Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[d4m10n]

LCS Game Changers are changing eSports gaming for "women and other marginalized genders" according to this promo vid

https://twitter.com/LCSOfficial/status/1705635639113257249

 

[theprestige]

There's gotta be some kind of fallacy deciding that an observation about group behavior equates to intentional extortion.

I'm assigning a persona to the abstract argument made by TRAs on a regular basis. (For example, in the "pronouns are violence" thread, it was claimed that one should respect preferred pronouns, due to the risk of suicide if one doesn't.)

It's not a fallacy to accurately describe what is observed. Nor is it a fallacy to use derogatory language to characterize reprehensible behavior.

 

[theprestige]

Do we have examples of this? "Do this or I will commit suicide"?

We do.

But I am willing to stipulate that the mental health of self-identified transwomen is not a concern, and should not be a concern, when deciding whether to recognize their trans identity in public policy or personal interactions.

Is that your stipulation?

 

[theprestige]

LCS Game Changers are changing eSports gaming for "women and other marginalized genders" according to this promo vid

https://twitter.com/LCSOfficial/status/1705635639113257249

Does the vid give a summary overview of what they're changing, and why, and how, in the first 1-2 minutes?

ETA: Watching the first thirty seconds or so, I'm getting the impression it's a conflict between "men make the best women" and "male gamers still prefer gamer girls to be actual girls", and LCS's solution is to push the "men make the best women" angle. As if women in esports didn't already have enough difficulty getting representation and respect. Now they have to compete for that with men in lipstick.

 

[Jono]

These capture the contradiction in a nutshell. I'll leave it to you to determine whose is the walnut and whose the brazilnut.

Hear hear.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does the vid give a summary overview of what they're changing, and why, and how, in the first 1-2 minutes?

ETA: Watching the first thirty seconds or so, I'm getting the impression it's a conflict between "men make the best women" and "male gamers still prefer gamer girls to be actual girls", and LCS's solution is to push the "men make the best women" angle. As if women in esports didn't already have enough difficulty getting representation and respect. Now they have to compete for that with men in lipstick.

This one has me taking a step back. On the one hand, there's a fair bit of actual legit outright misogyny in the "gamer" community, that makes it pretty sucky for females to participate. On the other hand, however, it's digital. This isn't about physicality at all, and males don't have an inherent advantage.

So if the intention is to increase female participation, then they need to keep it female, otherwise they're defeating their own purpose. But if it's for any other intent... then make it all open and penalize males who are sexist pigs to other participants.

 

[Tomboy]

This isn't about physicality at all, and males don't have an inherent advantage.

Don't males have faster reaction times? If so, I could see that being an advantage in gaming.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't males have faster reaction times? If so, I could see that being an advantage in gaming.

Maybe? I don't know how much the fast-twitch muscle fiber thing carries down to thumbs. And I think we'd need more material info on it to make a determination. The differences in physicality are widespread, abundant, and blatantly obvious to pretty much anyone with a brain. They've been observed throughout known human history, and we've got decades of sports results that demonstrate the advantage males have over females.

I'm not sure we have that with gaming. We haven't had it as long, we haven't been tracking it as long, and well... there are a lot of social barriers to females in gaming that make it really difficult to even start capturing it.

But I'd support a study to find out!

 

[d4m10n]

So if the intention is to increase female participation, then they need to keep it female, otherwise they're defeating their own purpose.

I'd say it's fairly obvious from the video that the intent of the league isn't so narrow as to exclude males who see themselves as women. The goal is to promote "women and other marginalized genders" which is a lot of syllables to say non-men.

This strikes me as a freedom of association issue and—unlike the folks who helped shut down Michfest—I support people gathering in whatever groups they choose so long as they aren't plotting violence.

 

[theprestige]

This one has me taking a step back. On the one hand, there's a fair bit of actual legit outright misogyny in the "gamer" community, that makes it pretty sucky for females to participate. On the other hand, however, it's digital. This isn't about physicality at all, and males don't have an inherent advantage.

So if the intention is to increase female participation, then they need to keep it female, otherwise they're defeating their own purpose. But if it's for any other intent... then make it all open and penalize males who are sexist pigs to other participants.

Don't males have faster reaction times? If so, I could see that being an advantage in gaming.

It's the chess question all over again.

---

And also a tragicomic conundrum.

"We're recruiting for our esports team... but no girls, because girls suck at videogames... and no transwomen, because that uncanny valley stuff creeps us out."

This is sexist and transphobic.

"Well, I tried out last season, but they said my skills weren't good enough to make the cut. Instead of training harder and skilling up for this season, I figured I'd grow my hair out, put on lipstick, and cancel your transphobic asses if you don't pick me in the first draft round."

This is TRAs doing TRA things, because they actually think that cutting the baby in half is the goal.

 

[Brainster]

Do we have examples of this? "Do this or I will commit suicide"?

Google would you rather have a dead son or live daughter--I get over 400 million hits.

 

[gnome]

I'm assigning a persona to the abstract argument made by TRAs on a regular basis. (For example, in the "pronouns are violence" thread, it was claimed that one should respect preferred pronouns, due to the risk of suicide if one doesn't.)

It's not a fallacy to accurately describe what is observed. Nor is it a fallacy to use derogatory language to characterize reprehensible behavior.

I think it is a fallacy to take a population risk and attribute it to an individual threat. It implies that the people are doing so out of spite rather than a consequence of lacking something that would reduce their risk. Pointing out that risk is not a threat.

 

[theprestige]

I think it is a fallacy to take a population risk and attribute it to an individual threat. It implies that the people are doing so out of spite rather than a consequence of lacking something that would reduce their risk. Pointing out that risk is not a threat.

The claim of population risk is the bailey half of a motte and bailey claim. I was lampooning the motte and bailey shenanigans that make up the overall TRA position.

All TRA demands must be met, for the health of their petitioners. But the health question may not be raised or examined, let alone considered as a qualification, for trans entitlements. That's what that dialog was about.

On the one hand, we are told this population is at risk of death, and that we bear a moral responsibility for that, if we don't accede to TRA demands. And there is a moral justification for canceling us, if we question this premise. On the other hand, we are told that it is transphobic and immoral to examine the alleged life-or-death health matter as such.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it is a fallacy to take a population risk and attribute it to an individual threat.

You are correct. But you're missing what we keep telling you: that's exactly what the TRA's are doing. They are making individual threats out of population risks.

It implies that the people are doing so out of spite

No, not spite, at least not in general. Rather, they've just found that it's a useful tool to get what they want. The consequences beyond that seem to be irrelevant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it is a fallacy to take a population risk and attribute it to an individual threat. It implies that the people are doing so out of spite rather than a consequence of lacking something that would reduce their risk. Pointing out that risk is not a threat.

It's a proxy threat. Activists (and therapists) tell the general public (and parents) that if they don't completely affirm their child's belief, then their kid is going to commit suicide.

Suicidality among teens follows a social contagion pattern - discussion or showcasing or any supportive/empathetic/sympathetic response to suicide increases the rate of suicide among teens - it "catches on".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are correct. But you're missing what we keep telling you: that's exactly what the TRA's are doing. They are making individual threats out of population risks.

BTW, they also conflate the increased suicide risk that shows up among females, as well as among homosexual teens, with that of transgender people. It's almost always presented as "LGBTQ+" suicide risk. If you manage to find the sources that tease it out, it ends up being extremely highly skewed by female teens, most of whom are same-sex-attracted. IIRC, the suicide rate for transgender identifying teen males is not materially different than for any other teen male.

The suicide rate for males between 30 and 50 is a lot higher than for younger males. Also independent of identity... but arguably not independent of socially enforced gender roles that don't allow males to show vulnerability or weakness.

 

[d4m10n]

Activists (and therapists) tell the general public (and parents) that if they don't completely affirm their child's belief, then their kid is going to commit suicide.

I think it's worth providing a few examples here.

1. In this article, we hear from Jeanette Jennings: “I decided I'd rather have a living daughter than a dead son.”
2. In this story we get a similar quote from an interviewee: “Our only choice was to have a dead son or a living daughter.”
3. Here is an odd one in that the meme slips into the headline without an obvious and specific connection to any of the subjects of the story.

So we know the meme is out there and that it is used as a justification for pediatric transition. What we don't know is whether the endocrine pathway actually results in better long term outcomes in terms of depression and suicidality.

 

[gnome]

The claim of population risk is the bailey half of a motte and bailey claim. I was lampooning the motte and bailey shenanigans that make up the overall TRA position.

All TRA demands must be met, for the health of their petitioners. But the health question may not be raised or examined, let alone considered as a qualification, for trans entitlements. That's what that dialog was about.

On the one hand, we are told this population is at risk of death, and that we bear a moral responsibility for that, if we don't accede to TRA demands. And there is a moral justification for canceling us, if we question this premise. On the other hand, we are told that it is transphobic and immoral to examine the alleged life-or-death health matter as such.

It's only a "motte-and-bailey shenanigan" if it's untrue or irrelevant. In which case instead of rephrasing it into a straw man, just say that it's untrue or incorrectly reasoned. This avoids poisoning the well when it's the facts that should be examined.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think it's worth providing a few examples here.

1. In this article, we hear from Jeanette Jennings: “I decided I'd rather have a living daughter than a dead son.”
2. In this story we get a similar quote from an interviewee: “Our only choice was to have a dead son or a living daughter.”
3. Here is an odd one in that the meme slips into the headline without an obvious and specific connection to any of the subjects of the story.

So we know the meme is out there and that it is used as a justification for pediatric transition. What we don't know is whether the endocrine pathway actually results in better long term outcomes in terms of depression and suicidality.

No comment on the suicidality risk, but I think a far more likely scenario is "I can make my child's life hell, they'll still transition eventually, and they'll resent me for the rest of my life, or I can support them now and maintain a good relationship with them".

Need only to look at the experience of gay people to see similar patterns at work. Whether or not they're the type of parent to get a perfunctory visit once a year at Christmas time (if that) or a parent that has a good, close relationship with their adult child is entirely up to them.

The aggrieved parent that pretends to not know why their adult child doesn't talk to them anymore seems to be a common trope among reactionaries, including vicious transphobes.

Suicide is only the most extreme risk, estrangement seems like a far more likely outcome.

 

[theprestige]

I think it's worth providing a few examples here.

1. In this article, we hear from Jeanette Jennings: “I decided I'd rather have a living daughter than a dead son.”
2. In this story we get a similar quote from an interviewee: “Our only choice was to have a dead son or a living daughter.”
3. Here is an odd one in that the meme slips into the headline without an obvious and specific connection to any of the subjects of the story.

So we know the meme is out there and that it is used as a justification for pediatric transition. What we don't know is whether the endocrine pathway actually results in better long term outcomes in terms of depression and suicidality.

And we don't know this because Trans-Rights Activism is vehemently anti-science.

Anyway, I hope this all clears up your concern about my post, gnome.