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

[Emily's Cat]

Well I must say, this is a sensitive, respectful and knowledgeable understanding of transgender identity. It's only when we all - on both sides of the debate - share the same levels of understanding that we'll have any chance of making genuine progress. So, congratulations on your enlightened position.

That's a bass-ackwards response. Because the male identity that finds themselves in a female body should use the female restroom in the example provided... whereas your position has been that the male identity in a female body should use the male restroom because that's what they are on the inside.

 

[d4m10n]

EC - It's really hard to tell sarcasm from confusion in pixels.

(I'd assumed LJ was doing the first one.)

 

[Collin237]

...what?

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

Hateful and ill-defined. There are plenty examples of that in the Bible.

 

[Collin237]

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.

And I was calling attention to the use of a trick that's as old as the hills.

 

[theprestige]

And I was calling attention to the use of a trick that's as old as the hills.

Yes. You're accusing EC of carrying out a secret plot, quietly employing an old trick in the guise of an innocent analogy. That kind of accusation, I call conspiracy-theoretical. You seem to do this a lot, in this thread, allege secret plots behind surface actions.

 

[Collin237]

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.

Considerations it seemed like the thread was already into, and EC was refusing to accept. This isn't new; other posters mentioned it several pages ago. They even invented the name Eyebrow. (How else did you know what it meant?)

 

[Belz...]

Hateful and ill-defined. There are plenty examples of that in the Bible.

You just don't like being compared to pit bulls. How about Pintos?

 

[Collin237]

Allow me to clarify that I was not comparing humans to dogs.

Yeah right. Like the people making an analogy between the Occupation of Palestinians and the Holocaust are not comparing Jews to Nazis.

By using an analogy, I can focus on the dynamic (difference in aggression and size) and remove the personal and the emotional from the situation.

Remove? No, you produced a personal and emotional reaction. Which was entirely predictable, since that's what analogies about people have been used for for ages.

 

[Belz...]

Allow me to clarify that I was not comparing humans to dogs. I was using the relationship between characteristics of dogs that most people are familiar with, in order to highlight the relationship between male and female humans that is the actual item under discussion.

Also known as "comparing".

Don't shy away from it just because another poster is throwing **** at you for something entirely acceptable. Don't capitulate!

 

[Elaedith]

How many of those 70% got puberty blockers? I'm guessing close to 0%, because they didn't show a persistent gender identity.

Umm, what? That was a follow-up of referrals from before the time when puberty blockers were used, and mostly from before pre-pubertal social transitioning.

Nobody has demonstrated any precise means of identifying which children will persist. All predictors of long-term (post adolescent) persistence in samples studied provide only moderate prediction.

 

[Collin237]

What is the eyebrow test?

I found these...
https://www.blogthings.com/theeyebrowtest/
https://samhorn.com/what-is-the-eyebrow-test/

...but I don't think they are what you are referring to.

The term Eyebrow was introduced by Damion in #94, on page 3. (Yes, that long ago!)

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you understand that many white parents found it objectionable that black civil rights reforms would expose their teenage daughter - for the first time - to the risk of discomfort (at best) and sexual assault (at worst) if a black man was allowed to sit tight up next to her on a narrow bus bench seat?

I can understand it, but it's wrong. Because...

In fact, I remember that it was precisely this perception of increased risk - based as it was on solid, reliable data

You're making stuff up. There never was such data.

This argument has been tried countless times, and it will fail every time. The difference between whites and blacks is not equivalent to the difference between men and women. Absent that equivalency, the argument falls apart.

 

[Collin237]

Yes. You're accusing EC of carrying out a secret plot, quietly employing an old trick in the guise of an innocent analogy. That kind of accusation, I call conspiracy-theoretical. You seem to do this a lot, in this thread, allege secret plots behind surface actions.

It's not a secret. It's not a plot. It's not quiet. It's not a guise. Nice try.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Emily Cat and I have disagreed strongly, even to the point of near-hostility, throughout the entire thread but the one thing I've always admitted is that she, unlike a lot of people in this thread, is actually making an honest attempt to make the point she actually wants to and intends make instead of playing bog standard internet approved "arguments about the argument, argue practicality when they argue the philosophy, argue the philosophy when they argue the practicality, constantly clarify what you are saying but never clarify what you are saying" argumentative "LOL just trying nailing my argument to the wall" nonsense.

I strongly disagree with parts of Emily Cat's position, but I understand it because it has been presented without subterfuge instead of a bunch of "I'm right because I say I am right and my proof is I define the language as saying I'm right and oh by the way you're also a bigot."

 

[Myriad]

Can you understand that many white parents found it objectionable that black civil rights reforms would expose their teenage daughter - for the first time - to the risk of discomfort (at best) and sexual assault (at worst) if a black man was allowed to sit tight up next to her on a narrow bus bench seat?

In fact, I remember that it was precisely this perception of increased risk - based as it was on solid, reliable data - which caused the indefinite stalling of the introduction of black civil rights on public transportation. Or..... oh.... wait....

Ah, that explains why black women, who were not seen as a sexual assault risk to white teenage girls, were allowed free use of bus seating long before black men were... oh, wait...

 

[Meadmaker]

I can understand it, but it's wrong. Because...



You're making stuff up. There never was such data.

This argument has been tried countless times, and it will fail every time. The difference between whites and blacks is not equivalent to the difference between men and women. Absent that equivalency, the argument falls apart.

Analogies, again.

This analogy, that comes up again and again and again, is a great example of why arguments from analogy usually fail to persuade. I look at males and females and see big differences. I look at blacks and whites and see almost no difference except a very superficial characteristics with no great significance. (i.e skin color, hair texture, whatever) So the analogy doesn't focus on what I see as significant.

The people who use the analogy see segregation, and they say, "See! Just the same!"

Which is odd, because they want to maintain segregation.

But, whatever. It's their analogy, so they can use it. It's no more persuasive than any other, though, because the people they are trying to convince are focused on something other than what they think the important similarity is.


If they wanted it to actually work, they would have to say that the difference in sex between males and females is no more significant than the difference in skin color, etc, between blacks and whites, but they don't even try to make that case. Instead, they try to say that the difference in gender between men and women is highly significant, so much so that, unlike the black and white case, segregation must be maintained, but the difference between the sexes is not very significant that it must be discarded.

 

[Elaedith]

Ah, that explains why black women, who were not seen as a sexual assault risk to white teenage girls, were allowed free use of bus seating long before black men were... oh, wait...

Are you implying an analogy is meant to be analogous? I'm sure that's reactionary...or maybe even transphobic or something.

 

[theprestige]

One of the annoying things about the racism analogy is that it's not being used to try to persuade. It's being used to try to rebut an argument by substitution with another argument. The argument LJ has been trying to make has been rejected or rebutted many times, usually for lack of support or lack of internal consistency. So periodically, he substitutes another argument that ostensibly cannot be rebutted, and declares checkmate in the argument we're actually trying to debate with him.

None of us here are stupid enough, nor charitably inclined enough towards LJ's actual argument as it currently stands, to fall for such an obvious trick. And his insistence on continuing these shenanigans is draining away whatever dregs of charity may be left, I think.

I came to this thread very much antagonistic toward's Rolfe's extremist brand of trans-exclusionary radical feminism. And very much sympathetic towards the plight of trans folks and the calls to action of trans-rights activists.

The arguments and attitudes of the trans rights activists in this thread have caused me to almost completely reverse that. LJ isn't doing anyone any favors. As I think they put it in woke-speak: He's not being a good ally.

 

[Belz...]

It's not a secret. It's not a plot. It's not quiet. It's not a guise. Nice try.

It's not even anything. Stop trying to accuse EC of anything untoward. It was just a damned comparison for the sake of illustration. Move the **** on.

 

[Belz...]

Are you implying an analogy is meant to be analogous? I'm sure that's reactionary...or maybe even transphobic or something.

An analogy is meant to be analogous in one aspect. That's the part people usually forget. If it had to be analogous in all things it would cease to be analogy since it would be the very thing we are discussing.