Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[JoeMorgue]

No, not according to the basic tenets of gender identity theory and intersectional social justice. If someone claims they are (or merely ought to be or ought to have been) female, we are morally obligated to treat them as female, even if everything about their appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive to the over 20s who weren't weaned on these ideas.

Is this you talking or are someone else's words coming out of your mouth?

Because that's not just functionally insane, it's completely untenable on any practical level.

If that's the standard, then what point does "sex" as a concept even serve anymore?

 

[Ziggurat]

If that's the standard, then what point does "sex" as a concept even serve anymore?

None. The hope is that sex is important enough of a concept that we'll hold onto it anyways despite self ID, and that the number of predators exploiting it will be low enough that the hole they've opened up won't get plugged.

But it's doomed to fail, just as the Panera pay what you want experiment did. When you make a system explicitly vulnerable to exploitation at no cost to the exploiter, it's going to get exploited until it collapses.

 

[smartcooky]

No, not according to the basic tenets of gender identity theory and intersectional social justice. If someone claims they are (or merely ought to be or ought to have been) female, we are morally obligated to treat them as female, even if everything about their appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive to the over 20s who weren't weaned on these ideas.

I identify as brain surgeon. You "are morally obligated to treat" me as a brain surgeon, and allow me to perform brain surgery even if I am not qualified and "even if everything about my appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive"
‎
‎

 

[JoeMorgue]

I identify as brain surgeon. You "are morally obligated to treat" me as a brain surgeon, and allow me to perform brain surgery even if I am not qualified and "even if everything about my appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive"
‎
‎

"That's different."
"Why?"
"Ahh.... ohhhh.... errrr... because.... you see.... LOOK OVER THERE! *Pulls the fire alarm and runs away*"

 

[smartcooky]

Is this you talking or are someone else's words coming out of your mouth?

It has to be someone else's words. Either that, or for the first time in 12 years posting on this forum, d4m10n will have personally committed himself to a position on this topic.

 

[Matthew Best]

We really should go back to the distinction between transsexuals and transvestites. It was far more accurate than the current language.

Exactly this.

 

[ahhell]

Pumping yourself full of the drugs and hormones needed for transition doesn't seem all that conducive to good health and long life either, if the ongoing problems for former East German athletes as they get older is anything to go by.

https://globalsportmatters.com/heal...oblems-due-to-the-consequences-of-ped-taking/

I take Samson's point that giving drugs such as puberty blockers and hormones (the deleterious, long term side-effects of which are still unknown) to young teenagers, is sheer madness. In doing so, we take an enormous risk that we are likely setting them up for a life of pain, misery and serious health issues years down the line.

I really don't understand how anyone who has been a teenager and no longer is can think its a good idea to allow teenagers to make decisions that result in permanent changes to their body and probably minds makes any sense.

Fine, my kid decides they are a girl in a boys body, I'll call them by what ever name and pronoun, I'm not going to let them choose to undergo surgery or use drugs that will permanently alter their bodies until they are out of my care and I will strongly recommend they don't do it until their late 20s to early 30s.

And thats the thing where the "trans rights activists" start causing backlash. Most folks are fine with adults making these choices, especially with some medical gate keepers involved. Almost nobody is ok with children making these decisions and you aren't a transphobe if you aren't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because progressives, to their credit, know how much pain and misery has happened because people didn't listen to disenfranchised groups.

But, to their detriment, they (especially the most causey of them) lost the plot and start conflating "listen to" with "blindly believe and let them dictate everything."

Regardless of the semantics, regardless of the categorization, do I believe that there are people, especially young people, out there who are honestly and truly fighting with a sense of self in regards to their sex? Absolutely. And they 100% deserve to be listened to and I will fight that battle with anyone.

But "listen to" and "just hitting the I believe button and accepting everything they say, including things THEY FULLY ADMIT THEY ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO EXPRESS" as some kind of unquestionable holy writ is bad for literally everyone involved.

If your child comes to you and says they don't feel right their own body and you don't at least support them in that conflict, you are a horrible person. There are people who are anti-trans simply because they are hate or stupid bigots and nothing I've ever said was an ounce for sympathy for them and every single one of them can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned. But "support" can't be over simplified to a simple, reflex, kneejerk "just agree with what ever they say and let them do whatever they want."

 

[d4m10n]

Is this you talking or are someone else's words coming out of your mouth?

I've already explained this more than once.

Until we get a new Boudicca90, we need to have some sense of what that side of the debate sincerely believes.

My advice remains the same, go with what the most prominent activist groups (e.g. ACLU, Stonewall) have claimed in their own words.

Because that's not just functionally insane, it's completely untenable on any practical level.

How so? It's actually quite easy to implement.

If that's the standard, then what point does "sex" as a concept even serve anymore?

I never claimed that the rights groups are hoping to use "sex" rather than "gender identity" to sort people into bathrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

Either that, or for the first time in 12 years posting on this forum, d4m10n will have personally committed himself to a position on this topic.

Haven't you posted on the strict definitions of sex thread where I committed myself to a very specific position in the OP?

 

[Paul2]

Is this you talking or are someone else's words coming out of your mouth?

Because that's not just functionally insane, it's completely untenable on any practical level.

If that's the standard, then what point does "sex" as a concept even serve anymore?

Not having sex serve as a concept fits with Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate in which he outlines how some on the left refuse to acknowledge any biological influence on human behavior, against the evidence.

 

[Paul2]

Haven't you posted on the strict definitions of sex thread where I committed myself to a very specific position in the OP?

I don't see anything in the OP there that commits you to any position. The sentence that begins, "Resolved" doesn't say that you agree with Hinton; it says that the "for" side of the issue ("Resolved"), as if a formal debate is about to start, is that Hinton is correct. It doesn't say whether you're on the for or against side.

 

[Ziggurat]

How so? It's actually quite easy to implement.

Easy to implement and tenable are not synonyms. Yes, it's easy to implement, but it causes havoc, which is why it's untenable. For example, women's sports which allow for self ID will collapse, because women won't want to compete against men and nobody will want to watch. That's not a tenable situation, even if it's easy to create.

I never claimed that the rights groups are hoping to use "sex" rather than "gender identity" to sort people into bathrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, etc.

That's precisely the problem. Sex segregation makes sense in certain contexts. Gender segregation doesn't make sense in any context. The ACLU tries to get around this by claiming your sex is your gender, but that's patent nonsense.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see anything in the OP there that commits you to any position. The sentence that begins, "Resolved" doesn't say that you agree with Hinton; it says that the "for" side of the issue ("Resolved"), as if a formal debate is about to start, is that Hinton is correct. It doesn't say whether you're on the for or against side.

Are you pulling my leg here? I've been arguing for Hinton's position the entire time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've already explained this more than once.

It's a ******* binary yes or no question. I asked you to answer it, not explain it.

You posted: "No, not according to the basic tenets of gender identity theory and intersectional social justice. If someone claims they are (or merely ought to be or ought to have been) female, we are morally obligated to treat them as female, even if everything about their appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive to the over 20s who weren't weaned on these ideas."

Does that represent an opinion YOU actually hold? Answer yes or not. Do not discuss the philosophy of the question. Do not say "it's complicated."

 

[d4m10n]

Easy to implement and tenable are not synonyms. Yes, it's easy to implement, but it causes havoc, which is why it's untenable. For example, women's sports which allow for self ID will collapse, because women won't want to compete against men and nobody will want to watch. That's not a tenable situation, even if it's easy to create.

Tenability is entirely relative to one's specific end goals. From the perspective of gender ideologues, allowing people like Rachel McKinnon and Laurel Hubbard to compete is vastly more important than insuring natal females enjoy level playing field. It remains to be seen whether female sporting categories will be reserved for people who do not enjoy the advantages of SRY, but I don't think tenability is really the issue here. The Boston Marathon was a tenable and ongoing phenomenon back when women were entirely banned, and the WNBA might be financially tenable even if all the superstars were natal males.

 

[d4m10n]

Does that represent an opinion YOU actually hold? Answer yes or no...

Nope. You refused to answer my question earlier and by the principle of reciprocity I now refuse to answer yours.

As soon as you dig up where I committed to your censored word challenge, then I'll start responding to challenges like this once again.

 

[Paul2]

Are you pulling my leg here? I've been arguing for Hinton's position the entire time.

Not pulling your leg, and I haven't seen (or, more likely, don't recall) what your position is on Hinton, but I'm happy to accept the above as a clear statement of your position.

On the other hand, you were the one who said your position was committed to in the OP in the other thread, so all I did was to look at the OP over there. Your position is not in that OP, but it as above, and presumably elsewhere, too.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Day 345 of begging someone from the Protrans side to actually clearly state a single point.*

 

[d4m10n]

Your position is not in that OP, but it as above, and presumably elsewhere, too.

I'm telling you exactly what "resolved" means in the context of that OP and you're just rejecting it.