I want to explain a little bit more about my last comment to Upchurch. Some of it is really straightforward. i asked some questions that he ignored. Oh, well.
But there's more to it than that. I think in general there's a lot of avoidance going on, and refusal to look at the actual questions. These conversations go around and around because some people just refuse to come to a meaningful position, and if they have to deny reality in order to do it, then by gum they will deny reality.
I try not to get too deep down the semantic rabbit hole of "What is a woman?", but if you are going to insist that somebody is indeed a woman, when lots of people insist that the person isn't a woman, then at that point the most sensible thing to do really is to compare definitions of "woman". That's hard to do if one of the people arguing refuses to provide a definition.
Whether the subject is sports or locker rooms or detransitioning, people won't discuss the problems head on. If I start talking about locker rooms, I'll guarantee that other people will talk about bathrooms. They'll pretend that in these spaces that exist so that the opposite sex cannot see people undressing, no one ever sees anyone undressed. For sports they'll say it doesn't matter anyway, or that you know there was this one time where.....They'll deny the reality of detransitioning. They'll start talking about black people or gay rights.
It makes things complicated.
i don't think I've done that, but if I have, I'll try to do better in the future. I feel like I'm doing it sometimes because I'm trying to not offend anyone with my terminology, but that's a dead end because the terminology changes all the time. Anyway, if anyone thinks I have, I'll try to not do it in the future, and I'll try to make my position and reasoning as clear as possible. All I ask in return is that you not try to distort it, and I'll do the same.
