• 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.
d4m10n said:
When the New York Times reports on black trans women, it's a fair bet that they aren't using the definition you suggest here. When the ACLU argues that "[e]xcluding women who are trans hurts all women" they obviously aren't using the definition you suggest here.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I mean. Hammer out definitions and the discussion ends. That's how we resolve such things on a skeptics forum, yes?
 
Thermal said:
Just peeking into this voluminous thread again...

You guys work out the question "what is a woman?" yet? Really doesn't seem that tough after years and five digits of posts.

A woman is an adult human biological female. Is that in contention?

Gender is what you subjectively and internally identify as. Is that in contention?

Gender disphoria is a misnomer, since it is internally subjective. You can't choose to identify "wrong". It's sex disphoria. Is that in contention?

I mean, if some just change the definitions to mean whatever else they want, this goes on forever, yes?
Click to expand...

Just the usual really

A lot of people seeming to think every dude that can walk is a ticking time bomb, just waiting to rape anything that can breathes.

A few posters concerned that after females worked their ***** off to get a few places they can just hang out in with other females, especially after a traumatic experience, being eroded.

A few other posters saying this is silly and a biological male should be able to hang out with them.

Some posters saying trans rapists should be allowed to hang out in the female jails.

Others saying this is a bit dim (Have to confess I am one)

A sliver of some (like me) saying just have a separate wing in them for Trans people.

People agreeing, people disagreeing.

The normal bringing up the weirdo litigious dude, sueing people for not shaving his crotch.(Yes he is a dude, as I have always said I will respect trans people anytime to address them as their chosen gender as long as they aren't an ********. He is)

The usual changing rooms being mixed up with toilets. Cubicles mixed up with open plan.

Dudes pretending to be trans, for some seriously sleazy reasons.

Havent seen mirrors on shoes yet.

But we do have a new one in the fact we had a trans woman poster who thinks her willy is a female donger.

Bit left field, but she seemed to be a fairly nice person.
 
Rolfe said:
Collin will probably assert that this is a Poe. I can assure you it isn't, these people are serious and have the ear of policy-makers.

Edinburgh Action for Trans Health Manifesto




I find the concept of a fully reversible orchiectomy (castration) quite intriguing.
Click to expand...

Does that mean everyone can get whatever cosmetic surgery they want on-demand and free? (I assume that strippers pay for their own implants in Scotland.)
 
Thermal said:
Exactly what I mean. Hammer out definitions and the discussion ends. That's how we resolve such things on a skeptics forum, yes?
Click to expand...

Oh dear. "Skeptics forum"? This calls for a DPRK analogy, I think.

In any case, this particular thread is foundering because the "TRA side" refuses to define anything. Probably because any definition is going to put limits on trans privilege, and on society's obligations to transsexuals.
 
Aber said:
It does raise the question why all this effort is not put into just broadening the bounds of "acceptable behaviours": tell men that they can wear a dress and makeup without anybody criticising them?
Click to expand...

Because it's not about the behaviors. Or the clothes. Man-dresses actually exist. They just haven't been adopted by a significant segment of the population. And man-purses. And makeup.

The clothes and behavior are a tool. In part, I think, to lessen internal dysphoria. But also a tool by which to signal "I am ___ gender. Please treat me that way," so as to increase the odds of having other people treat them in a manner that does not trigger their dysphoria. (I guess you could also word that as "affirmation.")

There's kind of an odd parallel here: Feminists have been saying "I do not have to conform to these stereotypes to be a woman." And now a segment of the trans-community is saying: I should not have to conform to these stereotypes to be a women."

In a sense, both are correct. (Well, the feminists are entirely correct on this.) Who you are is who you are. But what some segments of the trans-community don't seem to get is that if we have ways in which the genders are treated differently or spaces that are segregated by gender but you don't put out signals for others to recognize...how do people who are not personally familiar with you know how you are to be treated (pronouns) or spaces it is appropriate to enter (bathrooms)?

Gender may not be a choice, but gender presentation is.

Some segments of the trans community do get this. Probably most do. They tend to try to present as far towards the extreme end of femininity/masculinity as they can get, I think, not because they think that you have to do that to be a woman, but because they are trying to send the clearest most unambiguous signal to the outside world. And maybe to their subconscious as well.
 
theprestige said:
Oh dear. "Skeptics forum"? This calls for a DPRK analogy, I think.

In any case, this particular thread is foundering because the "TRA side" refuses to define anything. Probably because any definition is going to put limits on trans privilege, and on society's obligations to transsexuals.
Click to expand...

Some have argued that trans people should have a space of their own, separate from men and women. So why hasn't anyone taken that to the next level and argued that skeptics should have a space of their own, separate from TRAs and anti-TRAs?

That's what I meant by there being no radical centrists.
 
Collin237 said:
Some have argued that trans people should have a space of their own, separate from men and women. So why hasn't anyone taken that to the next level and argued that skeptics should have a space of their own, separate from TRAs and anti-TRAs?

That's what I meant by there being no radical centrists.
Click to expand...

This is fractally stupid.

If there's no radical centrists, then who got self ID implemented as the law of the land in Canada and California?
 
theprestige said:
This is fractally stupid.

If there's no radical centrists, then who got self ID implemented as the law of the land in Canada and California?
Click to expand...

I didn't make a declarative statement that they don't exist.

I made a statement of despair that I didn't seem to find any. I thought the frown was sufficient to express that.
 
Not sure what the big deal is.

The Dem's have a trifecta in California, don't they?

So hardly radical centrists (What ever this actually is)
 
TomB said:
This is the last time I'm going to post on this. It is not my mission to defend anyone's research. These links were not provided to support an assertion, they were provided to answer theprestige's question if a possible hypothesis I presented had any basis in science. The answer is, yes, it does and those studies demonstrate that, regardless of any flaws they may have.
Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you to defend the studies, we're just discussing them.

However, I agree that the research is not conclusive. One of the limitations of population studies is that it is impossible to control for all variables. Other variables could be hair color, eye color, geographical origin of ancestors, and any number of things. Homosexuality is just a single one.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is known confounding factor though, as opposed to hair color, eye color, or geographical origin of ancestors, or any number of things which are not known to be associated with transgenderism. It may be impossible to control for all variables, but one should at least control for the known confounding factors.

Not quite. First, you are correct that the results would suggest a biological basis for homosexuality. But the results would also suggest a biological basis for transgenderism within the group of homosexual transgender people.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Suppose there is a convention for some homosexuals to shave their head. Suppose you do a twin study with homosexual people who shave their head and find that their twins are mostly concordant in also being homosexual people shaving their head. Have you found a biological basis for shaving one's head? Have you found a biological basis for shaving one's head within the group of homosexuals? From the given result it's impossible to determine.

But in neither case does the correlation disappear.
Click to expand...

Sure, but correlation doesn't imply causation. There is a very real correlation between wearing shorts and eating ice cream, yet it would still be wrong to take that as evidence for a clothes-based basis for ice cream consumption. It would be just as wrong to, after noticing the confounding factor of it being a hot day, to then claim that you do have evidence for a clothes-based basis for ice cream consumption but only on hot days. Correlations by themselves don't mean very much, there are tons of statistically significant correlations out there that don't mean anything. The question isn't what correlations exist but what conclusions can be validly drawn from correlations that are found.

Given the subjectivity of the diagnosis criteria, it's kind of hard to say who is/was transgender and who was mis-diagnosed as transgender.
Click to expand...

This seems special pleading as the same argument can be made about any study on transgenderism, since your sample selection is always going to be based on a diagnosis of transgenderism which may or may not be misdiagnosed. If misdiagnosis was such an issue as to invalidate outcome studies then it equally invalidates any other study using diagnosis as a sample selection criterion.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
Does that mean everyone can get whatever cosmetic surgery they want on-demand and free? (I assume that strippers pay for their own implants in Scotland.)
Click to expand...


It's a list of demands. These demands have, unsurprisingly, not been granted. Nevertheless this is an organisation that has the ear of government on the subject of trans rights. Women's groups can't even get a meeting.

At one point the FM had an informal meeting with a single woman who happened to say she was a "member" of For Women Scotland (I don't think there's a formal membership list), although she wasn't anyone connected to the group that runs the outfit and she hadn't been a signatory to any of the letters sent asking for a meeting. The likelihood is that she had been to a FWS meeting, put her name on a mailing list, maybe bought a badge or made a donation. As I have myself. After that the FM announced that she had met with For Women Scotland and anybody who said she hadn't was lying.

In contrast she goes out of her way to have formal meetings with trans groups practically every week and practically can't wipe her arse without consulting them.
 
Last edited:
It appears that radical centrists do exist after all. The New America Foundation. They have an advert about supporting trans rights in schools. I can link it if you want; I don't know what the policy is here about linking adverts.

Theprestige and Cullennz, thanks for helping me discover them.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
https://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_postpartisan.htm
Click to expand...

That sounds all radical and that.

But it seems like just being centrist, while trying to claim you are onto some funky new idea.

I really get sick of this identity politics crap.

"Are you this or that or this or that. I need to know whether to shun the group you have to belong to as it is easier than talking to you as an individual"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom