Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Meadmaker]

I don’t think ST is even vaguely implying those two sets I described there, are ‘fellow travelers’ but rather that set A has a really big boner for any trans-exclusionary policies set B feels stuck with setting in the pursuit of competetive fairness.

So, if someone opposes puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria, are they in subset A, or subset B?


Or, I suppose more accurately, if someone opposes puberty blockers is that a sufficient condition for concluding that the person is part of subset A? Because that's what ST seems to imply when he talks about people denying trans care. He seems to think that Texas (and Sweden? How about that ST. You really don't talk much about Sweden. I am genuinely curious what you think of those folks in Sweden who deny access to gender affirming care. Seriously. You don't seem to want to address it, and I don't know why not. I can speculate, but I''d rather hear it from you. What say you about Sweden?) is full of fascists because they have outlawed "gender affirming" care.

For what it's worth, I strongly oppose the manner in which Texas has done it, and that's a thing for me. I don't think it's enough to do the right thing. In order to have a reasonable government, you have to do it the right way. Their invocation of child abuse laws is ridiculous. Those sorts of policies should go through the legislative branch, not the executive or judiciary. There may even be another thread where I've talked about that lately.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Define "medical care".

Define "willfully obtuse".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So, if someone opposes puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria, are they in subset A, or subset B?


Or, I suppose more accurately, if someone opposes puberty blockers is that a sufficient condition for concluding that the person is part of subset A? Because that's what ST seems to imply when he talks about people denying trans care. He seems to think that Texas (and Sweden? How about that ST. You really don't talk much about Sweden. I am genuinely curious what you think of those folks in Sweden who deny access to gender affirming care. Seriously. You don't seem to want to address it, and I don't know why not. I can speculate, but I''d rather hear it from you. What say you about Sweden?) is full of fascists because they have outlawed "gender affirming" care.

Mostly because I know very little about Swedish politics or culture around the issue. At a very high level and admittedly poorly informed, their policy at least has the appearance of being rooted in good faith rather than rabid animus, even if it strikes me as poorly made and overly cautious to the point of creating real risks for Swedish patients. It doesn't help that I don't speak Swedish and finding original sources is difficult. Some sources seem to indicate this is a sweeping ban, others say that the advise, while influential, can be ignored by practitioners if they feel it is in their patient's best medical interests to do so. These are nontrivial factors in assessing such guidance that I have no answers for.

For what it's worth, I strongly oppose the manner in which Texas has done it, and that's a thing for me. I don't think it's enough to do the right thing. In order to have a reasonable government, you have to do it the right way. Their invocation of child abuse laws is ridiculous. Those sorts of policies should go through the legislative branch, not the executive or judiciary. There may even be another thread where I've talked about that lately.

Would you agree that Texas has chosen to do things this way because they are motivated by animus? I'm not sure how else you would explain how incredibly unreasonable and capricious this policy is being made and enforced without a clear malicious element at play.

 

[Paul2]

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.

You're misunderstanding how I used the term "political." The *topic* of trans civil rights is obviously a political topic. But I distinguished your *purpose* in what you write here (or tend to write here) as political (or approach, or maybe some other more apt word) as opposed to the purpose of applying skeptical and principles to an issue; that is, an expression of power as opposed to an expression of logic or skepticism.

Your mileage may vary, but I try to first tease out the logic in an issue, using skeptical principles, and then let that help define my political positions, rather than starting from some political position (on what basis, I'm not sure) and then bringing logic and skepticism to bear in service of that position.

 

[theprestige]

Define "willfully obtuse".

Willfully obtuse: Repeatedly begging the repeatedly-debunked question that there is any ethical trans-affirming care for prepubescent children, or indeed even any legitimate medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria in prepubescent children.

We keep asking you to show us some basic science about why prepubescent children even need trans-affirming medical treatment, and you can't even describe what that treatment is. Let alone why kids should have it. Just ad homs and gish gallops and fringe resets, every time we get to this point in the discussion.

Years, this thread has been going on, and you still haven't come up with any way to move past this point. Years, trans-activists have been banging this drum, and they still haven't come up with any good scientific arguments for you to use to get past this point.

That's your willfully obtuse, right there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

The fact that one horrible thing is being done to transpeople doesn't mean everything is being done to transpeople.

Your arguments for the last (I ain't even bothering counting anymore, make a number up at this point) threads have been a lot of "If I can find one example of anything being bad done to transpeople I win every part of the entire argument."

Texas's law is horrible. It is vile and wrong. But we were talking about you dismissing a purely semantic term while defending purely semantic terms as basically a human rights issue.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The fact that one horrible thing is being done to transpeople doesn't mean everything is being done to transpeople.

Your arguments for the last (I ain't even bothering counting anymore, make a number up at this point) threads have been a lot of "If I can find one example of anything being bad done to transpeople I win every part of the entire argument."

Texas's law is horrible. It is vile and wrong. But we were talking about you dismissing a purely semantic term while defending purely semantic terms as basically a human rights issue.

It's more than just Texas. Several red states have adopted, are adopting, or are likely to adopt very similar policies. Significant portions of this country are going to have similar policies in the near future barring some extraordinary intervention.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's more than just Texas. Several red states have adopted, are adopting, or are likely to adopt very similar policies. Significant portions of this country are going to have similar policies in the near future barring some extraordinary intervention.

Again that's great but we were talking about one piece of pure semantics against an entire movement that is nothing but pure semantics.

Again you can't just keep "winning" by finding random, unrelated bad things happening to transpeople for every argument anyone is having.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again that's great but we were talking about one piece of pure semantics against an entire movement that is nothing but pure semantics.

Again you can't just keep "winning" by finding random, unrelated bad things happening to transpeople for every argument anyone is having.

I don't follow. I don't see how a bevy of anti-trans laws being passed after a prolonged and concerted campaign of anti-trans propaganda is by any stretch of the imagination "random".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't follow. I don't see how a bevy of anti-trans laws being passed after a prolonged and concerted campaign of anti-trans propaganda is by any stretch of the imagination "random".

I'm not explaining to you how "topics" work and why every point in a discussion isn't all points in a discussion.

 

[Elaedith]

Dr. Erica Anderson, a trans woman, clinical psychologist and former member of WPATH has just been quoted in the Daily Mail.

"H.H.S. Assistant Secretary for Health, Admiral Rachel Levine raised eyebrows last month by declaring that 'no argument' exists among medical professionals who care for adolescents 'regarding the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.'

That's just not true."

"Recently, the health authorities in Sweden and France have made the brave move to stop the routine use of some types of gender-affirming care treatments for youth under the age of 18."

But it's in the Daily Fail. Does that mean Dr Anderson is a fascist? Is that outweighed by being trans and having 30 years experience in trans health care? It must be so difficult to work out what is wrongthink when you have to do it all based on guilt by association and without actually looking at evidence.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think that actually makes it easier.

 

[Meadmaker]

Would you agree that Texas has chosen to do things this way because they are motivated by animus? .

"Texas" doesn't have an opinion.

Is Governor Abbot motivated by animus? I suppose. Probably. I don't consider it an important question. Seriously. I don't care why he wants to do it. I think puberty blockers are bad, so I like that part. I think manipulating laws to other purposes and ignoring legislatures is bad, so I don't like that part.

So I guess the short answer is yes.

But I don't really care.

 

[Elaedith]

I think that actually makes it easier.

Easier to do it by association? Yes, associative thinking is a form of heuristic thinking, related to magical thinking (the contagion principle) and an example of lazy and sloppy thinking. Unfortunately it works because humans are cognitive misers. That's why ideologues use it for propaganda.

It must be difficult though when you run into these nasty conflicts like a socialist writing a gender critical piece for the Weekly Worker, or a transgender psychologist departing from some aspects of orthodoxy in the Daily Mail. I suppose the best policy is to just ignore it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Easier to do it by association? Yes, associative thinking is a form of heuristic thinking, related to magical thinking (the contagion principle) and an example of lazy and sloppy thinking. Unfortunately it works because humans are cognitive misers. That's why ideologues use it for propaganda.

It must be difficult though when you run into these nasty conflicts like a socialist writing a gender critical piece for the Weekly Worker, or a transgender psychologist departing from some aspects of orthodoxy in the Daily Mail. I suppose the best policy is to just ignore it.

To be fair, it's best policy to ignore pretty much anything written in a Trotskyite newspaper.

I wish the extremists on the right were just as uninfluential and irrelevant as those at the Weekly Worker, but considering the political landscape, you can't really afford to ignore the screeds of the extreme right.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the piece in the Daily Mail even recommends. Lots of "it's complicated, let's be nice" sentiments which are dandy, but no real concrete recommendations. I have to admit my eyes glazed over pretty fast, it was an incredibly unfocused piece of writing.

 

[Meadmaker]

How about Skeptic magazine as a source?

I was in a bookstore today. That's something that hardly ever happens anymore, but there I was, and I saw Skeptic on the shelves. The guy who used to publish it had quote a reputation around here once upon a time, and as a member of the LGBT community, he would probably have some street cred. Of course, he's dead now, but I would guess that his legacy lives on.

Anyway, gender dysphoria was the cover story.

I confess I didn't buy the magazine. I skimmed through some of the articles though, and I have bad news. It would appear that fascists have taken over Skeptic. Yep. Some of those articles were openly critical of the Trans Rights Activists community. How could such a thing have happened?


Anyway, I just skimmed it, so maybe I got it wrong. If anyone wants to pick it up and give us a quick overview, let us know.

 

[Elaedith]

How about Skeptic magazine as a source?

I was in a bookstore today. That's something that hardly ever happens anymore, but there I was, and I saw Skeptic on the shelves. The guy who used to publish it had quote a reputation around here once upon a time, and as a member of the LGBT community, he would probably have some street cred. Of course, he's dead now, but I would guess that his legacy lives on.

Anyway, gender dysphoria was the cover story.

I confess I didn't buy the magazine. I skimmed through some of the articles though, and I have bad news. It would appear that fascists have taken over Skeptic. Yep. Some of those articles were openly critical of the Trans Rights Activists community. How could such a thing have happened?



Anyway, I just skimmed it, so maybe I got it wrong. If anyone wants to pick it up and give us a quick overview, let us know.

Is this the one that published the article by Carol Tavris I linked to before?

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/transgender-reality-i-didnt-know-there-was-another-side/

 

[TurkeysGhost]

How about Skeptic magazine as a source?

I was in a bookstore today. That's something that hardly ever happens anymore, but there I was, and I saw Skeptic on the shelves. The guy who used to publish it had quote a reputation around here once upon a time, and as a member of the LGBT community, he would probably have some street cred. Of course, he's dead now, but I would guess that his legacy lives on.

Anyway, gender dysphoria was the cover story.

I confess I didn't buy the magazine. I skimmed through some of the articles though, and I have bad news. It would appear that fascists have taken over Skeptic. Yep. Some of those articles were openly critical of the Trans Rights Activists community. How could such a thing have happened?


Anyway, I just skimmed it, so maybe I got it wrong. If anyone wants to pick it up and give us a quick overview, let us know.

Strawman all you like, but I simply pointed out that Rebel News is a fash outlet. Do you disagree?

I would agree with you that there are plenty of non-fascist, good-faith voices that are more conservative on the issues we're discussing.

 

[Rolfe]

This has interesting ramifications, because it drives a coach and horses through the TRA objective of having trans people treated and accepted as full members of the sex they aren't without any distinction whatsoever. If this goes through, and I think in some form it must, eventually, all we need to know is which swimming events you'd be eligible to compete in, and we can name your sex accurately.

Well now, we've spent about three pages screaming that facts reported by publications ST believes are unacceptable should be dismissed. Me, I don't care that much where the facts are published, so long as they are actual facts. It seems to be established that these are actual facts, and that the article I linked to was merely one of a number reporting on an entirely legitimate press release.

What we have not done is discuss the substance of the point I made. Rabid TRAs are aiming for a world where biological sex is accorded absolutely no importance whatsoever in any context at all, and ideally is accepted as something that has no objective existence.

If we get to the stage, as I think seems inevitable, that biological males are excluded from participation in at least some categories of women's sports, they have lost their main objective. Would this person be eligible to compete in the women's category of [swimming, surfing, weightlifting, cycling, you name it]? If so, we know what sex they are. And if not, again we know what sex they are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

0.02% of the population - "Wah, normal language as it has been used for thousands of years makes me feel uncomfortable, change it!"
Woke officialdom - "Certainly, we grovel for having offended you."
Everybody else - "This new language makes us feel very uncomfortable."
Woke officialdom - "Suck it up, TERF."

This is what I think is the difference.

What you describe as uncomfortable on the part of the minority appears to be contribution to mental health issues.

What you describe as uncomfortable for others appears to be describing dislike.

If I evaluate that from a "do no harm" perspective, I don't value dislike as harm.