Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Boudicca90]

But people don't identify as something, they ARE something. I don't identify as heterosexual, I simply am the sexuality that I am. I am attracted to women. Maybe a device of some sort could discover that I am also attracted to some specific subset of men, and the strict definition of heterosexual might not fit me in this case while bisexual would be to vague, but at no point does identification enter into it. It's just a failure of the language that we use to adequately describe my personal circumstances, and there is unlikely to be a reason to use a more specific term in my case.

You identify as heterosexual precisely because you are attracted to women.

If you did have some attraction to men, you could still deny that part of your attraction and identify as heterosexual. Plenty of people do it.

 

[Boudicca90]

The primary problem with 'scientific racism' is not that it's harmful to any particular group, but that it's factually wrong. I find it telling that you aren't objecting on that basis, though.

Of course it's wrong. First you people are trying to insult me by calling me a misogynist and now you're calling me a racist?!

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course it's wrong.

But that isn't why you objected.

First you people are trying to insult me by calling me a misogynist and now you're calling me a racist?!

Yeah, no. I'm not calling you racist. I'm not even suggesting that you're racist. I'm saying you've got ideological blinders on, but that's really not the same thing as saying that you're racist at all. I really don't know why you thought I was saying that.

 

[Meadmaker]

First you people are trying to insult me by calling me a misogynist and now you're calling me a racist?!

That is factually wrong.

 

[Olmstead]

You identify as heterosexual precisely because you are attracted to women.

If you did have some attraction to men, you could still deny that part of your attraction and identify as heterosexual. Plenty of people do it.

You're conflating two different things here: how I present to the world around me and how I actually feel inside. If I were sexually attracted to both men and women, I would be bisexual in scientific terms, even if I never acted on my attraction and hid it from everyone.

Socially, the label would be useless, but it would still be the label that fits the circumstances of my sexuality, because it simply describes who I am attracted to.

 

[Elaedith]

Of course it's wrong. First you people are trying to insult me by calling me a misogynist and now you're calling me a racist?!

No, a conclusion is right or wrong based on whether or not it is valid or true, not whether or not somebody thinks it is 'harmful'. This is a basic principle underlying science, skepticism, all valid areas of academic inquiry. You don't decide first that a conclusion is politically, emotionally, religiously, or socially desirable and then decide whether an argument is right or wrong based on whether it supports the desired conclusion.

Without that principle, there is no valid academic inquiry, only a competition between different belief systems where there is no need to test beliefs against reality, hence no need to make an argument. That is when people think that trying to deplatform somebody or get them fired is 'just another way of using free speech' and 'the same as making an argument' and other moronic things.

 

[d4m10n]

If her 'conclusions' do nothing but harm trans people (trans women in particular)?

Which of her conclusions would do nothing other than harm trans people?

 

[Ziggurat]

Without that principle, there is no valid academic inquiry, only a competition between different belief systems where there is no need to test beliefs against reality, hence no need to make an argument.

The irony is that this idea, that knowledge itself is never objective but is always constructed in order to support some specific power structure, is something that emerges out of academia. The term for it is critical theory (with critical race theory being only the most recent fashionable version).

 

[Boudicca90]

The irony is that this idea, that knowledge itself is never objective but is always constructed in order to support some specific power structure, is something that emerges out of academia. The term for it is critical theory (with critical race theory being only the most recent fashionable version).

Yes, knowledge and research are never truly objective as long as humans are involved. Objectivity is a goal that we should strive for, but we always bring our conscious or unconscious biases with us.

Maybe completely bias-free research would be possible if it was entirely AI-driven, but there is always a bias when people are responsible.

 

[Boudicca90]

You're conflating two different things here: how I present to the world around me and how I actually feel inside. If I were sexually attracted to both men and women, I would be bisexual in scientific terms, even if I never acted on my attraction and hid it from everyone.

Socially, the label would be useless, but it would still be the label that fits the circumstances of my sexuality, because it simply describes who I am attracted to.

Yes, you are right, you would be bisexual in that case. And even if you hid it and/or never acted on it, you would still be bisexual.

Because internal feelings matter more than external validation of those feelings, which is my point. It doesn't matter if everyone else doesn't see you as bi, or gay, or a woman. It only matters how you view and feel about yourself.

 

[Myriad]

Yes, knowledge and research are never truly objective as long as humans are involved. Objectivity is a goal that we should strive for, but we always bring our conscious or unconscious biases with us.

Maybe completely bias-free research would be possible if it was entirely AI-driven, but there is always a bias when people are responsible.

It would be inconvenient and emotionally distressing for me to believe this. Therefore it's false and you should not have the right to say it.

 

[Boudicca90]

It would be inconvenient and emotionally distressing for me to believe this. Therefore it's false and you should not have the right to say it.

Cool. At least you're honest.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Because internal feelings matter more than external validation of those feelings, which is my point. It doesn't matter if everyone else doesn't see you as bi, or gay, or a woman. It only matters how you view and feel about yourself.

This sounds like a great personal philosophy to live by. I am at a loss as to how society is supposed to function based solely on internal validation and feelings, though. Physical realities are still going to matter.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, knowledge and research are never truly objective as long as humans are involved.

Yeah, uh, that's not what I'm talking about.

Objectivity is a goal that we should strive for

Critical theory denies even this.

Maybe completely bias-free research would be possible if it was entirely AI-driven

AI research so far suggests otherwise.

 

[Boudicca90]

I don't even know what critical theory is supposed to be, other than a right-wing boogeyman. My views are my own.

'Critical Theory' is a buzzword like 'Postmodernism' - terms that the right like to use to denigrate any views you don't agree with.

 

[theprestige]

Cool. At least you're honest.

Sophistry. We both know he's parodying your exact approach to these issues.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, you are right, you would be bisexual in that case. And even if you hid it and/or never acted on it, you would still be bisexual.

Because internal feelings matter more than external validation of those feelings, which is my point. It doesn't matter if everyone else doesn't see you as bi, or gay, or a woman. It only matters how you view and feel about yourself.

You say, as you tell him what his label is, instead of letting him tell you.

 

[d4m10n]

'Critical Theory' is a buzzword like 'Postmodernism' - terms that the right like to use to denigrate any views you don't agree with.

They are not mere buzzwords.

Both Critical Theory^WP and Postmodernism^WP are approaches to understanding and changing the world.

My views are my own.

Isn't it great that no one is trying to get you fired for publishing them?

 

[Myriad]

Cool. At least you're honest.

You cannot make such an objective claim about my own behavior, state of mind, or intentions without contradicting yourself, because you've stated that such objectivity cannot exist. By your stated axiom there can be no honesty nor dishonesty in my posts, only impressions in your own mind that you determine for yourself for your own advantage.

 

[Boudicca90]

You say, as you tell him what his label is, instead of letting him tell you.

If he tells me he's attracted to both men and women, he is bisexual (or pan, poly, omni, etc.) by definition. If he then describes himself as strictly heterosexual or homosexual, that would be incorrect.

But it's something we tend to have to do to survive, so it's not a big deal. In reality I am a transgender and polysexual woman. But at work I'm seen as a cisgender and heterosexual woman, because that's how I want them to see me.

They are not mere buzzwords.

Both Critical Theory^WP and Postmodernism^WP are approaches to understanding and changing the world.

Isn't it great that no one is trying to get you fired for publishing them?

I wouldn't be surprised if someone did. Left-wing views have been censored and suppressed for nearly a century now thanks to the Red Scare and the anti-communist and anti-socialist propaganda that still lingers today among older generations. Turnabout is fair play.

You cannot make such an objective claim about my own behavior, state of mind, or intentions without contradicting yourself, because you've stated that such objectivity cannot exist. By your stated axiom there can be no honesty nor dishonesty in my posts, only impressions in your own mind that you determine for yourself for your own advantage.

I don't care to make any claims. I don't care about you.

It doesn't matter to me if you are honest or a troll.