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

[Elaedith]

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.

An analogy is meant to be analogous in a significant structural aspect, not in surface appearance. In other words, it is meant to illustrate that two examples have a similar underlying structural property which allows transfer from one situation to another which on the surface appears dissimilar.

The 'analogy' that LJ keeps using is completely dissimilar in key structural aspects. It is intended to exploit superficial similarity between two situations which are not structurally analogous.

 

[theprestige]

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

Thanks, I thought it was a pretty good try myself. As expected, I got about the same result as last time, though. I'll have to think a bit about whether I should bother to try again sometime.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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

At this point, I am unable to read LJ's posts without imbuing them with dripping condescension. So yeah, if it was intended as sarcasm, that was missed.

 

[theprestige]

Sarcasm in debate is pretty condescending.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I'll try again. More clearly this time.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "the difference between whites and blacks" vs "the difference between men and women".

It has, specifically to do with this:

The concept that by granting civil rights to Group A, Group B can claim that - as a direct consequence of that granting of civil rights to Group A - some or all of them in Group B are being disadvantaged (eg by being placed at increased risk to their personal safety).


In the transgender rights situation, it's females claiming that if transwomen are now allowed to use female changing spaces, females will be placed - as a direct consequence of transwomen having been granted that right - in a position of greater risk to their personal safety/privacy/etc.


In the black civil rights situation, it's white people claiming that if black males are now allowed to sit tight up against white females on narrow 2-person bench seats, white females will be placed - as a direct consequence of black people having been granted that right - in a position of greater risk to their personal safety/privacy/etc.


I then went on to point out that, obviously (and correctly) the latter situation had not in any way adversely affected the granting to black people the civil rights they deserved (including the right not to have to give up a whole bench seat on a bus if even one white person alone wanted to sit there).

And lastly, I drew the tacit implied conclusion that the same ought to apply (and will apply) to transgender rights and women's changing spaces.


It was probably my fault for not making myself clear. I realise, however, that there may be some within this debate who - for whatever reason I cannot begin to divine - will continue to claim confusion. And therefore rejection.

That's life, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sarcasm in debate is pretty condescending.

Oh I totally agree. But back to the actual debate, eh?

 

[Belz...]

An analogy is meant to be analogous in a significant structural aspect, not in surface appearance.

The aspect in question is whatever the perosn making the analogy wants in order to make an illustration. The differences are irrelevant unless they affect said aspect.

 

[LondonJohn]

At this point, I am unable to read LJ's posts without imbuing them with dripping condescension. So yeah, if it was intended as sarcasm, that was missed.

You could always try arguing the substance (rather than meta-analysing my posts to critique their style).

You could even use sarcasm as a literary device if you liked. Even condescension (provided you understood what was condescension and what was not...).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh I totally agree. But back to the actual debate, eh?

To what end and what point?

We've established what the actual debate is, but one side is still playing nothing but word games.

Emily Cat doesn't want people with penises in the restroom with her. Arguing the definition of "woman" or "female" or the price of tea in China is just semantics you know what definition SHE IS USING. You don't have to agree with her definition to argue against her actual point.

But you won't do that. You keep dragging it back to "How do we define women?" How she is using "woman" is clear. And again you don't have to agree with her definition to stop pretending she isn't using it.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

You fall at the first hurdle here. It's not a "racist analogy" at all.

Read my fuller explanation. I had thought it was entirely obvious, but obviously I was wrong. My bad.

Oh and your point-of-view about whether I'm a "good ally" or not is as personal as it is wrong. No more personalisation please. OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

To what end and what point?

We've established what the actual debate is, but one side is still playing nothing but word games.

Emily Cat doesn't want people with penises in the rest room with here. Arguing the definition of "woman" or "female" or the price of tea in China is just semantics you know what definition SHE IS USING. You don't have to agree with her definition to argue her point.

But you won't do that. You keep dragging it back to "How do we define women?" How she is using "woman" is clear. And again you don't have to agree with her definition to stop pretending she isn't using it.

What?

If I keep "dragging it back" to anything, it's the fact that transgender rights include the right of transgender people to use the changing rooms and bathrooms which correspond to their trans gender.

Emily's Cat already uses the correct clarity in terminology in the context of discussing transgender identity (vs cisgender). Though the "people with penises" and "be-penised people" schtick can get a little tiresome at times. I know exactly what she means. And I fundamentally disagree with it. As will lawmakers over the next ten years or so (cue not-hysterical protests about nonsense such as "policy capture" or "males telling females what to do").

Frankly, I found pretty much everything about this post pf yours totally baffling.

 

[LondonJohn]

An analogy is meant to be analogous in a significant structural aspect, not in surface appearance. In other words, it is meant to illustrate that two examples have a similar underlying structural property which allows transfer from one situation to another which on the surface appears dissimilar.

The 'analogy' that LJ keeps using is completely dissimilar in key structural aspects. It is intended to exploit superficial similarity between two situations which are not structurally analogous.

Please read my more explicit explanation. And then feel free to dismiss it reflexively

 

[JoeMorgue]

What?

If I keep "dragging it back" to anything, it's the fact that transgender rights include the right of transgender people to use the changing rooms and bathrooms which correspond to their trans gender.

Oh for the...

 

[LondonJohn]

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...

What?

If we were to translate your "logic" over to the transgender identity sphere, it'd be like wondering why transmen, who were not seen as a sexual assault risk to males in the men's changing rooms, were not allowed free use of the men's changing rooms long before transwomen were allowed use of the women's changing rooms.

Oh, wait......

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh for the...

Do carry on. Are you meaning to say you disagree with my position on this?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do carry on. Are you meaning to say you disagree with my position on this?

No. You are not an honest agent in this discussion. I do not trust you to actually listen.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. You are not an honest agent in this discussion. I do not trust you to actually listen.

You're entirely at liberty to hop on that "dishonest agent"* bandwagon if you so wish. I will wave you goodbye as your bandwagon trundles colourfully out of town.


* Even though it's entirely unsupported by any actual evidence, and is instead motivated almost entirely by partisan matters. But, as I said, it's totally your prerogative to come to that, uhm, "conclusion" (much as I am perfectly entitled to state that Darat is actually a carrot. An 11-inch purple carrot, with its foliage still attached).

 

[theprestige]

You fall at the first hurdle here. It's not a "racist analogy" at all.

Read my fuller explanation. I had thought it was entirely obvious, but obviously I was wrong. My bad.

Oh and your point-of-view about whether I'm a "good ally" or not is as personal as it is wrong. No more personalisation please. OK?

Nobody said it was a racist analogy.

 

[Belz...]

To what end and what point?

We've established what the actual debate is, but one side is still playing nothing but word games.

Emily Cat doesn't want people with penises in the restroom with her. Arguing the definition of "woman" or "female" or the price of tea in China is just semantics you know what definition SHE IS USING. You don't have to agree with her definition to argue against her actual point.

But you won't do that. You keep dragging it back to "How do we define women?" How she is using "woman" is clear. And again you don't have to agree with her definition to stop pretending she isn't using it.

This wouldn't be a problem is said 'side' agreed to use the definition that pretty much everyone on earth, at any time, has been using.

If I keep "dragging it back" to anything, it's the fact that transgender rights include the right of transgender people to use the changing rooms and bathrooms which correspond to their trans gender.

Right to use bathrooms.... which amendment is that?

 

[Belz...]

You fall at the first hurdle here. It's not a "racist analogy" at all.

Sure it is, since the two situations are not otherwise similar. No one here, and almost no one out there aside from right-wing reactionaries (which is not no one, I will concede) is talking about denying rights to trans people. Quite the opposite.