• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
If someone claims, X is an A, then I want a definition of A. Otherwise, the statement is meaningless.
Click to expand...



I really don't think you can even have looked at that link. Because it provides a very clear definition of A, as it applies to the subject in question.
 
LondonJohn said:
"I don't care whether it is morally just or socially wise. This is a skeptics forum, I care whether it is sound reasoning. And there just isn't a proper definition of "gay man" to make the claim "gay men are genuinely sexually attracted to men" true, without that definition also entailing a bunch of other claims. It is what it is. If you want to make a moral or social argument, then the claim should be "gay men should be treated as people who are sexually attracted to men" or something like that."

[...]
Click to expand...

"I don't care whether it is morally just or socially wise. This is a skeptics forum, I care whether it is sound reasoning. And there just isn't a proper definition of "disabled person" to make the claim "transabled persons are disabled" true, without that definition also entailing a bunch of other claims. It is what it is. If you want to make a moral or social argument, then the claim should be "transabled people should be treated as people who are disabled" or something like that."

I would post a proper response to your falacy, but I don't feel like doing more work than you, and the transgender vs. homosexual comparison always breaks my brain.
 
Meadmaker said:
But, you might ask, why does it matter?

Because the real issue is deciding social policy, such as whether a given high school student is allowed to compete on the girls' track team.


If your only justification for that is "because she is a girl", then you have to provide a definition of "girl". I have such a definition, but if that definition is used, then certain people who have recently been allowed to compete as girls would no longer be allowed.

In other words, the statement "transwomen are women" are used as justification, indeed the only justification, for allowing them in areas or categories restricted to women. That is something that depends, specifically, on the definition. So yes, seriously, it matters.

I say that Rachel McKinnon should not be competing as a cyclist in the Women's division. If you want to argue against that, present an argument for why she ought to be allowed that does not depend on "because she's a woman." Alternatively, present a definition of "woman" that includes Rachel McKinnon.
Click to expand...



Of course it matters. That's precisely why the likes of DSM5, progressive academics and many of the World's governments have done a huge amount of work on it. I'm not sure whether you reject their work because you're not aware of it or because you disagree with it.


(And btw, I hold it to be a near-certainty that transwomen will never be allowed to compete in the women's categories when it comes to elite-level sports where musculoskeletal or cardiovascular factors are a significant determinant factor for success. But that's something which will go through an entirely seperate system of decisions, based on very specific factors related to competitive advantage, distortion of competition, and wholesale diminution of female opportunity in elite-level sports.)
 
Collin237 said:
Otherwise, it's her own opinion, and since she appears to be distressed by requests for her to define it, it's not anyone's business to pry.
Click to expand...

BS. She's calling for public policy that conforms to her opinion. She has a civic duty to explain and define her claims on demand, to anyone and everyone who questions her public policy proposals.
 
Collin237 said:
I just looked up Boudicca in the member list. Scrolling through her posts, I see that she is a Communist and a member of the DSA. Based on that, I'm stipulating that her claims probably are crap. My grandmother was a Communist when she was young, but she disavowed that label when she found out that Stalin was in league with Hitler. It's become apparent in the last few years that this "red-brown alliance" is resurgent. So yes, Boudicca has lost my support.
Click to expand...

Yes, the equation of communism and nazism is indeed popular in certain Lithuanian circles. For me, at least, Boudicca has my full support as a communist and member of the DSA. She just happens to be spooked (as in "ruled by a fixed idea" - in this case "I am (biologically) a woman"). Which is totally fine, people are spooked with all sorts of stuff, in a way she just happens to have the bad luck to be spooked about something politically sensitive.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Good. So, in the future you will not use the word "illusion" in definitions related to transgenderism.

But they don't believe that they have female anatomy, either. In other words, your definition, posted previously, by you, would be incorrect whether it used "illusion" or "belief". So, your definitiion of "woman" doesn't work.
Click to expand...

If it's a choice between "illusion" or "belief", then "belief" is the word I'll stop using. But IIRC I didn't say "belief". I said "perception", which is on the "illusion" side.
 
Olmstead said:
"I don't care whether it is morally just or socially wise. This is a skeptics forum, I care whether it is sound reasoning. And there just isn't a proper definition of "disabled person" to make the claim "transabled persons are disabled" true, without that definition also entailing a bunch of other claims. It is what it is. If you want to make a moral or social argument, then the claim should be "transabled people should be treated as people who are disabled" or something like that."

I would post a proper response to your falacy, but I don't feel like doing more work than you, and the transgender vs. homosexual comparison always breaks my brain.
Click to expand...



It does, huh? It doesn't break mine. But diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks I guess.


(Oh, and mainstream medical/sociological thinking is that the "transabled" phenomenon is not a valid lived condition - and that therefore those who hold themselves to be "transabled" are indeed aberrant to some degree. So your repetition is absolutely not analagous in the only important way. On the other hand, homosexuality and gender dysphoria/transidentity are both classed as valid lived conditions, so......)
 
theprestige said:
BS. She's calling for public policy that conforms to her opinion. She has a civic duty to explain and define her claims on demand, to anyone and everyone who questions her public policy proposals.
Click to expand...



Good grief. No she does not. It's patently ridiculous (and curiously authoritarian) to make the demand that she "has a civic duty to explain and define her claims on demand".
 
LondonJohn said:
It does, huh? It doesn't break mine. But diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks I guess.


(Oh, and mainstream medical/sociological thinking is that the "transabled" phenomenon is not a valid lived condition - and that therefore those who hold themselves to be "transabled" are indeed aberrant to some degree. So your repetition is absolutely not analagous in the only important way. On the other hand, homosexuality and gender dysphoria/transidentity are both classed as valid lived conditions, so......)
Click to expand...

Not the point. Based on your reasoning, anything that can fit into the blanks is the same as not believing homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex.

So, transabled people are disabled.
 
Collin237 said:
Firstly, there's a big difference between a sensory illusion and a belief.

Secondly, being trans is not a belief. It's a condition, essentially a common term for gender dysphoria. Most trans women claim they are women for political purposes, but that doesn't constitute belief.
Click to expand...

This is a condemnation of transsexuality, not a defense of it.
 
Olmstead said:
Not the point. Based on your reasoning, anything that can fit into the blanks is the same as not believing homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex.

So, transabled people are disabled.
Click to expand...



Uhhh what?

How have you arrived at the conclusion that, "based on (my) reasoning", I could put effectively anything into the blanks.

You seriously can't see why homosexuality is a valid comparator for me to be using, while (say) "people who believe themselves to be reincarnations of Napoleon Bonaparte" or "people who believe themselves to have conversations with fairies"* is not?


* Or "able-bodied people who believe themselves to be disabled"
 
Collin237 said:
I just looked up Boudicca in the member list. Scrolling through her posts, I see that she is a Communist and a member of the DSA. Based on that, I'm stipulating that her claims probably are crap. My grandmother was a Communist when she was young, but she disavowed that label when she found out that Stalin was in league with Hitler. It's become apparent in the last few years that this "red-brown alliance" is resurgent. So yes, Boudicca has lost my support.
Click to expand...

LOL. An ad hom and a non sequitur. Up your game, Collin.
 
theprestige said:
You're the one who offered links. Are you withdrawing that offer?
Click to expand...



After your ludicrous, heavy-handed and authoritarian set of demands in response to my offer, you bet I am. I thought I'd made that clear. You can look up for yourself everything you want to know. It's all pretty readily available.
 
theprestige said:
A diagnosis of gender dysphoria does not make someone factually a woman. Any more than a diagnosis of delusions of grandeur make someone factually grand.
Click to expand...



One of these things is understood by mainstream medicine to be a valid lived condition (just as, for example, homosexuality). The other thing is understood by mainstream medicine to be not a valid lived condition, but rather to be the product of a mental health aberration or illness.

Guess which is which.

And then guess why one of your sentences here is correct, while the other one is incorrect.
 
LondonJohn said:
Uhhh what?

How have you arrived at the conclusion that, "based on (my) reasoning", I could put effectively anything into the blanks.

You seriously can't see why homosexuality is a valid comparator for me to be using, while (say) "people who believe themselves to be reincarnations of Napoleon Bonaparte" or "people who believe themselves to have conversations with fairies"* is not?


* Or "able-bodied people who believe themselves to be disabled"
Click to expand...

Nope. The comparison doesn't make any sense.

You can try to explain it to me, but please remember that it is the specific comparison itself that must make sense. Similarities in other contexts (such as persecution by misguided groups) don't matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom