[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[JoeMorgue]

In regards to Postmodernism:

Political solipsism?

Sorta kinda. Now I'm sort of the opinion that all philosophy becomes solipsism as it eventually eats itself into a corner.

Postmodernism is certainly similar to solipsism in the same broad "nothing is real, nothing is true, there are no facts it's philosophy all the way down" sort of thing, but it seems more focused on applying it to categorization.

As in a Solipsist is the guy telling you that you can't prove the chair is real. The Postmodernist is the guy telling you that you can't prove the chair is a chair.

Basically (and yes I am VASTLY oversimplifying this) I'd say solipsism is "there is no reality/there are no facts" and postmodernism is "There are no categories/labels."

So, just so this isn't a complete hijack, you can start to see why the later concept comes up when we're talking transgenderism.

//Hopefully that made some sense//

 

[Belz...]

Yes, thank you.

The "chair isn't a chair" bit not only clarified it greatly, but also made me chuckle. So thanks again.

 

[Collin237]

That is complete nonsense. The average man can overpower the average woman quite easily BECAUSE of physical realities.

The average man, because of those same realities, cannot be mistaken for a woman, and therefore wouldn't be let in under an Eyebrow system. The post I called hateful was part of an argument that enforced sex segregation is better than Eyebrow -- even though it would require on-site security, which this same person keeps railing against -- and using an analogy to try to distract readers from the contradiction.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Surprising candor and sensitivity from the Republican Governor of Arkansas, who vetoed the anti-trans bill coming from the state legislature.

Arkansas' governor on Monday vetoed a bill that would have made the state the first to ban gender-affirming medical care, including surgery, for transgender minors, even with parental consent.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, called the Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, or SAFE Act, "a vast government overreach."

He told reporters that it would set "new standards of legislative interference with physicians and parents as they deal with some of the most complex and sensitive matters involving young people."

The anti-trans bill could still be passed into law if the assembly overrides the veto with a simple majority.

 

[Belz...]

The average man, because of those same realities, cannot be mistaken for a woman, and therefore wouldn't be let in under an Eyebrow system.

What does that have to do with skeletal structure and muscle mass? Pound-for-pound (for the metric-challenged out there) males still overpower females.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes which is why bathrooms should be segregated by weight class, not sex.

(Yes I'm joking, but there's a point there.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes which is why bathrooms should be segregated by weight class, not sex.

(Yes I'm joking, but there's a point there.)

 

[Paul2]

This is a nice carrot. It's not like the carrots in orbit.

At risk of not getting your point, did you get my point?

Here's the bottom line: there's nothing wrong with an analogy that compares men to dogs. Men and dogs share many characteristics. Or do you think that a comparison or analogy that is based on a similarity that is negatively valued is problematic even if true?

 

[Paul2]

No. Pit bulls are dangerous because they've been bred, by dog breeders, to be tools of a dangerous agenda (dog fighting). Only a religious fanatic would think something similar about people.

The fact that pit bulls have been bred to be dangerous whereas men merely have higher testosterone levels that makes them more aggressive is irrelevant to Emily Cat's analogy. Every single analogy has far many more differences between the things being analogized and which are irrelevant than they do have similarities that are relevant.

 

[theprestige]

May we assume you meant "not settle" here?

Yes, thank you. Sorry 'bout that!

 

[Collin237]

At risk of not getting your point, did you get my point?

Here's the bottom line: there's nothing wrong with an analogy that compares men to dogs. Men and dogs share many characteristics. Or do you think that a comparison or analogy that is based on a similarity that is negatively valued is problematic even if true?

It's problematic because it's not at all obvious what's being presented that could be true or false. That seems to be the point of using an analogy about people you want to criticize but are afraid to -- to let the reader fill in his own interpretation, and give you plausible denial.

 

[theprestige]

Coming from you, that's a ringing endorsement!!! : D

: D

Thanks. Good analogies prove my point even better than bad analogies. As far as I can tell, most of the failure modes of analogies have more to do with bad faith between the "teacher" and "student", than with the quality of the analogy itself.

This is a good example. A good analogy has been derailed by Collin's refusal to take the comparison in good faith. And I'm confident that everyone you're trying to rebut with this analogy is going to take a similar stance.

I warned you this would happen. It's like I'm Cassandra on the walls of Troy.

 

[theprestige]

It's problematic because it's not at all obvious what's being presented that could be true or false. That seems to be the point of using an analogy about people you want to criticize but are afraid to -- to let the reader fill in his own interpretation, and give you plausible denial.

Your positions get very conspiracy-theoretical, very fast.

 

[Paul2]

It's problematic because it's not at all obvious what's being presented that could be true or false. That seems to be the point of using an analogy about people you want to criticize but are afraid to -- to let the reader fill in his own interpretation, and give you plausible denial.

OK, it's not about comparing men to dogs, but just that the factual basis behind the analogy is problematic.

So, first of all, it *is* true that higher levels of testosterone are associated with aggressiveness. Do you accept that?

Secondly, Emily Cat's point was to criticize men, although the fact that men are more aggressive was necessary to her point, and it's a fact, so I don't see how that can be problematic. Her point was that women have a basis for their not wanting men in public bathrooms. Now, you can disagree about whether women should feel one way or the other about men in women's bathrooms, but Emily Cat's post was not at all hateful. I think you owe her an apology.

ETA: Actually, the complaint that EC's post was hateful because of the analogy of men to dogs is actual point for which an apology is necessary, in my opinion.

 

[Collin237]

Your positions get very conspiracy-theoretical, very fast.

So do yours.

And I'm confident that everyone you're trying to rebut with this analogy is going to take a similar stance.

 

[Collin237]

So, first of all, it *is* true that higher levels of testosterone are associated with aggressiveness. Do you accept that?

Yes. But I don't accept that that applies to a male who would pass the Eyebrow test. That could not be done by simply representing womanhood. It would have to be someone whose maleness is honestly not casually visible. I don't accept that a male with a normal testosterone level could accomplish this.

 

[theprestige]

So do yours.

Nope. You're attributing an ulterior motive to a particular analogy. I'm predicting that a common pattern of behavior will be observed yet again.

 

[TomB]

Even if it were true, and some kids get misidentified, it would mean a very small number of confused gay boys who would grow up happy to be gay, would turn into girls happy to be straight.

So...if some boys are mistakenly transitioned to the incorrect gender identity they will still grow up to be happy?

If being forced into the incorrect gender is such a trivial thing, why is transitioning so important?

Either it is important or it's not.

 

[Belz...]

It's problematic because it's not at all obvious what's being presented that could be true or false.

...what?

I thought it was hateful. Or do you not like dogs?

 

[Paul2]

Yes. But I don't accept that that applies to a male who would pass the Eyebrow test. That could not be done by simply representing womanhood. It would have to be someone whose maleness is honestly not casually visible. I don't accept that a male with a normal testosterone level could accomplish this.

OK, although I'm not sure if you mean that that has something to do with Emily Cat's analogy, and maybe you don't, you're moving on to other considerations.