Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[shuttlt]

We are talking past each other, and the time has come for me to end at least the substantive part of this conversation.

ok.

 

[Paul2]

I sympathise with your approach. I think though that in trying to hold these positions you are more like the rock hoping to win out against the water. From where I'm sitting there seems to be quite a torrent and boulders look to be being washed away.

Can you name a liberation movement that has been turned back by your approach? The only one I can think of is attempts to normalise paedophilia back in the 70s. Even then, I'm not sure it was a drip drip of reasonableness that turned them back, so much as the encountered overwhelming resistance and were defeated.

No, because I have no idea how one would sufficiently measure what cause produced the turn back given the likely multiple potential causes. I answer that as a question of logic and evidence, not as a practical question of an agenda in politics or of power.

However, I drew that analogy from my experiences in staffing an atheist booth at our local, weekly Farmers' Market where I engage Christians all the time, and at best my conversation with them is water dripping on a stone. Christianity has been around for 2000 years, is that enough for us to say it will never disappear (in a practical, political sense)? Despite numerous people saying that they de-converted out of religion because all those drips finally added up to make sense to them? And is our only measure the elimination of Christianity, or is it enough to merely contribute to one person deconverting? Is that too small a victory?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's too bad. Because I don't think it's clear that the majority of the trans community are represented in this discussion.

Allow me to rephrase - on re-reading, my initial post suggests something other than what I intended.

This thread has made me less willing to accept on faith, and much more skeptical of the motivations, character, and intentions of transgender people as a group.

When I said "less tolerant", I mean that I am less willing to give the benefit of the doubt when I see an obvious male person in female-typical clothing going into a female-only space. Where I was previously inclined to assume they were genuinely transsexual and not a risk, I no longer start from that position.

Individuals are still evaluated on an individual basis.

 

[shuttlt]

No, because I have no idea how one would sufficiently measure what cause produced the turn back given the likely multiple potential causes. I answer that as a question of logic and evidence, not as a practical question of an agenda in politics or of power.

What do you mean by "sufficiently". This feels like a rejection of the possibility of learning from history. Can you be as certain as you can be in physics, no of course you can't. Is there no information to be gleaned from history about how the world works, what the implications of particular ideas are? I don't think that can be true either. History is the only experimental evidence we have for these things. Are we better off using the only evidence we have, or ignoring it? If we aren't sufficiently informed to make judgements when we utilise this evidence, are we somehow sufficiently informed when we don't. Ultimately we are talking about the right course of action in the world, so I'm not sure there is a neutral middle ground to take.... except maybe to be suspicious of proposals for change.

There is a story about a man walking along the street at night who encounters another may crouched under a street light. The first man asks the second what he is doing, the second replies that he has dropped his car keys somewhere in the street and is looking for them. The first man asks whether he dropped them under the street light. The second replies that he didn't but under the street light it is so much easier to search. It would be nice to have lots of certainty about the lessons of history. The choice is either we let our eyes get accustomed to the gloom and search for the best answers we can, or sweep most of the important questions we want to ask about the world off the table and act as if they didn't exist.

However, I drew that analogy from my experiences in staffing an atheist booth at our local, weekly Farmers' Market where I engage Christians all the time, and at best my conversation with them is water dripping on a stone. Christianity has been around for 2000 years, is that enough for us to say it will never disappear (in a practical, political sense)? Despite numerous people saying that they de-converted out of religion because all those drips finally added up to make sense to them? And is our only measure the elimination of Christianity, or is it enough to merely contribute to one person deconverting? Is that too small a victory?

It depends what you want to do. If all you are doing is having a one on one conversation, then sure. Are the trans-activists trying to win that way? The issue is one of political power and the direction of society. Trans activists aren't winning by rational discourse, they are winning by making people who disagree with them stop talking.

As to atheism, it seems like it is falling away in the world. There was a Pew paper a while back. Islam and Christianity are still growing fast. Unaffiliateds are getting killed by low birth rates. Pew has them going from 16.4% of the global population in 2010 to 13.2% in 2050. I don't want to get drawn in to a discussion of atheism. Maybe atheism will turn it around? I just mention that as an example of how there are other issues at play than hoping your idea will win in the marketplace of ideas. If the people pushing the other idea have control of the schools, good luck. That is far more important than the merits of your idea. Half the girls in my daughters class are non-binary or trans. That's not a result of rational discourse and the best idea winning.

Then you have the issue that your idea that you are hoping to convince people of had better be pretty simple and align well with most of what they believe is true, or want to be true. I make no pretensions to being well read, or well informed, many people know much more than I do, but my opinions about the world that we are discussing here are the product of several years of sustained effort, reading dozens of books and I dread to think how many hours of listening to lectures. My world view, whether it is right or wrong, is never going to convince any but a tiny fraction of people because only a tiny fraction of people are prepared to put that kind of effort in. That, and my ideas kind of go against the spirit of the age.

What takes over the world are ideas like "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", or "trans-women are women". They aren't powerful ideas because most of the people who become convinced by them are well informed, or have thought deeply about them.

The political movements, and intellectual traditions behind trans activism absolutely do believe in learning from history. If you have two sides, one of whom is committed to winning, and over 200 years has iteratively tried to find ideas that work at gaining power, and theorises and learns from its history of successes and failures.... and the other side thinks it's having a rational conversation about what is true and "may the best idea win".... the second side is going to get killed.

 

[Paul2]

What do you mean by "sufficiently". This feels like a rejection of the possibility of learning from history. Can you be as certain as you can be in physics, no of course you can't. Is there no information to be gleaned from history about how the world works, what the implications of particular ideas are? I don't think that can be true either. History is the only experimental evidence we have for these things. Are we better off using the only evidence we have, or ignoring it? If we aren't sufficiently informed to make judgements when we utilise this evidence, are we somehow sufficiently informed when we don't. Ultimately we are talking about the right course of action in the world, so I'm not sure there is a neutral middle ground to take.... except maybe to be suspicious of proposals for change.

Sufficiently is >51% confidence the idea is true.

That's my last comment this round, given my previous desire to not continue substantively. See you next time.

 

[d4m10n]

As to atheism, it seems like it is falling away in the world. There was a Pew paper a while back. Islam and Christianity are still growing fast. Unaffiliateds are getting killed by low birth rates. Pew has them going from 16.4% of the global population in 2010 to 13.2% in 2050. I don't want to get drawn in to a discussion of atheism. Maybe atheism will turn it around?

Eric Kaufmann wrote a fascinating but depressing book about this awhile back:


Of course, if you cannot grow one's movement by making new people, one can always recruit new people from the amongst the general population. The explosion in LGBTQIA+ queer identity in children of (at least nominally) monogamous opposite-sexed parents should give the atheists some hope in this respect.

 

[shuttlt]

Eric Kaufmann wrote a fascinating but depressing book about this awhile back:



Of course, if you cannot grow one's movement by making new people, one can always recruit new people from the amongst the normie masses.

Sure. That's one of the things that you hear sometime on the right. Religious folks look at the fertility rate of liberals (they might as well not be breeding), vs conservative religious communities. They imagine their victory is inevitable, it's the religious version of "demographics is destiny". Every once in a while somebody points out that some faiths spread through fecundity, and others spread through conversion, and liberals control the schools.

I'll watch that now.

 

[shuttlt]

Sufficiently is >51% confidence the idea is true.

That's my last comment this round, given my previous desire to not continue substantively. See you next time.

I'll not expect an answer, but I will snipe the last word.

The problem is that this really isn't a game that we can avoid playing if we want to care about how our ideas are going to play out in the world. You were talking about some notion of feminism based on self determination that you had. Do you think that would be a good thing in terms of it's impact on society? Could you be more than 51% certain about it's impact?

In another thread when the paradox of declining female happiness came up, Emily's Cat expressed a view that I recall as - it really didn't matter what the actual effects of feminism were, even if it made women less happy. Feminist society was somehow better regardless of the results (if I mis-recall I apologise in advance). Maybe that is the way you look at it too, that self determination is a good principle, regardless of how it plays out in practice?

There is certainly a kind of logical elegance in out of scoping the impact of our ideas. They are good and noble in some Platonic ideal sense, even if they leave everybody unhappier and bathed in blood in their wake. I guess I'm a little bit doubtful that as many people really think like that as claim to. Once you start to care about how socially impactful ideas are going to play out in the world, you are unavoidably in the realm of uncertainty, best guesses, and theories based on history.

 

[Paul2]

I'll not expect an answer, but I will snipe the last word.

The problem is that this really isn't a game that we can avoid playing if we want to have any opinion about how our ideas are going to play out in the world. You were talking about some notion of feminism based on self determination that you had. Do you think that would be a good thing in terms of it's impact on society? Could you be more than 51% certain about it's impact?

I'm not approaching this in the way you are, and that, I think, is what's hanging us up (and there may be other things, too).

If I can caricature your approach in distinction to mine, it's as if you're seeing our ideas as levers that affect society and which might be manipulated to certain ends. I had questioned whether you could know what the effect of a lever actually was.

For me, though, self-determination is not a lever that, perhaps in your opinion, is going to be a weak one. It's a value, it's a good in and of itself. So I seek to promote it, like through the atheist booth (there is a connection, perhaps stretched a bit, but not too much), and through some of the work I've done in schools. In my experience, there should be a fair number of feminists as well as trans folk who would accept self-determination as a principle, which is one reason I brought it up in this thread.

In another thread when the paradox of declining female happiness came up, Emily's Cat expressed a view that I recall as - it really didn't matter what the actual effects of feminism where, even if it made women less happy. Feminist society was somehow better regardless of the results (if I mis-recall I apologise in advance). Maybe that is the way you look at it too, that self determination is a good principle, regardless of how it plays out in practice?

Yes, but I'll add this: if someone doesn't want to embrace self-determination, that's their right to decide for themselves. That recalls Christopher Hitchens' line about having no choice in whether we have free will.

Once you start to care about how social ideas are going to play out in the world, you are unavoidably in the realm of uncertainty, best guesses, and theories based on history.

I'm glad you say that, because you haven't implied it nearly enough in a lot of what you've previously said. If you had qualified much of what you've written here with anything close to that, it would have gone down a lot more easily for me.

 

[shuttlt]

If I can caricature your approach in distinction to mine, it's as if you're seeing our ideas as levers that affect society and which might be manipulated to certain ends. I had questioned whether you could know what the effect of a lever actually was.

Sounds like a Platonic ideal kind of good. You would promote it even if it destabilized society? I mean, you've got the old John Adams quote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." As I understand it, that is at least partly going back to older notions of liberty connected to one mastering oneself and becoming moral and freeing oneself from ones nature. Under that notion, you pushing atheism would be undermining the possibility of liberty as conceived by the founders. Sowell has written book after book arguing that Civil Rights and The Great Society effectively trapped urban blacks on welfare and destroyed the black family. Supposing he was correct, might those things be good anyway due to some intrinsic moral quality of the idea?

Ideas certainly influence society. If you have no notion of what the effects of pulling any of the leavers might be, why pull them? This feels like a salvation through deeds vs salvation through grace kind of an argument. Some ideas just have Grace and are good regardless of their impact?

For me, though, self-determination is not a lever that, perhaps in your opinion, is going to be a weak one. It's a value, it's a good in and of itself. So I seek to promote it, like through the atheist booth (there is a connection, perhaps stretched a bit, but not too much), and through some of the work I've done in schools. In my experience, there should be a fair number of feminists as well as trans folk who would accept self-determination as a principle, which is one reason I brought it up in this thread.

I need to think more about what it means to have principles but not to be interested in the impact of those principles. It's not entirely new to me, but I haven't thought about it enough. It feels theological.

Yes, but I'll add this: if someone doesn't want to embrace self-determination, that's their right to decide for themselves. That recalls Christopher Hitchens' line about having no choice in whether we have free will.

Do people have a right to live in a society that does not embrace self determination?

I'm glad you say that, because you haven't implied it nearly enough in a lot of what you've previously said. If you had qualified much of what you've written here with anything close to that, it would have gone down a lot more easily for me.

Apologies, we are speaking across quite a gulf of differing assumptions and ideas. Communication is tricky.

 

[lionking]

A bit of sanity from the Australian government:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...anguage-on-medicare-form-20220721-p5b3gu.html

Government Services Minister Bill Shorten has intervened to scrap a consent form for new parents that used the term “birthing parent” after a mother complained about the gender-neutral language

And a bit of nonsense from the TRA side:

Not everyone who gives birth can accurately be described as a ‘mother

Only in Humpty Dumpty land…..

 

[Paul2]

. . . .

Apologies, we are speaking across quite a gulf of differing assumptions and ideas. Communication is tricky.

No problem.

At this point, we're getting far afield from this thread, I think. Lemme think if I want to start another thread on this.

 

[d4m10n]

A bit of sanity from the Australian government

What's the harm in using gender neutral language in this specific case? I doubt there will be any confusion about whether the birthing individual was female at birth.

 

[theprestige]

What's the harm in using gender neutral language in this specific case?

Ideological capture. The goal is to equivocate between sex and gender, and ambiguate the clear distinctions of binary sex in humans. We know the plan is to take a mile, and more, one "harmless" inch at a time. So we begrudge every inch of forward creep.

The whole point of using "gender neutral language" to obfuscate binary sex is to make it impossible to have a clear, socially-acceptable discussion of men and women in terms of biological sex.

It's not about this specific case. It's about finding as many "harmless" specific cases as possible, and using them to normalize the general case.

---

ETA: Okay, my turn. What's the benefit in using gender neutral language in this particular case?

 

[d4m10n]

The whole point of using "gender neutral language" to obfuscate binary sex is to make it impossible to have a clear, socially-acceptable discussion of men and women in terms of biological sex.

I'm almost 100% sure that there is no confusion regarding the biological sex of someone capable of giving birth. This isn't analogous to scrubbing out birth sex data fields from the EMR, or something else that would foreseeably harm patients.

What's the benefit in using gender neutral language in this particular case?

Ask any birthing parent who identifies as non-binary.

 

[lionking]

I'm almost 100% sure that there is no confusion regarding the biological sex of someone capable of giving birth. This isn't analogous scrubbing out birth sex data fields from the EMR.

Ask any birthing parent who identifies as non-binary.

I’d rather ask a mother who objects to the term “birthing parent”.

 

[d4m10n]

I’d rather ask a mother who objects to the term “birthing parent”.

I really don't see why we should prefer one over the other here; there's very little harm either way.

 

[lionking]

I really don't see why we should prefer one over the other here; there's very little harm either way.

You might have a point if “mother” was an option. It wasn’t. I think my would have objected to having to tick the “birthing parent” box.

 

[d4m10n]

You might have a point if “mother” was an option. It wasn’t. I think my would have objected to having to tick the “birthing parent” box.

If the relevant medical bureaucracy offered "mother/birthing parent" as a fix, culture warriors on both sides would no doubt bury their hatchets and sing kumbaya.

 

[Rolfe]

One demographic that doesn't seem to have been considered is families in which the child/children are adopted. Imagine the pain of the mother who didn't actually give birth to her children, faced with that.