Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[p0lka]

I disagree. Vaginas are, objectively speaking, ugly. So are penises. That's why "bumping uglies" works as a euphemism. We are attracted to them despite their ugliness because of sexual desires. But vaginas aren't really attractive in their own right. That's why Georgia O'Keeffe had to make them look like something else in order to paint them.

cough splutter, what?
That is a completely subjective 'objectively speaking' opinion.

Vaginas, penises, beauty in the eye of the beholder.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I wonder if we can get a trans-activist take on this:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1450170666393686025

Aren't most of us trans-activists here when it really comes down to it? Or is there some other, super level of trans-activist?

 

[Myriad]

I wonder if we can get a trans-activist take on this:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1450170666393686025

What trans rights are in play here? Entitlement to preferred pronouns at work and school? Choice of locker rooms and sports leagues? Representation in corporate and government bodies? Freedom from discrimination in employment and housing?

Before you dismiss this as false-flag "attack helicopter" nonsense, here's the LGBTA Wiki entry.

I can't tell from the link whether the "demonself" video is an actual example of the pronouns the Virginia students in the lawsuit expect the teachers to use, or if teachers are refusing to use basic preferred-gender and non binary (they, them, their) pronouns, and the tiktok video is a red herring (aka trollish extreme example of "what might happen"). I think the line of reasonable accommodation falls in between those two possibilities.

Don't teachers mostly use second person pronouns, and the students' names?

 

[Ziggurat]

cough splutter, what?
That is a completely subjective 'objectively speaking' opinion.

Vaginas, penises, beauty in the eye of the beholder.

Only because of sexual attraction. That's the subjective part. Absent that, they aren't.

Beauty is not in fact purely subjective. There are factors which are objective, such as symmetry.

 

[d4m10n]

Don't teachers mostly use second person pronouns, and the students' names?

I've given up lecturing, but there isn't much need to refer to students' pronouns when they are all in the room. Seems like it'd be easier to just memorize their names, avoid pronouns, and call it a day.

 

[Olmstead]

Only because of sexual attraction. That's the subjective part. Absent that, they aren't.

Beauty is not in fact purely subjective. There are factors which are objective, such as symmetry.

Source? (As I seriously doubt that, but am very interested in any evidence that points towards objective beauty.)

 

[p0lka]

Only because of sexual attraction. That's the subjective part. Absent that, they aren't.

Beauty is not in fact purely subjective. There are factors which are objective, such as symmetry.

OK, remove sexual attraction.

The genitals we all have, have remarkable symmetry. Some more than others.

If you are basing your opinions regarding beauty and genitals on symmetry then hey ho, you might find some more beautiful than others?

 

[Graham2001]

Yeah, that got posted upthread.

I have questions. The author appears male, and everything referring to the article uses male pronouns for them. So I end up wondering why a male is so unnerved by males as to need to write an op ed about how unsafe they felt because of males.

Perhaps they are a transman, and a survivor of sexual assault, which would at least make the premise of the op ed make some sense.

On the other hand... they're also assuming the gender of the people who did work. How do they know that none of those people were transmen or nonbinary?

The whole op ed just seemed... odd.

There's definitely an element of paranoid thinking evoked in the second paragraph, but that's as far as I'm willing to risk making a diagnosis.


The story however is continuing to spread, Jerry Coyne devoted a blog post to it.

This has been reported by the right-wing media, of course, but I’d prefer to go to the source itself: the student newspaper of one of the wokest colleges in America: Oberlin College in Ohio. You may remember that Oberlin tried to destroy Gibson’s Bakery because the bakery’s owners called the cops on some students for shoplifting. Gibson’s won a huge judgement against the College—over $30 million including attorney’s fees. But the case, which began in 2016, is still going on, and even has its own Wikipedia page (Oberlin had to post bond for the judgement, but hasn’t paid up).

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021...-by-radiator-installation-at-oberlin-college/

 

[Elaedith]

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021...-by-radiator-installation-at-oberlin-college/

Comment from that site:
'So a trans or “non-binary” person is upset that men entering the dorms to install radiators leaves them “angry, scared, and confused” and finds this unacceptable.

Meanwhile, if women object to male-bodied people having a right to enter single-sex spaces such as restrooms or showers, that makes them “phobic” and “hateful”?'

 

[Emily's Cat]

Only because of sexual attraction. That's the subjective part. Absent that, they aren't.

Beauty is not in fact purely subjective. There are factors which are objective, such as symmetry.

A nice symmetrical penis is a work of art.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Comment from that site:
'So a trans or “non-binary” person is upset that men entering the dorms to install radiators leaves them “angry, scared, and confused” and finds this unacceptable.

Meanwhile, if women object to male-bodied people having a right to enter single-sex spaces such as restrooms or showers, that makes them “phobic” and “hateful”?'

Same reason why ads aimed at making sure male people get prostate exams say "men", whereas ads aimed at making sure female people get cervical screenings say "cervix havers".

 

[Ziggurat]

OK, remove sexual attraction.

The genitals we all have, have remarkable symmetry.

Not really. They don’t generally have very good symmetry, considering that we are bilaterally symmetric animals. Faces tend to be more symmetric than genitals.

If you are basing your opinions regarding beauty and genitals on symmetry

I’m not. Rather, that was one well-studied example of an objective beauty standard. It’s hardly the only factor, in genitals or faces.

then hey ho, you might find some more beautiful than others?

Well, yes.

 

[Ziggurat]

Source? (As I seriously doubt that, but am very interested in any evidence that points towards objective beauty.)

For example:
https://www.babylab.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/09/Slater-et-al-2000.pdf
Babies show clear preferences for attractive faces, well before they can learn any social cues about what should or shouldn’t be considered attractive.

And in case it wasn’t clear from what I said previously, this does NOT mean that beauty is purely objective. There is definitely a subjective component. But likewise, it is not purely subjective either, there are objective components as well.

 

[The Atheist]

A nice symmetrical penis is a work of art.

Oh, a penisist! Only happy with penises that meet your aesthetic approval.

Bigot!

For example:
https://www.babylab.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/09/Slater-et-al-2000.pdf
Babies show clear preferences for attractive faces, well before they can learn any social cues about what should or shouldn’t be considered attractive.

Classic! They like what someone subjectively considers attractive.

Show them a few pics of dicks, then get back to me.

And in case it wasn’t clear from what I said previously, this does NOT mean that beauty is purely objective. There is definitely a subjective component. But likewise, it is not purely subjective either, there are objective components as well.

If this subject goes any further we should get a thread split, because I think you're talking absolute nonsense. The mere fact of different cultures having different views on what is and isn't attractive should be evidence enough. Tell me what objective process finds this attractive.

 

[Ziggurat]

Classic! They like what someone subjectively considers attractive.

Uh, no. You have that backwards. We subjectively like what babies objectively like. That's the point: our preferences didn't arise out of nowhere. There's an objective basis for much of them.

And really, how could it be otherwise? Why do we find people attractive in the first place? Why do we even evaluate people on the basis of looks? Because it serves a purpose, and that purpose is rooted in biological realities of our species.

If this subject goes any further we should get a thread split, because I think you're talking absolute nonsense. The mere fact of different cultures having different views on what is and isn't attractive should be evidence enough.

Enough evidence of what? That there's a subjective component? Sure. Already granted. But there is a hell of a lot of overlap between what different cultures find attractive. Facial symmetry, for example, is appealing cross-culturally. And newborns don't have culture. Yet they still have preferences.

And all this is, I believe, quite relevant to the current thread. I think there are strong parallels between objective vs subjective beauty standards and the question of sex vs. gender, and beauty standards play a direct role in questions of gender as well. There's also a lot of desire in both cases to create illusions (see below).

Tell me what objective process finds this attractive.

You're arguing against a straw man. I never said that all beauty standards were objective, only that some were.

But you're also trying to pull a switch here. Foot binding was considered attractive when the foot was bound, which concealed the deformations that it caused. The deformations themselves weren't what was attractive. It was the illusion that the foot was smaller than it really was. Just like padded bras create an illusion of larger breasts, even though the illusion is broken if the person gets naked.

 

[d4m10n]

Rather, that was one well-studied example of an objective beauty standard.

Symmetry is objectively measurable but only a subject can notice or care about beauty.

 

[Matthew Best]

Uh, no. You have that backwards. We subjectively like what babies objectively subjectively like.

FTFY

 

[Olmstead]

For example:
https://www.babylab.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2016/09/Slater-et-al-2000.pdf
Babies show clear preferences for attractive faces, well before they can learn any social cues about what should or shouldn’t be considered attractive.

And in case it wasn’t clear from what I said previously, this does NOT mean that beauty is purely objective. There is definitely a subjective component. But likewise, it is not purely subjective either, there are objective components as well.

You're making an argument for an innate perception of beauty vs. a socially-acquired perception. I don't think that's quite the same as objective vs. subjective, and anyway, wouldn't the perception of genitals as beautiful fall in the innate category, as it is based on our biological drive to breed? I don't really see the difference.

 

[sphenisc]

You're making an argument for an innate perception of beauty vs. a socially-acquired perception. I don't think that's quite the same as objective vs. subjective, and anyway, wouldn't the perception of genitals as beautiful fall in the innate category, as it is based on our biological drive to breed? I don't really see the difference.

Seems like the kind of mistake a p-zombie would make.



Just saying.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're making an argument for an innate perception of beauty vs. a socially-acquired perception. I don't think that's quite the same as objective vs. subjective

That's a semantic quibble I'm not really interested in pursuing.

and anyway, wouldn't the perception of genitals as beautiful fall in the innate category, as it is based on our biological drive to breed? I don't really see the difference.

I'm saying that it's directly connected to sexual desire, and absent that sexual desire, it's not beautiful. If we want to use your terminology, genitals don't satisfy the innate criteria for being considered beautiful EXCEPT that they are sexually arousing.