Non-binary identities are valid

[Elaedith]

Appeal to false authority, basically.

Appeal to authority would be stating that gender ID must be valid because a reputable organisation like the ACLU supports it, and the ACLU must obviously have consulted first with relevant experts.

Wake me up when there's an actual biology paper, with actual scientific data, not when the argument is what a lawyer thinks about biology, based on exactly zero scientific data. If she wants to speak about legal principles or precedents, I'd be all ears. Because THAT is her domain of expertise. But on the completely different and scientific domain of biology, yes, that's exactly yet another random unqualified idiot.

If people don't wake up there won't be any biology papers with actual scientific data.

 

[Elaedith]

Maybe not, but I should hope that policy isn't based on unscientific woowoo claims about biology made by unqualified people, just like I would hope they're not based on the unscientific woowoo in the Bible.

There are many things I would hope are true. Some of them are.

 

[HansMustermann]

There are many things I would hope are true. Some of them are.

Some of it may well be coincidentally true, but one doesn't get to claim that it IS true before one actually has a SOUND argument for that. Which does include EVIDENCE.

Otherwise, the best one can say is "we don't know." It may be true, it may not be. By definition, one can't have a SOUND argument starting from an "I have no idea."

And that also goes for wishful thinking about them consulting experts first. If they have credible sources, then they have to CITE those sources. That's how it's done both in science and in the legal system. You don't get to just believe that they have consulted experts, and that those experts support their view. They have to show the evidence for that too.

If people don't wake up there won't be any biology papers with actual scientific data.

1. Actually that's not really true. We already have a mountain of empirical data saying that yes, sexual dimorphism is real. Including, yes, in scientific papers. And we also have a mountain of data about the effects in various sports. E.g., I've literally provided a difference between men's and women's times in olympic marathon, on page 15 of this thread. Not to mention all those people who felt like making a point by "identifying as a woman" just for the hour or so it took to compete in a women's event.

That is actual data even if it's not produced in a lab, just like a supernova is still data even if we didn't detonate a star in a lab. Whatever theory is being proposed still has to explain that data.

One doesn't get to claim that there's no data, just because one doesn't like it. Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and pretending that the data doesn't exist, doesn't make said data disappear.

In fact, it's just on par stupidity-wise with those claiming Obama never showed a birth certificate, just because it didn't say what they wanted it to say.


2. Even if or when there are still holes in our scientific understanding, to quote Dara O'Briain, because he said it the best: "Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you." You know, like the silly person in that Twitter link was doing.

IF we ever find some sport where we somehow don't know the effects of sexual dimorphism -- never mind that it would literally involve every record of a match and everyone who remembers such results disappearing off the face of the Earth -- then we'd just be back to "we don't know." Meaning we better start gathering such data. It still "doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

 

[d4m10n]

I don't disagree with anything from #903, Hans, but it doesn't seem likely to me that these culture war issues are going to be settled by experts from the "is" side of the is-ought gap.

 

[Belz...]

Cool.

Do you literally* not know that the traditional use of words change all the time? You're barking up the wrong tree with this argument.


* for example

They rarely change because of the usage by a minority. I'd wager most people use "gender", "man" and "woman" in the traditional way.

Personally I have no issue with calling transitioned transwomen "she/her" and transitioned transmen "he/him", and I think transition should be subsidized. And I have no idea how to deal with the restroom issue, but I think trans people should get the same rights and protections from discrimination as anyone else. But I draw the line at forcing me to deny objective reality. There's no issue with calling trans women "trans women". It's not reasonable to ask 99.7% of the population to add "cis-" to their gender. Hell, I'm not even sure a significant proportion of actual trans people even make that request.

It's the same with theists: just because you deeply, truly believe in God doesn't mean I have to agree with you in a discussion about religion. It doesn't mean I have to be a dick to them, either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And across about a dozen threads now that's where we've gotten to and gotten stuck.

"Is it good enough if I treat you the way you want to be treated without conceptualizing you the way you want to be conceptualized?"

 

[TragicMonkey]

And across about a dozen threads now that's where we've gotten to and gotten stuck.

"Is it good enough if I treat you the way you want to be treated without conceptualizing you the way you want to be conceptualized?"

Which would be fair enough if that's where it actually ended. But it doesn't, it goes on "and because you dare to tell me how to think I'm going to oppose any advancement in rights for you, out of principle!" and for "principle" read "spite". The contrarian nature of some people is so strong it overrides all else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Which would be fair enough if that's where it actually ended. But it doesn't, it goes on "and because you dare to tell me how to think I'm going to oppose any advancement in rights for you, out of principle!" and for "principle" read "spite". The contrarian nature of some people is so strong it overrides all else.

So what am I supposed to do? Lie because other people are going to do something wrong or bad with the same information?

And I don't pose that question snarkily or disingenuously.

 

[Earthborn]

It's not reasonable to ask 99.7% of the population to add "cis-" to their gender.

In 99.7% of situations no one is asked to. The only times it is relevant is when people might think someone is trans, and they want to make clear they are not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So what am I supposed to do? Lie because other people are going to do something wrong or bad with the same information?

And I don't pose that question snarkily or disingenuously.

Are you supposed to do anything? Have you been approached to Solve The Problem For All Time? To come up with a mission statement on transgenderism? To make a legal ruling on the matter?

 

[LondonJohn]

Or even shorter: something is "disputed" in science, when there are actual evidence-based competing scientific theories. As in, actually based on evidence and the scientific method. And peer reviewed by experts in the field.

Linking to some random idiot postulating stuff, purely pulled out of the ass instead of any science or evidence, doesn't make it "disputed." Sorry.

LOL

What about linking to DSM5? Or linking to (say) UK Government policy? Does that help in any way?


ETA: or, indeed, the ACLU

 

[LondonJohn]

Which would be fair enough if that's where it actually ended. But it doesn't, it goes on "and because you dare to tell me how to think I'm going to oppose any advancement in rights for you, out of principle!" and for "principle" read "spite". The contrarian nature of some people is so strong it overrides all else.

I find it fascinating to observe the proclivity (among a certain group) within these threads of exactly what you're saying here.

And at the same time, I find it equally fascinating to wonder just how many (among a certain group) within these threads are of this sort of mindset: "I don't believe transgender identity is real; I think they're all either mentally ill or pretending; but I can't just come out and say that because I know that won't be viewed as acceptable; so I'll have to pretend I'm fully bought-in to an acceptance of transidentity; and I'll instead manifest my latent non-acceptance via an attack on some of the real-world implementations of transgender rights."

(Though of course that's a very easy one to self-righteously reject, so expect incoming in 5........4.........3.........)

 

[Ziggurat]

And at the same time, I find it equally fascinating to wonder just how many (among a certain group) within these threads are of this sort of mindset: "I don't believe transgender identity is real; I think they're all either mentally ill or pretending

Real identity vs mental illness is a false dichotomy.

 

[angrysoba]

They rarely change because of the usage by a minority. I'd wager most people use "gender", "man" and "woman" in the traditional way.

Personally I have no issue with calling transitioned transwomen "she/her" and transitioned transmen "he/him", and I think transition should be subsidized. And I have no idea how to deal with the restroom issue, but I think trans people should get the same rights and protections from discrimination as anyone else. But I draw the line at forcing me to deny objective reality. There's no issue with calling trans women "trans women". It's not reasonable to ask 99.7% of the population to add "cis-" to their gender. Hell, I'm not even sure a significant proportion of actual trans people even make that request.

It's the same with theists: just because you deeply, truly believe in God doesn't mean I have to agree with you in a discussion about religion. It doesn't mean I have to be a dick to them, either.

I don't think the "restroom issue" is really as intractable as people make out.

Surely, you could do the following:

Many places such as cafes have a toilet with a door on it. Anyone can use it.

Have a room for urinals.

Have a room with locking cubicles.

Have a room for washing hands.

In the vast majority of situations it should not be beyond the wit of man/woman/enby to devise a solution or many solutions.

 

[Belz...]

I AM 99% on board with the whole thing already.

Well, there's your problem. Unless you're 100% on board with everything your current interlocutor claims, you're a bigot.

They are a gay person who doesn't internally feel like either a man or woman.

What does that even mean? I'm a man and I have no idea what that 'feels internally' like. I'm a man because I've got all the objective characteristics of a man and have no dysphoria about it.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it sounds like you’ve made the decision that the convenience of using your system of pronouns is more important to you than being rude, a bigot, or whatever else. Congratulations. Most people don’t have that level of honesty or self-awareness.

Refusing unreasonable demands is neither rude nor bigoted.

You just don't see that it's unreasonable to ask everyone's pronouns when only a small portion of 0.3% of the population will even have pronouns that aren't "he" or "she".

Empathy, kindness, making life a little nicer, and it costs you nothing.

It obviously costs something: time and memorisation, for one. But you're confused here: "empathy" and "kindness" are not synonymous with "catering to someone's every whim." Some requests, even those made in earnest, are unreasonable.

Why are you using gender neutral pronouns? Isn't that completely unwieldy? How do you even remember all that?

All of ONE additional pronoun isn't the same as dozens or hundreds. Stop taking the piss.

Gender is a construct of society.

Not by any useful definition, it's not. Man = adult human male; woman = adult human female. At least that's how it was understood until very, very recently.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which would be fair enough if that's where it actually ended. But it doesn't, it goes on "and because you dare to tell me how to think I'm going to oppose any advancement in rights for you, out of principle!" and for "principle" read "spite". The contrarian nature of some people is so strong it overrides all else.

That's a bit of a bulverism, innit? Skip over what those supposed rights are, whether they're being systematically equivocated to something entirely different, whether those "rights" are actually imposing unreasonable obligations on everyone else (e.g., on women with actual XX chromosomes in a sports competition), etc, skip to just speculating why someone might disagree. "You only disagree because you're a contrarian" strikes me as being as close as you can get to the canonical example of bulverism without it being sarcastic.

It also strikes me as entirely on par with the church going "they're only not converting because they serve Satan" about Baltic pagans or Jews in the past.

The problem being the assumption that everyone knows you're right and/or your request is reasonable, they just have some hidden reason that prevents them from admitting it. Or as I like to call it: an ego-wank.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, I thought you were confused as to why personal pronouns are important.

They're really not important at all; so much so that a lot of languages don't even use them.

The basic problem with the discussion is that it uses subjective identity as the gold standard, when A) there is no way to detect this without communication, assuming it's done in earnest and B) how does one know what it "feels" like to be a woman?

It seems far more constructive to me that someone who has body dysphoria deal with the issue with a (subsidized) transition of their choice, and then depending on how that is presented objectively, the appropriate pronoun will be used.

Gender dysphoria has everything to do with people who claim identify as neither gender.

Gender dysphoria is simply defined as non-identification with the gender assigned to you at birth (which in virtually every instance is, of course, the gender correlating to your biological sex). So for example I was born male, and was assigned the gender "man" at birth. If I have gender dysphoria, it means I do not identify as "man" - and that encompasses everything from "I identify as woman" to "I identify as neither man nor woman, and consider myself gender-fluid".

As I said before, I don't "identify" as a man or a woman. I conclude that I'm a man because of objective, clear features of my body and biology. It wasn't my decision to make, and I have no idea how other men 'feel'.

 

[HansMustermann]

LOL

Lol indeed, after reading the rest of your message.

What about linking to DSM5?

If you can find anything in the DSM5 that supports the idea expressed in that tweet, namely that trans women are BIOLOGICAL women, or that the only reason for segregating sports are political issues as opposed to the effects of sexual dimorphism, go for it. But you actually have to show that link, not just postulate that it exists somewhere.

Otherwise, all you're doing is the fallacy called the "sophisticated theology defense": postulating that there is some perfectly rational support or explanation somewhere, but never actually managing to show it.

Or linking to (say) UK Government policy? Does that help in any way?

Unless that policy includes a link to actual biology papers supporting the idiotic claims about biology in that Twitter thread, no, it doesn't. The very notion that it being currently law or policy shows it's scientifically right (since you're posting the above in response to a demand for scientific support) is so... stupid, it's not even funny.

After all, not too far back in time it was also UK Government policy to persecute gays. By your kind of logic that would have settled it that homophobia is perfectly justified -- SCIENTIFIC, even! -- because it's the current UK Government policy.

Before the 70's, sexism was also very much A-OK, as far as UK government policies were concerned.

And that's without going even back in time to when stuff like racism or even slavery were ok, according to the UK Government at the time.

Meanwhile, here in Germany we had government policies like the Nürnberg Laws in the 30's and 40's. Needless to say, their ideas about race and the biological heritability of stuff like jewishness were 100% wrong, in spite of being government policy.

ETA: or, indeed, the ACLU

Again, unless the ACLU can cite actual scientists that support those claims about biology, then no it doesn't. How some lawyer feels about biology issues is not worth much.

 

[Belz...]

Gender is the set of social roles and expectations associated with sex.

No, that is gender role, not gender.

I have to say, I find it interesting (to say the least) that vociferous participation in a debate about a particular topic does not appear to be a reliable indicator of even a basic understanding of terms framing that debate.

Ditto.

Okay, sure.


First, you had just explained that biological sex is binary. Here you you agree that gender systems can be non-binary, but are still based on binary sex? This is a logical contradiction and we're just on the first sentence.

There is no contradiction. You just don't understand what she's saying.

That an effeminate male is given a different label doesn't make the label not based on sex. In fact it absolutely IS based on sex since I just said it was a male; a requisite for the label.