher abortion rates among blacks is still a problem for the reason I gave.

It's probably safe to say that black women are more likely to have unprotected sex. Lots of cultural factors involved. It's fine to consider what should be done about it, at either a personal or public policy level. The abortion rate among black women is falling, so something is trending the right way.

 

[Minoosh]

You redirected from a point about usage demographics to an irrelevant point about availability.

I want there to be fewer unwanted babies. Yay for women who don't have babies they don't want. Yay for waiting until you are ready and can afford to properly take care of an infant. That is what I'm celebrating.

Once again I commend your marksmanship skills.

In the past couple of days you've been snarky to me for reasons I don't really understand.

It's not about making it less convenient. It's about asking why it's still the most convenient option for so many people, and why black women are so disproportionately represented among those people.

It's fine to ask those questions. Lots of people are asking those questions. I don't think it's part of a conspiracy by global elites to promote eugenics, which is how the subject was raised to begin with.

If you can provide a sound reason why you should ignore that question in favor of reminding yourself that it's good they have the option, I will listen.

I don't want to ignore the question; it's an interesting question and I'd be happy to explore it with you, but not in this thread. As a thought experiment I pictured women getting their uteri vacuumed out once a month and decided I'd be OK with it if that's what they wanted, no matter what color they are. IMO there are better options though and I would be happy to see them used.

 

[Chanakya]

Why blame? Why are the stats inherently bad?

I think it's weird, the flak that this innocuous little question has been drawing. I'd put it down to misdirection by anti-abortionists, except I've been assured by one of them they're not of that persuasion. So that this looks to me suspiciously like ...sport?

Why on earth are those statistics inherently bad? They aren't. They show that there's a high demand for abortions in that demographic. It is what it is.

Peel that apart one layer, and you'll find that, had abortions not been available, those would have translated into unwanted births. At that level of thinking, that is indeed cause for celebration (not that celebration as such has been proposed here, that's a strawman introduced later in service of said ...sport, or whatever that was).

Yes, peel it one further layer, and you would ask why that demographic has such high incidence of irresponsible sex, which needs addressing, absolutely. But the 'blame' for that cannot, by any stretch, be laid on the abortions per se.

Consider, also, that the above post was a response to the lunacy I quote below:

...the abortion rate in 2008 for black women was about 233% higher than for white women. I can understand why feminists would prefer not to lay the blame for these statistics on themselves and place them squarely on Sanger, but the reality is that feminists, as well as anyone who promotes abortion is at least partially responsible.

That's exactly like saying high testing rates contribute to higher incidences of Covid. That's crazy muddled lunacy hidden under a facade of pseudo-rational thought and logic and reasoning.

I do grant that knowing you have tests and vaccines and cures might encourage you to be a bit less careful about contagion than if you didn't have them, and knowing abortions are available may encourage some irresponsible sex. But I'd say that to blame abortions for this is straight out lunacy (unless it is disingenuity). I won't belabor this obvious point unless other people want to, because a moment's thought makes it clear why (should deliberate thought even be needed to make this obvious connection).

As for the further craziness about nefarious global financial cabals directing these things in conjunction with the CIA, or whatever other ridiculous CTs had been paraded out (whether in earnest or as some kind of elaborate joke FSM knows), that is where I think the subsequent questions about "sanity" need to be directed at.

.......

Meta arguments about the inefficacy of analogies (that I'm in agreement with) notwithstanding, high abortion rates are like high diagnosis (and presumably treatment or at least containment) rates of some disease. Those cannot be decried, or blamed, per se. They are what they are. If at all you must choose between blaming and celebrating -- not that there's any reason why you must do that, that's a strawman let loose to run amok here these last couple pages -- then I'd suggest the latter.

What's concerning is the underlying disease, the underlying conditions that lead people to irresponsble sexual practices. To "blame" abortions per se for that (or, to take that one step nearer to lunacy, to blame advocates of abortion for it) is irrational nonsense, no matter what kind of pseudo-logic that irrationality is attempted to be presented as.

 

[qayak]

Sure. But even given that position, the significantly higher abortion rates among blacks is still a problem for the reason I gave. Even if you think it's better than taking an unwanted pregnancy to term, it's a worse outcome than avoiding that pregnancy in the first place. So there's still a widespread failure going on, that's a bad thing, for some reason it's worse among blacks than among whites, and it's right to be concerned about that.

Actually, no on so many levels. Avoiding the pregnancy or aborting the pregnancy has the same result on the black community as a whole. Abortion isn't an attack on an ethnicity because it is individuals making personal choices.

Then there is the fact that it is always a good thing when a minority, and a woman, exercises their right to do what they want with their body and life.

Anti-abortionists frame this like they give a **** about blacks, or women. They don't. They care about furthering their political agenda, nothing else.

 

[TomB]

So...this is an abortion thread now?

 

[Minoosh]

So...this is an abortion thread now?

I know and I've contributed quite a bit to this derail. If I can relate it meaningfully to the trans issue I will try. It came about because I was reacting to someone who suggested that both trans issues and abortion availability are the result of conspiracies by global power elites to ... something something something.

I think it's doable to arrange for people to change and shower without compromising their privacy or anyone else's. Things might be easier if everyone had a Scandinavian sensibility and weren't fazed by a flash of dick or boob in a changing area but short of that I think private cubicles could work. After reading most of the thread, I've seen there are some trans activists who are ********. I'm undecided on the subject of TERFs but I think it's asking too much to decree that lesbians who aren't attracted to trans women deserve to be outed as horrible bigots. Who an individual is attracted to isn't a matter of will IMO.

On the sports issue, testosterone is such a game changer that I think sadly there are athletes who should not be allowed to compete in women's divisions. It's a blow to some individuals but I don't really see a way around it other than eliminating women's sports which I think would be detrimental to far more people.

 

[d4m10n]

Not going to weigh in on the abortion derail except to point out that there is a group of people who are legally discriminated against based on their reproductive capacity.

Call them what you will, I suppose.

https://twitter.com/SarahTheHaider/status/1320914791922282496