Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Fortunately, most progressive legislatures (which regrettably don't include the US bible belt and former confederate states*) understand this issue a whole lot better than you do, and are legislating accordingly.


* More great fellow travellers for you there! Add them to the list that includes religious nutters and the Daily Mail. Ever get the feeling you're on the wrong side of an argument? : D

Ain't it just?! Just like when them damn progressives was tryin' to... whassat you sayd.... "reshape our ideas".... and tell us that it was normal to be one o' them queer gayboys and givin' them all sorts of rights and all. Disgusting! An' it didn't fool any of us round here who know better! [spoken in redneck hillbilly backward accent]

stanfr, are you still looking for examples of unnecessary bias?

 

[Elaedith]

Ain't it just?! Just like when them damn progressives was tryin' to... whassat you sayd.... "reshape our ideas".... and tell us that it was normal to be one o' them queer gayboys and givin' them all sorts of rights and all. Disgusting! An' it didn't fool any of us round here who know better! [spoken in redneck hillbilly backward accent]

Nope. Gay rights did not revolve around making up pseudoscientific theories of sex and gender and enforcing them on everyone by framing opposition to them as bigotry.

The sexual orientation equivalent would be:

• stating that the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' don't refer to biological sex but are 'somebody attracted to women/men' respectively, so that gay men are not men and lesbians are not women since their orientation doesn't align with that assigned to them at birth on the basis of their sex
• replacing sex segregated spaces with sexual orientation segregated spaces to validate everyone's sexual orientation (everyone attracted to men go to one space and everyone attracted to women go to the other, and bisexual people choose based on which way they lean from day to day)
• promoting the idea that changing one's sexual characteristics to 'match' one's sexual orientation is 'sexual orientation affirming therapy'
• claiming that one's sexual orientation is part of one's sex, so that a gay man is less male than a straight man and a lesbian less female than a straight woman, and making up pseudoscientific theories of sex being a spectrum to 'explain' homosexuality as some kind of intersex condition
• defining therapy intended to help confused gay adolescents to accept and be happy with their biological sex as 'conversion therapy' for sexual orientation
• encouraging children perceived as gay onto an early medical pathway to change their sexual characteristics to 'match' their orientation

Fortunately, none of this happened.

Carry on though, it's entertaining.

 

[Francesca R]

.... and tell us that it was normal to be one o' them queer gayboys and givin' them all sorts of rights and all. Disgusting!

Bingo!

Oh well, let's set up for round #22

 

[Francesca R]

[ . . ] anyone who comes into these threads (especially late in the game) gets set on by a pack of wolves.

Please post evidence of this happening. Or, stick to the facts.

[ . . . ] So, even if y'all drive me from this thread once with repeated put-downs, bullying, and condescension [ . . . ]

If you were bullied you would probably be able to seek protection from the member agreement. But there is no evidence that anyone has broken any rules in engaging with you. So you are setting up a fake-news pretext to stop replying in this thread, to seek to avoid the real reason which is that you're not making your case as well as you wished.

 

[theprestige]

Nope. They are not. And you declaring in your own singular mind that they are does not make it so.

What makes you say prisons aren't sex segregated?

Is it because you think sex and gender are the same thing?

Is it because you don't think binary sex and sexual dimorphism in mammals is real?

Is it because you think sex is real, and distinct from gender, and the distinction is important, and that prisons really are gender-segregated and not sex-segregated?

 

[d4m10n]

[spoken in redneck hillbilly backward accent]

Can we safely assume you now affirm "someone’s sex or gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity" since only redneck hillbillies would question this novel and progressive idea?

 

[stanfr]

That's an, er, interesting article. It just asserts Rowling's transphobia without actually quoting anything she's written and demonstrating it. Why is that, do you think?

I don't care. I wasn't citing it to prove her transphobia, I was just citing it to show it talks about TERFs...that is all!

 

[d4m10n]

I'm going to quote the Oklahoma lawsuit a little bit more because it seems to me they've summed up what the gender critical folks call "gender ideology" in just two paragraphs.

Here they are:

Every individual’s sex is multifaceted and comprised of many distinct biologically-influenced characteristics, including, but not limited to, chromosomal makeup, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity. Where there is a divergence between these characteristics, gender identity is the most important and determinative factor. Therefore, someone’s sex or gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

All human beings have a gender identity—the sex or gender the individual knows themself to be. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted. Although the detailed mechanisms are unknown, there is a medical consensus that there is a significant biologic component underlying gender identity. It cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.

I'd be interested in hearing from you folks whether these statements strike you as demonstrable in the way that scientific claims typically are, or whether they are something else, such as statements of what people ought to believe in or value.

 

[stanfr]

I thought we already explained that the thread used to be entirely dominated by the TWAW faction, to the point where I for one bowed out for a while because I was unable to put my point of view using the language I deemed correct without being set upon.

This is a forum mainly concerned with adversarial debate. People come here for a good argument. If they back out it's usually because they percieve they're losing, and I can assure you that for many iterations of the thread, the pro-trans side wasn't backing away simply because it was being overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
Personalising the argument and attacking the arguer rather than the argument are both forbidden by the membership agreement. If you think someone is doing that, report them. If you're right, the mods will sort them out.

But yeah, those of us on the side of reality are currently running out of chew-toys, so the appearance of a new one is not unwelcome.

Fair enough, I am pleased you know what it is like to be "set upon"
I think you are being a bit presumptuous in declaring why people left though.
And your last sentence verifies my point--you seem to enjoy chewing. I prefer digesting.
And it seems a bit disingenuous and hypocritical to claim you are on the side of "reality" when the reality is that laws and viewpoints are changing. And the "side" you are on just happens to coincide with the side that truly denies reality--the Trumpists and right-wing extremists. The religious fanatics and wooists.
Not saying they are wrong--they could be right for the wrong reasons--but it is an interesting correlation.

 

[theprestige]

I don't care. I wasn't citing it to prove her transphobia, I was just citing it to show it talks about TERFs...that is all!

It's wild how quickly "TERF" entered trans-activist jargon as a pejorative, and as a keyword for unnecessary bias against anyone who expresses dissent from their agenda. You'll be throwing it around yourself pretty soon, if you don't watch out!

 

[stanfr]

I'm going to quote the Oklahoma lawsuit a little bit more because it seems to me they've summed up what the gender critical folks call "gender ideology" in just two paragraphs.

Here they are:


I'd be interested in hearing from you folks whether these statements strike you as demonstrable in the way that scientific claims typically are, or whether they are something else, such as statements of what people ought to believe in or value.

That's an excellent question--I am far from an expert on the subject but I don't think the science is complete or settled enough to make definitive conclusions, but I bet a lot more of this science is gonna be done thanks to the policy debate.

 

[stanfr]

It's wild how quickly "TERF" entered trans-activist jargon as a pejorative, and as a keyword for unnecessary bias against anyone who expresses dissent from their agenda. You'll be throwing it around yourself pretty soon, if you don't watch out!

I'll stick to my own turf, thank ya.

 

[stanfr]

If only I hadn't posted verifiable evidence showing trans "women" were at least five times more likely to commit sexual offences in jail than women...

I can't go through 500 pages of this thread so if you could repost that evidence I would appreciate it. Please and thank you!

 

[theprestige]

I'm going to quote the Oklahoma lawsuit a little bit more because it seems to me they've summed up what the gender critical folks call "gender ideology" in just two paragraphs.

Here they are:


I'd be interested in hearing from you folks whether these statements strike you as demonstrable in the way that scientific claims typically are, or whether they are something else, such as statements of what people ought to believe in or value.

I'd be interested in their citations for that "medical consensus".

 

[Steersman]

I'm going to quote the Oklahoma lawsuit a little bit more because it seems to me they've summed up what the gender critical folks call "gender ideology" in just two paragraphs.

Here they are:


I'd be interested in hearing from you folks whether these statements strike you as demonstrable in the way that scientific claims typically are, or whether they are something else, such as statements of what people ought to believe in or value.

Good question. Apropos of which, y'all might be interested in an oldish essay at Quillette by philosopher Michael Robillard, this passage in particular:

The second source and primary culprit of confusion within the present transgender debate, however, is the notion of “gender identity.” This is so since “gender identity,” on the gender theorist’s own account, is defined entirely by one’s own wholly subjective determination.

https://archive.ph/4e2n0

That's largely the problem with the "philosophy" of gender ideologues - there are no objective correlates to their "definitions" for "male" and "female" - entirely subjective and therefore mostly if not entirely meaningless; useless or worse than useless. Hence the benefits of and justifications for the biological definitions which specify necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership, i.e., functional gonads of either of two types.

 

[Rolfe]

And it seems a bit disingenuous and hypocritical to claim you are on the side of "reality" when the reality is that laws and viewpoints are changing. And the "side" you are on just happens to coincide with the side that truly denies reality--the Trumpists and right-wing extremists. The religious fanatics and wooists.
Not saying they are wrong--they could be right for the wrong reasons--but it is an interesting correlation.

I am a biologist. I have worked in the biological sciences my entire life. I can assure you that the position that there are exactly two sexes and that mammals cannot change the sex their chromosomes code them to be is reality.

Law is irrelevant to this. If Texas (or wherever) can legislate that pi is exactly equal to three, then that demonstrates that one. Viewpoints may vary, but the fact that sex is binary and (in mammals) is immutable remains, irrespective of viewpoints.

I'm seriously tired of people declaring that because some people 3,000 miles away whose political position the speaker (and I) disagree with seem to espouse a position similar to mine on this issue, therefore I shoud accept that I'm wrong. Yes, it's Godwinning the thread, but would you tell vegetarians that they should abandon their position because it just happens to coincide with Hitler's position?

 

[theprestige]

That's an excellent question--I am far from an expert on the subject but I don't think the science is complete or settled enough to make definitive conclusions, but I bet a lot more of this science is gonna be done thanks to the policy debate.

Do you think there's a similar "medical consensus" about body integrity identity? That all human beings have a body identity—the number of limbs or other anatomical features the individual knows themself to have?

 

[JihadJane]

... And the "side" you are on just happens to coincide with the side that truly denies reality--the Trumpists and right-wing extremists. The religious fanatics and wooists.

Not saying they are wrong--they could be right for the wrong reasons--but it is an interesting correlation.

Is it a correlation or is it just that "Trumpists" have no reason to pretend that men can be women? It would be the same if the "progressive" fad of the day was based on the assertion that trees are actually mushrooms.

 

[Steersman]

Nope. Gay rights did not revolve around making up pseudoscientific theories of sex and gender and enforcing them on everyone by framing opposition to them as bigotry.

Don't know about "bigotry", but more than a few "gay rights" activists are still peddling quite "pseudoscientific theories of sex". For instance, see an otherwise sensible article at The Line by a gay man, Allan Stratton:

https://theline.substack.com/p/allan-stratton-a-call-for-nuance

He starts off well by arguing that:

Our inability to have sane discussions on this topic begins with academic redefinitions of language and concepts over the past 60 years.

But then shoots himself in the foot - repeatedly - by arguing or endorsing the view that people can actually change sex, by engaging in the same "academic redefinitions of language" that he has decried:

Transsexuals gained public prominence thanks to American Christine Jorgensen. After serving in the United States Army, Jorgensen had a sex change operation in Denmark before returning to America in 1953. ....

The term transgender, coined by psychiatrist John Oliven in 1965, was designed to distinguish transsexuals, who wanted to surgically change sex, from transvestites, whose inclinations were limited to gendered feelings and presentation.

And he's done likewise in an article or two at Quillette:

Yet after a mid-30s sex change, she [Laurel Hubbard] suddenly won multiple international gold medals.

https://archive.ph/qlJOb

Bonus reference there to "TERFS" for those keeping score ...

Maybe just sloppy usage, an inadvertent misuse. But, as Francis Bacon once cogently put it, "shoddy and inept uses of language lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways". Truer words were never spoken ...

The sexual orientation equivalent would be:

• stating that the definitions of 'man' and 'woman' don't refer to biological sex but are 'somebody attracted to women/men' respectively, so that gay men are not men and lesbians are not women since their orientation doesn't align with that assigned to them at birth on the basis of their sex

Fortunately, none of this happened.

Moot on the "never happened", although this may be more a case of the depredations of gender ideologues than of gay activists, even if the distinction is a bit murky. But consider this case of Wikipedia - more or less a hive of scum and villainy when comes to anything to do with gender - doing precisely that:

How and when sexual orientation was conceptually undermined in Wikipedia

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex/gender."

https://voidifremoved.substack.com/p/the-quiet-erasure-of-same-sex-attraction

Carry on though, it's entertaining.

As Arte Johnson used to say, "Veddy interesting. But stupid". Largely the result of the fact that, as Carl Sagan argued with some justification, most of us are scientifically illiterate - being charitable.

 

[The Atheist]

I can't go through 500 pages of this thread so if you could repost that evidence I would appreciate it. Please and thank you!

You're selling me short - there must be 1000 pages by now.

I don't know where it either and it's not in the first couple of dozen Google returnse, so these should cover it adequately:

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/