Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boudicca90 said:
That's because until I came into this thread, it was just a bunch of cispeople arguing amongst themselves on how much discrimination and bigotry against us transpeople was acceptable.
Click to expand...

Because you're defining "How people literally internally think about me" as discrimination.

I'll let you in the women's bathroom. I'll call you "her/she." If that was good enough for you we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But not it isn't. You're the one doing the whole "Okay now open your mind to me and prove to me that you literally categorize me as a woman in your mind" routine.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Because you're defining "How people literally internally think about me" as discrimination.

I'll let you in the women's bathroom. I'll call you "her/she." If that was good enough for you we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But not it isn't. You're the one doing the whole "Okay now open your mind to me and prove to me that you literally categorize me as a woman in your mind" routine.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have any insights into the thoughts of anyone on this board if they didn't publicly state their thoughts by posting about them. It doesn't matter to me in my day-to-day life if someone thinks of me as just a man trying to be a woman, it's when they publicly voice this erroneous view that I fight back against it.

You put yourself in the position you are in now, trying so hard to appear accepting of us that you just end up failing at it and digging yourself in deeper. Like a racist who I wouldn't have any thought that they were a racist if they weren't constantly bringing up how much they aren't a racist (not you, just an example).
 
Defining tolerance and acceptance as a purely passive "Just agree with everything I say" is not healthy or productive.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm not a man because I "identify" as one. I just am one.
Click to expand...
This is the most unintentionally funny statement I've heard since my son a few years ago got fed up with me and declared, "My name is not 'Mr. Literal'!"

(And if it was intentional, well played.)
 
Upchurch said:
This is the most unintentionally funny statement I've heard since my son a few years ago got fed up with me and declared, "My name is not 'Mr. Literal'!"

(And if it was intentional, well played.)
Click to expand...

It wasn't a joke at all.

This whole idea that I have a separate and distinct "identity" that isn't just what I objectively am (with a smattering of what I want to be) is so nonsensical to me and such a core part of what we are discussing.
 
Do people really not remember the resistance to homosexuality over the last 30ish years? The arguments that homosexuality doesn't work biologically? That gays have a sort of mental illness? That advocates are redefining words and concepts, like marriage and healthy relationships? The vehemently anti-gay politicians or pastors who re-assessed their identities as straight, only to discover that they were, in fact, gay themselves? That gays can't be members of the armed services because soldiers need to be able to trust each other?

Do people really not see the parallels here and consider that, just maybe, the world might not be as simple this time either?
 
JoeMorgue said:
This whole idea that I have a separate and distinct "identity" that isn't just what I objectively am (with a smattering of what I want to be) is so nonsensical to me and such a core part of what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me, then, like you have an opportunity to expand your horizons and challenge your own assumptions about yourself and the world around you.

eta: I mean, critical thinking is about challenging assumptions, especially one's own assumptions.
 
Upchurch said:
Do people really not remember the resistance to homosexuality over the last 30ish years? The arguments that homosexuality doesn't work biologically? That gays have a sort of mental illness? That advocates are redefining words and concepts, like marriage and healthy relationships? The vehemently anti-gay politicians or pastors who re-assessed their identities as straight, only to discover that they were, in fact, gay themselves? That gays can't be members of the armed services because soldiers need to be able to trust each other?

Do people really not see the parallels here and consider that, just maybe, the world might not be as simple this time either?
Click to expand...

Do you seriously not realise that those who are critical of gender ideology (which includes many people who always were and are strongly supportive of gay rights) don't already know that this ideology has succeeded largely by gulling people over superficial similarities to the gay rights movement?
Do you really not understand that we have already thought this through carefully and seen through the superficial parallels?
Do you really not see that when you wrongly assume that two things are the same in their underlying properties because they share superficial surface similarities, you are using the representativeness heuristic, which equates to the principle of similarity in magical thinking?
 
Upchurch said:
Do people really not remember the resistance to homosexuality over the last 30ish years? The arguments that homosexuality doesn't work biologically? That gays have a sort of mental illness? That advocates are redefining words and concepts, like marriage and healthy relationships? The vehemently anti-gay politicians or pastors who re-assessed their identities as straight, only to discover that they were, in fact, gay themselves? That gays can't be members of the armed services because soldiers need to be able to trust each other?

Do people really not see the parallels here and consider that, just maybe, the world might not be as simple this time either?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone argue that transpeople shouldn't be; in the military,, in politics, allowed to marry, allowed to adopt, etc., etc., etc.

What they have been saying is that there are good reasons that transwomen not be allowed to compete against women in sport, put women at risk, or take up limited resources women have fought for generations to garner.
 
Elaedith said:
Do you seriously not realise that those who are critical of gender ideology (which includes many people who always were and are strongly supportive of gay rights) don't already know that this ideology has succeeded largely by gulling people over superficial similarities to the gay rights movement?
Do you really not understand that we have already thought this through carefully and seen through the superficial parallels?
Do you really not see that when you wrongly assume that two things are the same in their underlying properties because they share superficial surface similarities, you are using the representativeness heuristic, which equates to the principle of similarity in magical thinking?
Click to expand...

Superficial? Superficial in what way?

What did I outline that does not have a direct corollary?
 
qayak said:
I haven't seen anyone argue that transpeople shouldn't be; in the military,, in politics, allowed to marry, allowed to adopt, etc., etc., etc.

What they have been saying is that there are good reasons that transwomen not be allowed to compete against women in sport, put women at risk, or take up limited resources women have fought for generations to garner.
Click to expand...

But you have seen people, as you say, arguing that trans people shouldn’t be in public bathrooms because their fellow gender cannot trust them, correct? You have seen the arguments against redefining words? That trans people have a mental illness?


ETA: oh, and the second paragraph is largely an appeal to consequences.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
But you have seen people, as you say, arguing that trans people shouldn’t be in public bathrooms because their fellow gender cannot trust them, correct? You have seen the arguments against redefining words? That trans people have a mental illness?
Click to expand...
Paranoid schizophrenics have a mental illness. I don't see anyone lining up to defend them on a gay rights basis.

Hell, people with body integrity disorder have a mental illness. I don't see anyone lining up to defend their desire to cut off body parts on a gay rights basis.
 
Upchurch said:
But you have seen people, as you say, arguing that trans people shouldn’t be in public bathrooms because their fellow gender cannot trust them, correct? You have seen the arguments against redefining words? That trans people have a mental illness?

ETA: oh, and the second paragraph is largely an appeal to consequences.
Click to expand...


"I should have the right to fire machine guns in the middle of town without restrictions."

"But that would endanger people, and likely cause multiple injuries and deaths."

"Appeal to consequences!"
 
Upchurch said:
But you have seen people, as you say, arguing that trans people shouldn’t be in public bathrooms because their fellow gender cannot trust them, correct? You have seen the arguments against redefining words? That trans people have a mental illness?


ETA: oh, and the second paragraph is largely an appeal to consequences.
Click to expand...

Public policy is about trade-offs. Considering the consequences is a necessary part of any reasonable debate. You keep saying maybe it's complicated, but you keep trying to oversimplify it - and doing a bad job of it, too. Comparing trans rights to gay rights doesn't actually simplify things for you at all.
 
Upchurch said:
Does that include ignoring the consequences of the politics of oppression or just the consequences one doesn’t like? How does that work?
Click to expand...


You tell me. You're the one rejecting a political position because you claim it's an "appeal to consequences."

When this occurs it's usually because someone has elevated an ideology to a priority that puts it beyond consideration of consequences. History tells us this is an appallingly dangerous thing to do.

I think politics is entirely about weighing consequences, and the more thoroughly and accurately all consequences are anticipated and weighed, the better.
 
theprestige said:
Public policy is about trade-offs. Considering the consequences is a necessary part of any reasonable debate. You keep saying maybe it's complicated, but you keep trying to oversimplify it - and doing a bad job of it, too. Comparing trans rights to gay rights doesn't actually simplify things for you at all.
Click to expand...

But the question at hand is whether trans-women are women, is it not? Is the answer “no” based on solely on the that fact that it poses other difficult questions? If it is, then it is an appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy, and that should not sit well with anyone on this board. If it is not, then there is another part of the question to consider. One that I would argue is more foundational, but even if you disagree about that, it has to be answered first as it could make the consequences question moot.
 
theprestige said:
Everyone but the extremists figured that out in part 1 of this thread.
Click to expand...

I feel like we're not quite there yet--that some who really aren't extremists are very quick to deny choice by self-identification in situations where that might not be necessary, and when it gets discussed it seems to become "why should the normal people accommodate the fee-fees of a tiny minority that keep denying reality".

Of course, the concerns of "normal people" seem to be considered of paramount significance.

If I see the conversation drop less often into the red herring of "denying biology" I'll be more in agreement with your assessment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom