• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rolfe said:
I was quite surprised that all the devil's advocacy was being taken at face value, but maybe a sarcasm tag would help.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean it as sarcasm though. It's a position I disagree with, but it's still a position with an internal logic to it.
 
1984 becomes an entirely different story if you come at it from the perspective of O'Brien being the hero. He's supposed to be based on James Burnham, so reading The Managerial Revolution first might help. I think that's the kind of mental leap you need to relate across the two sides of this debate.
 
Last edited:
I'm not honestly all that interested in a deep understanding of the mindset that denies the basic facts of mammalian biology. This may be naive, but it's what I'm trained on.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not honestly all that interested in a deep understanding of the mindset that denies the basic facts of mammalian biology. This may be naive, but it's what I'm trained on.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the argument is really about mammalian biology. It's not like they think like you about the world, it's just that for some reason they have taken it into their heads that humans aren't sexually dimorphic. Maybe some naive simpletons at the bottom do, but it's not what the disagreement really is about.

It's like having an argument with some hypothetical young Earth creationist who thinks fossils were placed there by God to test our faith. If you just say, "well I'm not interested in having a deep understanding of his mindset, I am going to debate him about the geologic evidence for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old...." you are going to have a very pointless argument that you can't possibly win and will only ever touch on surface level aspects of his position. It goes to the core of your position though, so while you can't win any ground in the argument, you can lose it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to win an argument with a young earth creationist on their terms either. I'm certainly not going to win an argument with someone convinced of the genderwoo, or someone determined that men should always have what they want and damn what women think or feel about it.

It's about understanding the issues well enough to explain the lunacy to the (generally incredulous) onlooker, it such a way that they don't get sucked into it. "Be kind" has pulled a lot of otherwise rational people into this cess-pit.
 
I got the paper today, and the headline was about a transgender woman who was upset that her insurance didn't cover changing her voice.

At this point, it's becoming clear to me that nothing can be done to satisfy everyone else's needs as an individual, and society shouldn't feel guilty as a whole because someone else isn't exactly who they want to be. I can't regrow someone's leg for them, I can't give someone three eyes. At a certain point, biology is what it is, I'm sorry. It sucks.

ETA: Note, she has transitioned otherwise. Apparently, her voice is still quite obviously male.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not going to win an argument with a young earth creationist on their terms either. I'm certainly not going to win an argument with someone convinced of the genderwoo, or someone determined that men should always have what they want and damn what women think or feel about it.
Click to expand...
I think you will have more luck with the "men should always have what they want" crowd since they haven't spent decades building up a radically different epistemology.

Rolfe said:
It's about understanding the issues well enough to explain the lunacy to the (generally incredulous) onlooker, it such a way that they don't get sucked into it. "Be kind" has pulled a lot of otherwise rational people into this cess-pit.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Having people articulate the inner mysteries of Scientology seemed to do Scientology a lot of harm. Generally the understanding of the world in Scientology and trans-activism is something you have to be inducted into over a period of time. As you say, the initial pitch is "be kind".

I vaguely remember a statement about Deepak Chopra that I've seen also said about postmodernism and all the rest of this. You get these woolly confusing statements that simultaneously have profound and trivial meanings. In as much as they are true, they are trivial and in as much as they are profound they are false. I think one of the better attacks is to straightforwardly talk about what they actually believe.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
I got the paper today, and the headline was about a transgender woman who was upset that her insurance didn't cover changing her voice.

At this point, it's becoming clear to me that nothing can be done to satisfy everyone else's needs as an individual, and society shouldn't feel guilty as a whole because someone else isn't exactly who they want to be. I can't regrow someone's leg for them, I can't give someone three eyes. At a certain point, biology is what it is, I'm sorry. It sucks.

ETA: Note, she has transitioned otherwise. Apparently, her voice is still quite obviously male.
Click to expand...
Look at how many arguments are predicated on the idea of something not being fair to an individual, and that if it is not fair then somebody, rather than the structure of reality, is at fault. This is deep in our culture now. We've spent 60 years celebrating "that's not fair" as some kind of fundamental principle. You can't turn a culture on a dime.

One of the interesting things is that if you go back to the intellectuals in the 60s and even before the war, lots of them believed in many of the same things the transactivists believe now. The implications of those ideas weren't a secret, people wrote books and papers on it. It's just taken many, many decades for that to bleed through the culture behind the banner of "be kind". So now we must all "be kind" and celebrate all this.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Terminology is a battlefield. I’m trying to dodge the grenades.
Click to expand...

Only if you allow the extreme lobby to set the agenda. That's waht got JK Rowling in the crap.

Best plan is for the rational 90% to not fall into that trap (yes, pun intended) and use the correct terminology: i.e. a woman being someone who was born female.
 
shuttlt said:
I think you will have more luck with the "men should always have what they want" crowd since they haven't spent decades building up a radically different epistemology.

I don't know. Having people articulate the inner mysteries of Scientology seemed to do Scientology a lot of harm. Generally the understanding of the world in Scientology and trans-activism is something you have to be inducted into over a period of time. As you say, the initial pitch is "be kind".

I vaguely remember a statement about Deepak Chopra that I've seen also said about postmodernism and all the rest of this. You get these woolly confusing statements that simultaneously have profound and trivial meanings. In as much as they are true, they are trivial and in as much as they are profound they are false. I think one of the better attacks is to straightforwardly talk about what they actually believe.
Click to expand...


Some good points there, but it's not that hard to tell people about Markabs and volcanoes and although they might not believe you at first, when they realise it's true, you're there.

Perhaps surprisingly, "they actually believe men can turn into women" isn't greeted with "you've got to be kidding me!" quite as often as it should be.

"You get these woolly confusing statements that simultaneously have profound and trivial meanings. In as much as they are true, they are trivial and in as much as they are profound they are false." Now that is actually very perceptive, I will remember that.
 
Rolfe said:
Some good points there, but it's not that hard to tell people about Markabs and volcanoes and although they might not believe you at first, when they realise it's true, you're there.

Perhaps surprisingly, "they actually believe men can turn into women" isn't greeted with "you've got to be kidding me!" quite as often as it should be.
Click to expand...
I think they are rather further out in their thinking than that, but I've gone on enough on that topic for the moment.

Rolfe said:
"You get these woolly confusing statements that simultaneously have profound and trivial meanings. In as much as they are true, they are trivial and in as much as they are profound they are false." Now that is actually very perceptive, I will remember that.
Click to expand...
I had a look. It comes from Dennett. He calls them deepities.
 
The Atheist said:
Only if you allow the extreme lobby to set the agenda. That's waht got JK Rowling in the crap.

Best plan is for the rational 90% to not fall into that trap (yes, pun intended) and use the correct terminology: i.e. a woman being someone who was born female.
Click to expand...
The bulk of that 90% are politically disengaged and will be led by the nose by whoever wields cultural power.
 
Looks as though Reka Gyorgy who came second in the swimming finals has now spoken out (assuming this is a genuine account). Will be interesting to see what happens.
 
Elaedith said:
Looks as though Reka Gyorgy who came second in the swimming finals has now spoken out (assuming this is a genuine account). Will be interesting to see what happens.
Click to expand...


Hard to say. She's spoken out a bit already. The account looks legit to me but there are people casting reasonable doubt on it.
 
I am not posting the image that goes with this tweet, because it's probably against the forum rules, and it should be regarded as NSFW.

Joseph Anthony said:
I have heard all the trans rights arguments. Heard all the slogans and mantras. But I have yet to hear one argument that has come close to explaining why this person should be allowed undress in the changing room of the gym that my teenage daughter uses.
Click to expand...


https://twitter.com/JosephAnthonyj/status/1505659949355044866
 
Rolfe said:
Hard to say. She's spoken out a bit already. The account looks legit to me but there are people casting reasonable doubt on it.
Click to expand...

It looked genuine at first glance except that it seemed a bit too good to be true (in terms of being exactly what people would expect her to say). I'm just slightly suspicious these days because I've seen people try to use fake accounts for point scoring.
ETA. Leaning towards thinking it may be fake.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
It looked genuine at first glance except that it seemed a bit too good to be true (in terms of being exactly what people would expect her to say). I'm just slightly suspicious these days because I've seen people try to use fake accounts for point scoring.
ETA. Leaning towards thinking it may be fake.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible that the Twitter might be fake, but I doubt it.

This article, though, contains her letter. I'm pretty sure it's not fake:

https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.c...l-in-500-free-writes-critical-letter-to-ncaa/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom