There's a lot in here. A lot of it, I think is on point. But I think ST's positions are sincerely held. While I've seen little nuance in either his trans-rights or his anti-fascist positions, and he does link them in his arguments, I don't think one produces the other.
So, some clarifications.
I didn't intend to accuse ST of insincerity. I think the beliefs of all participants in this thread are sincere.
Second, I talked about hatred of fascism, but these things don't exist in a vacuum. The hatred of fascism (as he identifies it) could arise from a desire to protect oppressed minorities, in which case the desire to protect transgenders creates the hatred of fascism, which then reinforces the desire to support the people that fascists considers enemies.
Third, placing a cause over people is something we all do, to some extent, if we are the sorts of folks who like to argue politics. We like it when we have someone or some situation we can report to that creates sympathy for "our side". The girls of Palatine High School are real people, but if I'm being honest they are also examples I can use to bolster my side of an argument. Neither side has a monopoly on political exploitation of the various actors in various news stories.
Nevertheless, what I see in a lot of trans-inclusive supporters, including ST, is a disregard for the specifics of the actual people and reasons for the conflict. They are a minority. The right wing hates them. What more do you need to know? That's it.
Many of us have spent the better part of 600 pages of this thread, and various other threads before it and aside it, trying to engage with principles related to the definition of the sexes, with the reasons for segregation of various aspects of society, the science related to sex, gender, reproduction, sexual dimorphism and on and on and on. Most trans-inclusive supporters, are less interested in that, and more interested in the dynamics of groups. All that psychological stuff seems like academic games. They're more into, "TERF!!!!!!!!!!!!" and, "You're on the same side as the fascists!" Sometimes they might go into some of the science related to the development of gender dysphoria, but darned near never do they discuss either the science or the experience of people who want to keep their clothes on around men, or want to only race against other females.
I think that's why so many people bring up off topic references to other minorities that have historically been oppressed.
For me, when I began talking about transgender issues on this board some 12 years ago, I didn't even know what the condition was. I thought transgender was synonymous with transexual (i.e. surgically altered). I've learned a lot since then. I've modified my views a lot. However, I like to think that I've analyzed this specific problem by looking at the issues faced by these specific people in these situations.
The short version of my current position is that we should live and let live, but modesty is a valid lived condition, and humans are sexually dimorphic. Therefore, segregation by sex makes sense when people are naked, or when engaging in athletic competitions, and what happened to blacks, or gays, or whoever doesn't change that.
It's true that, for whatever reason all of the major cultures seem to have developed a sense of modesty, particularly (but not exclusively) towards the opposite sex. On the other hand my parent's subscription to National Geographic when I was a kid suggests to me that there is much less of a sense of modesty among primitive cultures. Not being an anthropologist, I'm not sure I'm entirely correct in that regard, but that's my impression.
I don't know how one would go about testing in such a way that eliminates cultural influence to prove whether it is instinctive or created by cultural influences.
My conclusion is that it is instinctive. That clothing is something we have literally evolved with in the 100,000 years or so since humans started wearing clothes. I think it relates to signalling of sexual receptivity, which is why different amounts of clothing serve the same purpose in different cltures. So, it's culturally shaped, but the core is instinctive. If ankles are supposed to be covered in your culture, then a girl showing her ankle is sending a signal, and it's very likely to produce the desired reaction in the male viewer. How much or what kinds of clothing is considered revealing varies with culture, but in every culture, there is some expected amount of clothing
Why the heck is a woman in her underwear more sexy than a woman in a bikini? It's irrational. But it's true. I think it's because the underwear is something that is supposed to be hidden. I also think that the core of "modesty" is not wanting to send that signal unless you really mean it.
I don't know how one would prove or disprove that hypothesis.
