LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,455
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
How can we know this? Perhaps Cubana Angel (who was bold enough to speak up) is the extreme outlier.
Last edited:
Sure he is an extreme outlier.
But reliance on self ID opens the door for extreme outliers.
It also opens the door to abuse by less extreme outliers.
You label any abuse as an outlier and use that as a reason not to be concerned.
But a lot of things are extreme outliers. Spree shooters for (an extreme) example. That doesn’t mean they aren’t cause for concern.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
We've no way of knowing whether encountering bepenised individuals in women's spaces is an excentionally rare (outlier) event or not, in a state where the ACLU insists it would be illegal to challenge this practice.
We do know that these events rarely go viral, but that could be because CubanaAngel is an outlier in terms of her willingness to publicly speak up against said practice.
We do know that these events rarely go viral, but that could be because CubanaAngel is an outlier in terms of her willingness to publicly speak up against said practice.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Reporting on polling from 538
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...q-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...q-rights-often-stops-with-transgender-rights/
Last edited:
This strikes me as a losing way to look at this for the TERFs. This is comparing the cost of the subset of the issues with bepenised people using trans-inclusive laws to misbehave that go viral, to some imagined benefit of these laws. It also assumed that the question is about minimizing the direct, measurable harm caused to individuals. Many aspects of this are effectively impossible to measure in a way that helps us decide this question.
Can you clarify the jurisdiction of the ACLU please?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What a weird question! Nobody expects or intends an expert legal opinion to be a court ruling. Jurisdiction is completely irrelevant.
Maybe it should be people of penis?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I would say we ought to compare all of the benefits of this policy to all of the costs thereof, for the people of California, without focusing narrowly on misbehavior or virality.
Benefits: People who find affirmation using facilities congruent with their sense of self will be able to seek that affirmation without interference from places of public accommodation (e.g. Wi Spa) which traditionally offered sex-segregated setting to their patrons.
Costs: People who are triggered, shocked, or upset at having to witness people of the opposite sex in such places are going to have to deal with it from now on.
This is where Rolfe comes in and tells us that TRA's don't count the costs if the people involved are (female at birth, non-transgender) women.
(She's not wrong, I'm just taking that particular objection as read.)
Personally, I've no good way of saying whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I know that the social justice thing to say is that the more oppressed group should take priority over the less oppressed one, but that isn't how I think moral calculus should work.
Last edited:
That is just a particular political perspective's view on the costs that is hyper focused on direct first order impacts to individuals. It's as if we look at the ethical management of the commons as if the only moral questions where about the hurt feelings of the parties involved who are being denied free access to the land. The undermining of the meaning of the category "woman" comes up in the thread over and over and over. "Woman" and connected concepts like "family" are foundational concepts that society is built on.
This kind of moral calculus isn't how these decisions are made though. One side will have more social power than the other and, in a "history is written by the winners" way, will be able to frame the history of the "debate" such that morality and progress won. If the TRAs win, then the TERFS will have been conservatives resisting progress and liberation. If the TERFS win, then the TRAs will have been conservatives trying to reclaim female spaces and female privilege for men. At the moment, it looks to me like the TRAs are going to win - the fact that we are using the TRA's terminology like TERF strongly implies that.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If I can't sort those out, there isn't much point in moving on to the subtle undermining of "foundational concepts" of society.
ETA: I'm fairly skeptical of this latter approach, having been warned by James Dobson how gay marriage would undermine the foundational concept of family.
One of the problems in this case is that activists are now saying the difference between the same person being in the 'most privileged' group (straight white male) and the 'most oppressed' group (trans woman) is based on nothing that exists in material reality.
Why would they be sortoutable? There are no objective means of quantifying the problem that both sides are going to agree on. You might personally reach a conclusion, I suppose. I also think that just because the first order effects may be easier to measure doesn't make them the most important impacts. To my mind they are pretty trivial and unimportant.
Never heard of him, but has he been proved wrong? Again, these aren't things that agreement is likely to come on. The world is too complicated. Somehow we now have Supreme Court Justices pretending they don't know what "woman" means. We haven't gotten to that point in one step. When all these modern liberation movements started, nobody outside philosophy departments would have believed nonsense like this. Somehow society changed. The first order direct effects of these policies are far less important than the way they change society.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
To my satisfaction, yes.
It's the sort of question that depends pretty much entirely on your model of man and society. It's more like a theological question than a scientific one. I mean, it has been legalised in the US for only a handful of years. Do you think there should be a clear step in a graph, and the absence of something like that answers the question?
Last edited:
A legal opinion or just an advisory? Why should anyone take notice of ACLU opinions on matters of law?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Because the American Civil Liberties Union is a well known civil rights advocacy and legal aid non-profit organization, with extensive experience litigating civil rights cases throughout the US, and an established reputation in that field.
You're getting the opinion of one of the top civil rights law firms in the country.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I sort of hate to be openly pedantic, but everything that exists does so in material reality. This includes subjective mental states, I'm afraid.
Last edited:
- Status