Citation needed.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
Citation needed.
I'm not sure I fully comprehend this fascinating argument.
'TV-watching men' are the ones complaining about transwomen on women's teams because it's a plot to stop them trying to get a glimpse of women's genitals?
If men couldn't do this anyway because sports uniforms were bulky, putting transwomen on the men's team wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't be happening, or because it would happen but it wouldn't matter becasuse TV-watching men can't get to perv anyway?
This is the most ridiculous comment in this whole wild thread.
A female by definition can not have a penis ... how is this person taken seriously at all?
Indeed it is. And that is saying something as it has a lot of competition.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I think there actually is a lot of common ground being expressed in this thread.
Almost everyone who has participated in this lengthy conversation agrees people should be able to dress and "present" in whatever they want to, and that in doing so they should be free from discrimination in employment, housing, and the like. That's no small area of "common ground". I don't know if we are all 100% aligned in those areas, but we're close.
Almost everyone is willing to compromise on bathroom access, and the few that are not are more worried about slippery slopes than anything else. (And, that's not a fallacy. There's reason to believe that the slopes are indeed slippery.)
There really is a lot of common ground here, but there is also a faction that says anyone who does not 100% accept every single aspect of their position is a hateful bigot in the same mold as George Wallace and the segregationists.
It's interesting to me that we do not have any hard right, anti-trans people participating in this thread. As I occasionally mention, I listen to right wing talk radio in my car. I hear the actual hard right anti-trans position sometimes. That actual position is that being trans is both a mental illness and a perversion. For the religious, which is a lot of people, it's a sin against God. They would demand that there be absolutely no accommodation for any trans person. Some of them might put up with gender reassignment surgery, though they will mock anyone who actually does it. Others think the whole practice ought to be illegal. There's a huge difference between their positions and attitudes, and the positions and attitudes of any participants on ISF, but as far as the hard core trans rights activists are concerned, there's really no meaningful difference between those hard right positions, and your positions.
It makes compromise and finding common ground a bit rough.
As an aside, Boudicca90 is the most vocal trans person in this thread recently, but is npt the only one, including some very recent posts.
Sherkeu
Illuminator
It is a real phenomena though, and it goes across many other beliefs where some contrary evidence leads to cognitive dissonance. Humans naturally try to avoid that and so compensate. Everyone does it but some things lead to more drastic claims than others. They are still genuine beliefs.
e.g. My sister taught 1st grade for years. One student was way behind and remedial hours weren't helping so she recommended to repeat the grade. Well, the mother of this child denied it to be true, accused my sister of all sorts of things, and then changed schools to avoid her child repeating the grade. This example is more provable, but gender is tricky. Any internal senses are impossible to confirm. For now at least.
H2g2 movie had the "Point of View" gun that let you see from another's precise perspective. We need that !!!
Last edited:
Cain has serious competition.
You mean Canaan?
Yes. I think internalized religious prudishness has a lot to do with it.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I suspect his comment is a throwback to the early days of Olympic beach volleyball, and the ratings did indeed go down once bikinis were no longer mandatory, but anyone who respects women's sports thinks it was a good idea to allow the athletes to wear clothing that made them feel more comfortable.
Every other aspect of "sexy outfits" worn while competing is simply a desire to wear comfortable clothing that does not inhibit performance and allows shedding of body heat. Track stars are indeed sexy and they do show a good bit of skin while they are competing. They aren't doing it for my benefit though. It just happens to work out for both of us.
I admit I am having difficulty understanding your point. Is it that people can have genuinely held beliefs that go against reality? If it is, okay, aaannnnd?
When someone tells me that females can have penises there are a number of separate but related things going on there: the person doesn’t know what sex is/doesn’t understand sexual development, is using a nonstandard and illegitimate definition of sex, is genuinely confused, is deliberately obtuse for political reasons, is ill-equipped to have this discussion etc etc
Sherkeu
Illuminator
My point is that having some empathy for the human condition may lead to better conversations than simply accusing a poster of being wrong- in the very scientific ways many of us are prone to do.
Why? Because it demonstrably does not work to change assumptions or opinions.
It may end in stalemate, but that's where we are now so there's only improvement to be had.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
No, Cain.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
There was a lot more empathy in the earlier installments of this thread. My position has consistently been, can we come up with a policy that honors the wants and needs of transpeople, without dismissing the wants and needs of other interest groups?
A lot of my empathy for the TRA position drained away when ST brought name-calling as a primary debate strategy, and LJ took on a woo approach to citations. What little empathy I had left evaporated when Boudicca went full "transwomen are biologically female".
Too, it's hard to maintain empathy when the counterparty lacks any. Women's concerns? Not real. Sports? Not important. Misgivings about social change? It's coming whether you like it or not, so I don't have to care if you don't.
People who think females can have penises are wrong. Asking me to have empathy for a position like that is like asking me to have empathy for a person claiming the earth is flat. And if we want to talk about empathy, how about have empathy for, I don’t know, actual women who don’t want to be validation props for trans males like Boudicca.
Sherkeu
Illuminator
I do hear you about the dismissiveness and name-calling. I do try not to take it as a personal assault though as I see it as more of a coping strategy.
I have some experience in this with a family member with some, let's say non-factual beliefs, and also a trans woman who I knew mostly as a man. I have learned more since these situations. The first one I cannot rectify anymore. I had to disconnect totally because my involvement created more problems than it solved- I was the first responder, rescuer, and villain. I tried to convince in my normal way and it made it worse. The most loving thing I am doing for her now is not taking her calls...and that is tough to do- but I keep tabs and it works better.
It took me a while to understand that our brains were interpreting things totally different. Evidence, proof...none of that worked to solve anything.
I don't know if it is logical to even start with the legal rights arguments- or even definitions. Not if it is personal. So maybe I am missing some insight into it just like the last time (though that is a much different condition so please no one say I am equating the two...just the strategy of debate)
Maybe this forum, tame as it is compared to some others, is still too antagonistic for good honest discussions of this sort.
Sherkeu
Illuminator
I'm really just advocating for better dialogue. there are reasons for those beliefs we find hard to understand. What are they?
As for empathy for the flat-earther: Imagine you are a reporter for a newspaper or media company. They send you to do a story on a celebrity who has come out as a flat earther.
How do you approach that interview? Surely you ask some polite questions, then perhaps a bit more probing questions. You listen and take note of what you hear. You confirm that what you are interpreting is what they meant, etc... You dont go in guns blazing or the whole thing is over before it starts! And it doesnt matter if their own guns are blazing. You can decide the tone of your responses and make it happen.
Last edited:
Apologies, but I am not getting what your point is.
Which side of the discussion do you equate to flat earthers?
No, Cain.
Last edited:
- Status