Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Matthew Best]

Summary Considerations for the Future

1. Fairness is paramount to all sports, including the sport of [insert sport here];

2. The sport of [insert sport here] is gender affected and that manifests itself through the physical differences between males and females;

3. The sport of [insert sport here] rewards greater strength, stamina, and/or physique;

4. Sex categories within the sport of [insert sport here] exist to provide fairness and opportunity in competition;

5. Through a re-categorisation process, the sport of [insert sport here] should offer an alternative competitive model which would ensure inclusion and fairness.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess that makes the WSCA fascists too now.

I doubt they sent their press release to Rebel News personally.

 

[Matthew Best]

But they are trans-exclusionary and therefore fascists.

 

[Paul2]

Poisoning the well.

I don't think the well of Rebel News could be any more inhospitable to life, no matter what I might try to do.

At least you're honest enough to admit your tactics.

It looks like ST is here less to engage in a logical and skeptical examination of the issue around trans rights and more to exert what power is possible to be exerted in an online forum to advance the cause of trans rights; that is, to achieve a political goal. This is occurring even as ST can use logic and skepticism in the service of achieving a political goal. (Of course, logical fallacies and an absence of skepticism can also be marshaled in service of this political goal, which we have just seen with ST's use of the fallacy of poisoning the well above.).

But using logic in service of a political goal is not the same thing at all as using logic to examine an issue as a goal in and of itself, and only after that step, as a result of it, would conclusions be reached, consistent with that logic, which can then translate into political goals as a separate step.

The two approaches can look a lot like each other sometimes, because logic and skepticism can be applied in both, so we should all be aware of confusing the two, which will lead to a lot of spilled digital ink for no purpose.

 

[shuttlt]

Well put.

 

[Paul2]

Well put.

Thanks, Shut. I've had some pretty deep disagreements with you here, but not so deep that I can't appreciate us agreeing on the substance of my point.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It looks like ST is here less to engage in a logical and skeptical examination of the issue around trans rights and more to exert what power is possible to be exerted in an online forum to advance the cause of trans rights; that is, to achieve a political goal. This is occurring even as ST can use logic and skepticism in the service of achieving a political goal. (Of course, logical fallacies and an absence of skepticism can also be marshaled in service of this political goal, which we have just seen with ST's use of the fallacy of poisoning the well above.).

But using logic in service of a political goal is not the same thing at all as using logic to examine an issue as a goal in and of itself, and only after that step, as a result of it, would conclusions be reached, consistent with that logic, which can then translate into political goals as a separate step.

The two approaches can look a lot like each other sometimes, because logic and skepticism can be applied in both, so we should all be aware of confusing the two, which will lead to a lot of spilled digital ink for no purpose.

It strikes me as quite odd to think that anyone could be "debating" whether trans people deserve civil rights and that is not an inherently a political question. It may not be exclusively a political question, but I don't see how it can be strictly apolitical either. It takes a certain kind of willful obtuseness or blindness to pretend this is some ivory tower logic debate where political implications are not what primarily drives the issue, but are not even important enough to mention.

My comments about transphobic pieces publishing in some fash-rag is entirely about politics of course. There's absolutely a meta conversation to be had about the coordination (or outright cooption) of transphobia, as a political issue, with broader authoritarian right wing politics.

 

[shuttlt]

Thanks, Shut. I've had some pretty deep disagreements with you here, but not so deep that I can't appreciate us agreeing on the substance of my point.

Look. I was born a leftie of Guardian reading parents in good standing. I think I want the same things I wanted then. I just have a much more pessimistic view about what is possible, and what the outcomes are of policies I previously supported.

It's refreshing in this hive of scum and villainy to be able to find even a little common ground.

 

[Matthew Best]

It strikes me as quite odd to think that anyone could be "debating" whether trans people deserve civil rights

Who has put forward the proposition that trans people don't deserve civil rights?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Who has put forward the proposition that trans people don't deserve civil rights?

The state of Texas immediately comes to mind.

 

[Matthew Best]

The state of Texas immediately comes to mind.

You're debating with The State of Texas? Please link me to this debate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But only some people:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05...bortion-bill-replaces-word-woman-with-person/

(Link is to an article about Senate Democrats' pro-abortion bill, in which they replaced "woman" with "person", because, ya know, pregnant men.)

I'm curious, is there any objection here that isn't entirely aesthetic?

Seems like an awfully petty thing to care about given the broader context.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm curious, is there any objection here that isn't entirely aesthetic?

Seems like an awfully petty thing to care about given the broader context.

No more "aesthetic" then... like the entire transgender concept.

You can't "Oh don't be so picky about the labels" as a counter-argument to a criticism of a transgender adjacent topic. It's absurd.

 

[Wolrab]

What civil rights are denied transfolk?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

What civil rights are denied transfolk?

That very much depends on locality.

In red states in the US, that increasingly means the rights to medical freedom and freedom of speech without state retaliation. Just your average non-discrimination civil rights stuff.

 

[Meadmaker]

It strikes me as quite odd to think that anyone could be "debating" whether trans people deserve civil rights...

Which civil rights are those?


Oh, wait. That was last year's question. And the year before. Never mind.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Which civil rights are those?


Oh, wait. That was last year's question. And the year before. Never mind.

Texas is threatening to arrest families that provide trans children medical care. Perhaps you can concede that civil rights are very much in play.

 

[Elaedith]

Here is a piece in the Weekly Worker, arguing that there is 'common ground between the patriarchal right and some advocates of trans rights'.

Orthodoxy and its discontents

"But the debate is not just about trans rights - it is about what sex and gender actually are - which is relevant to all humanity. So, when we consider gender in relation to the whole of humanity, the picture flips around: trans rights orthodoxy has far more in common with socially conservative views than gender-critical feminism does."

Strangely, I linked to gender critical pieces in the Weekly Worker before, and I don't recall any well-poisoning.

 

[shuttlt]

Texas is threatening to arrest families that provide trans children medical care. Perhaps you can concede that civil rights are very much in play.

Do you have a civil right to have whatever medical procedure you can find a doctor to agree to performed on your kid? I'm not American, maybe you do? In the UK, I'm confident there are restrictions.

 

[Matthew Best]

Texas is threatening to arrest families that provide trans children medical care. Perhaps you can concede that civil rights are very much in play.

Define "medical care".