• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've had a hard time understanding what's commonly believed in the trans community, especially when everything seemed so fluid for a while. Googling for biology/sociology distinctions a few weeks ago, I came across a thread on subreddit MtF titled, "No trans person believes you can change biological sex, but sex and gender are two different things."

The top reply inverts this:

It has been a controversial opinion when I talked about it in the past, but my understanding is that it's the complete opposite (edit: referring to your post title). You can't change your gender, since it's innate to you. You can only discover it (or them, in some cases), especially when it doesn't match your assigned one.
Sex, on the other hand, can be changed, at least many aspects of it, since it is, to a large extent, an accumulation of physical and endocrinological characteristics.


Commenters go on to talk about how the average person and cis people are ignorant of human biology/endocrinology.

Whoever said this is dead wrong, and this can be easily demonstrated. If sex could be changed, then...

a. A man could have a sex change operation, and would then be able to bear children.

b. A woman could have a sex change operation, and then would be able to father children.

Since a and b are both scientifically and biologically impossible, it shows that sex cannot be changed. End of!

... and these are the irrefutable facts that all transgender apologists (i.e. those who argue that transwomen are women and transmen are men), including the ones on this forum, will always dodge. They have no answer, or at least no answer that would not be the subject of immediate ridicule.
 
Last edited:
Helen JoyceWP spent most of the last 20 years working for The Economist around statistics and finance, two very mathematics related subjects. You don’t have to know anything about a topic to write a book on it. My own Senator Josh Hawley wrote a book on manliness, for crying out loud.

BUT, you misunderstood the nature of my argument with Samson and how he’s been using Joyce. If you had kept reading:

I’m not arguing with Joyce. She’s not here to argue with. Joyce is Samson’s argument because he isn’t presenting an argument of his own, or barely doing so. I am attacking Samson’s argument because Samson’s argument is a logical fallacy: an argument from authority. Not even a relevant authority, at that.
Helen Joyce is arguing for zero tolerance. I like the idea. Finessing this insanity is prolonging the war and adding to the body count.
 
Last edited:
Helen Joyce is arguing for zero tolerance. I like the idea. Finessing this insanity is prolonging the war and adding to the body count.

You mean, just like it did with gays, civil rights, and sufferage?

I can see why that rhetoric appeals to the alt-right. Very authoritarian. Very fascist. “This very, very small group of people not like you threaten to overthrow everything you love… like a very small percentage of pronouns.”
 
Uncontroversial. The body born in is fit for purpose.

Again, I feel like this is the “Transwomen are not Women” thread leaking out. This has nothing to do with misgendering being violent or the consequences of misgendering at CU Boulder, or perhaps universities in general.
 
Uncontroversial. The body born in is fit for purpose.
Unintelligible.

Your fixation with Joyce is odd. So much so that you make declarations about their intellectual purity, as if you can read minds. They have "no dog in the fight"? And you know that how?

Spoiler: You don't know that. You're making stuff up.
 
Unintelligible.

Your fixation with Joyce is odd. So much so that you make declarations about their intellectual purity, as if you can read minds. They have "no dog in the fight"? And you know that how?

Spoiler: You don't know that. You're making stuff up.
Anchovies.
No abstract communication.
Let us imagine an anchovy with gender dysphoria to understand the absurdity of this debate.
Besides language, from whence does the misery come?
If language creates the problem, let language deliver the solution, not drugs and mutilation.
Please consider my idea which I present in good faith.
 
That's a claim or assertion not an argument. What is her argument and what about it has persuaded you her argument leads to a correct conclusion?
Will pull transcripts together for this, will take time.
It is important. New Zealand is sterilizing children at highest rate in the world.
 
From what I understand of Joyce's position on pronouns, she is willing to use requested pronouns in most personal interactions, and in some interactions that refer to a trans person in third person, but not where she believes this would be potentially harmful. Examples include using cross-sex pronouns for prepubescent children, because there is strong evidence (supported by recent findings) that social transition, or encouraging a child to believe that their feelings or gender expression make them a boy or a girl, consolidates cross-sex identity or dysphoria that would otherwise have resolved, and increases the likelihood of wanting future medical intervention.

With regard to adolescent another groups she sees as vulnerable, adolescent girls (especially those who are same-sex attracted or have mental health problems) she appeared to be saying that it is potentially harmful to use cross-sex pronouns in public discussions about people who are role-models for this groups such as Elliot Page. This is because she believes that many girls in these groups are identifying as transgender due to social contagion and having medical procedures that they would not otherwise have wanted or might later regret.

That is my understanding of her position unless she changed it recently.

In relation to the second point, it is interesting that the article I linked to cited research finding that "The most frequently reported reason for detransitioning by both sexes was that their personal definition of male and female had changed so that they became more comfortable identifying with their birth sex (60%)".
 
That's a claim or assertion not an argument. What is her argument and what about it has persuaded you her argument leads to a correct conclusion?

Have you bothered to read any of Joyce? It doesn’t look like it.

Edited by sarge: 
edited to remove rule 0 and 12 violation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I understand of Joyce's position on pronouns, she is willing to use requested pronouns in most personal interactions, and in some interactions that refer to a trans person in third person, but not where she believes this would be potentially harmful. Examples include using cross-sex pronouns for prepubescent children, because there is strong evidence (supported by recent findings) that social transition, or encouraging a child to believe that their feelings or gender expression make them a boy or a girl, consolidates cross-sex identity or dysphoria that would otherwise have resolved, and increases the likelihood of wanting future medical intervention.

With regard to adolescent another groups she sees as vulnerable, adolescent girls (especially those who are same-sex attracted or have mental health problems) she appeared to be saying that it is potentially harmful to use cross-sex pronouns in public discussions about people who are role-models for this groups such as Elliot Page. This is because she believes that many girls in these groups are identifying as transgender due to social contagion and having medical procedures that they would not otherwise have wanted or might later regret.

That is my understanding of her position unless she changed it recently.

In relation to the second point, it is interesting that the article I linked to cited research finding that "The most frequently reported reason for detransitioning by both sexes was that their personal definition of male and female had changed so that they became more comfortable identifying with their birth sex (60%)".
Thanks for that, I will add if I find more, it is important work.
 
I found a clip where Helen Joyce explains her position on pronouns.
I'm on the fence as to whether using someone's preferred pronouns (and preferred forename) is promoting a truth claim about their status for all social purposes, as both Helen and Coleman appear to believe.

Upthread I asked the following question:
…if someone were to say that Lia Thomas does not legitimately hold the women's 200-yard freestyle record in the Ivy League (on account of the unfair advantages granted her by the experience of male puberty) would that be considered disaffirming?

I don't think there is really any confusion here, since I'm making it fairly clear that it should be an open question whether it is fair for this particular athlete to compete against natal females. It strikes me as a bit all-or-nothing to say that as go the pronouns, so goes all else. I can see why gender activists and their dedicated opposition would make that claim, but I see nothing incoherent about the NCAA saying you have to use preferred pronouns for one's teammates while also restricting eligibility for the female class of competition to those who have never experienced the effects of male puberty.
 
Another poll is out from Gallup, showing that support for trans athletes competing according to their gender identity rather than sex, is declining.

A larger majority of Americans now (69%) than in 2021 (62%) say transgender athletes should only be allowed to compete on sports teams that conform with their birth gender. Likewise, fewer endorse transgender athletes being able to play on teams that match their current gender identity, 26%, down from 34%.

Among Democats, the swing has been fairly dramatic. In 2021, a solid majority (55%-41%) supported the Lia Thomases of the world; in 2023, a small plurality (48%-47%) is opposed.

The poll also gets into a topic I have not seen much discussed in this thread--whether it is morally acceptable to change one's gender. In both years a small majority felt it was morally wrong and the trend is towards less approval (46%-51% in 2021 vs 43%-55% in 2023).
 
The poll also gets into a topic I have not seen much discussed in this thread--whether it is morally acceptable to change one's gender.
We have discussed the morality of demanding access to accommodations/spaces/leagues designed for one sex if you are not originally of that sex.

Aside from such demands, what moral issues are in play, if any?
 
Being generous, I'd opine that most don't "change" their gender, so much as come to terms with it, or face that they never thought they were what others told them they were. I could be on board with that. "Changing genders" makes it sound like a recreational choice.
 
We have discussed the morality of demanding access to accommodations/spaces/leagues designed for one sex if you are not originally of that sex.

Aside from such demands, what moral issues are in play, if any?

Hard to say; I suppose for some religious people it could be seen as sinful, just as homosexuality is. I did spot on second glance this little note:

Those who volunteered that it depends on the situation or that it is not a moral issue and those who had no opinion are not shown.

I suspect a lot of people reacted the way we both did, wondering exactly what moral issues were involved. Personally I would consider those responses essentially equivalent to "morally acceptable."
 
A sufficiently creative mind might be able to come up with a quantitative variable for the x-axis. Off the top of my head, live gametes produced over a 66 year period would end up being bimodal on a log scale, if you only include subjects which produce at least one.

Ask yourself: Why would it produce two peaks? Why would you have two means in that distribution?

Consider, you might also plot the number of fruit produced each season for pineapple plants and apple trees combined, and also get two peaks. Is there a reason that it might be considered a statistical faux pas to plot the number of fruit produced in this way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom