Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[d4m10n]

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

If you think there are "Protrans" posters left in this thread then you're clearly failing at reading comprehension. I've said more than once that we need to defer to activist statements in the absence of actual interlocutors who will argue for that position. That shouldn't be particularly difficult to grasp.

 

[Paul2]

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

It's a shame how our conversation devolve, I'm not blaming that on you, it appears to be a function of how the two of us connect (or don't connect, in this case). I'm loathe to ask the next question I'd have to ask because it would only get us down deeper in the rabbit hole. Ah, what the hell. Life is short!

Did you mean to say by the above that you had already told me what "resolved" meant, or that the above is the thing that is telling me what "resolved meant." That question is merely a question about *when* you had told me exactly what "resolved" meant.

That's how far down the rabbit hole we'd have to go. If you don't want to answer that question, I wouldn't blame you (even while that *is* the next question we'd have to go to to try to resolve - no pun intended - our differences).

 

[d4m10n]

Did you mean to say by the above that you had already told me what "resolved" meant, or that the above is the thing that is telling me what "resolved meant."

The former, as of #1270. The idea that I'm not committing myself is ridiculous, given that I've consistently defended a specific position throughout that that thread.

 

[theprestige]

If you think there are "Protrans" posters left in this thread then you're clearly failing at reading comprehension. I've said more than once that we need to defer to activist statements in the absence of actual interlocutors who will argue for that position. That shouldn't be particularly difficult to grasp.

I think the point is that nobody is asking you to be our resident trans whisperer.

 

[d4m10n]

I think the point is that nobody is asking you to be our resident trans whisperer.

Nobody is asking anybody to post here, last I checked; it's a hobby at most. That said, if you want to argue about trans issues, you need to be clear on what the activists (on either side) are actually trying to accomplish. I figure legal complaints are a good source, but feel free to do better.

 

[theprestige]

Nobody is asking anybody to post here, last I checked. It's a hobby at most.

Last time I checked, you weren't getting a lot of negative feedback on your earlier contributions to the thread. I'm saying, listen to the feedback you're getting.

 

[d4m10n]

Last time I checked, you weren't getting a lot of negative feedback on your earlier contributions to the thread. I'm saying, listen to the feedback you're getting.

I'm saying, nah bro. Groupthink is the opposite of skeptical inquiry.

 

[Paul2]

The former, as of #1270. The idea that I'm not committing myself is ridiculous, given that I've consistently defended a specific position throughout that that thread.

Here's the last I will say, you can have the last word.

When I was talking about that OP, I never said that you didn't commit yourself at any point in time, I was only saying that the OP by itself wasn't a commitment on your part because "resolved: [insert a position here]" is an idiom that means a statement of the "for" position in a formal debate regardless of whether the speaker agrees with the for position. If that's not how you meant "resolved:. . . ." then that explains our disagreement.

You may well have committed to a position in some prior or antecedent post, but I was only addressing what was in the OP.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying, nah bro. Groupthink is the opposite of skeptical inquiry.

Dude, you aren’t getting the feedback you are getting because we’re engaged in groupthink. You are getting the feedback you’re getting because you are doing a bad job at communicating, and that seems to be an intentional choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

I don’t think you understand the actual consequences. It’s not that the playing field won’t be level. It’s that there will be no playing field. Laurel Hubbard can’t compete against women and beat them when women’s competitions go away. That’s what being untenable actually looks like.

The Boston Marathon was a tenable and ongoing phenomenon back when women were entirely banned

Yes.

and the WNBA might be financially tenable even if all the superstars were natal males.

Bwahahahaha! No.

 

[d4m10n]

I don’t think you understand the actual consequences. It’s not that the playing field won’t be level. It’s that there will be no playing field. Laurel Hubbard can’t compete against women and beat them when women’s competitions go away.

What makes you think they will go away? So far we've not seen any mass boycotts from female athletes with the most skin in the game.

 

[d4m10n]

You are getting the feedback you’re getting because you are doing a bad job at communicating, and that seems to be an intentional choice.

Imputing bad faith is not a sign of good faith. If I've failed to communicate clearly, that is likely a personal failing rather than a conscious choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

What makes you think they will go away? So far we've not seen any mass boycotts from female athletes with the most skin in the game.

Oh, I'm not saying it will go away immediately. The process will take time, if self-ID is fully implemented. But many women's sports will go away, if they implement fully self-ID. Which is why almost none of them will or do.

And note that even having testosterone limits alone, although not actually leveling the playing field, means you aren't doing self-ID.

 

[Ziggurat]

Imputing bad faith is not a sign of good faith. If I've failed to communicate clearly, that is likely a personal failing rather than a conscious choice.

I would accept that argument, but for your response to theprestige when he suggested you listen to feedback. That wasn't the response of someone who is arguing in good faith but just having problems communicating clearly.

 

[Darat]

Nobody is asking anybody to post here, last I checked; it's a hobby at most. That said, if you want to argue about trans issues, you need to be clear on what the activists (on either side) are actually trying to accomplish. I figure legal complaints are a good source, but feel free to do better.

You missed out the word "some", you seem to be arguing for one extremist side, for example I am for trans rights, I can see JoeM is as well, but not the extremist view you seem to want to put forward.

Arguing for other people is very difficult, all you are doing is arguing for your interpretation of the arguments and claims of a small but very vocal and "artificially" amplified group, you are not arguing for my views despite me being "protrans".

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What makes you think they will go away? So far we've not seen any mass boycotts from female athletes with the most skin in the game.

Yes, we have.
Female football teams in the UK have refused to play against a team that included a trans player, after that player broke the leg of another player.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/67482965
Here's one from the States- a female basketball team.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...sketball-team-forfeits-tournament-transgender
As for athletes, the World Athletic Association has banned "female" trans athletes from competing against women, so no boycott is needed:
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/24/1165...s-cant-compete-in-womens-international-events

 

[d4m10n]

You missed out the word "some", you seem to be arguing for one extremist side, for example I am for trans rights, I can see JoeM is as well, but not the extremist view you seem to want to put forward.

ACLU & Stonewall are not extremist groups, they are highly subscribed mainstream advocates for gay & trans rights. If you want to name more mainstream and more broadly supported groups arguing for trans rights, feel free to do so and we can look at their formulations instead.

 

[Darat]

ACLU & Stonewall are not extremist groups, they are highly subscribed mainstream advocates for gay & trans rights. If you want to name more mainstream and more broadly supported groups arguing for trans rights, feel free to do so and we can look at their formulations instead.

As I said you are arguing for your interpretation of their arguments and views.

 

[d4m10n]

As I said you are arguing for your interpretation of their arguments and views.

Everyone here is free to interpret their claims about gender and sex for themselves. Here once again is the original court document: https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/bridge_complaint_sb615.pdf

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 challenge anyone to come up with a more concise statement of gender ideology from a mainstream source which advocates for trans rights.

 

[Samson]

Is this sustainable?
It must be UK


"I was disciplined in my job for ‘not believing some women have penises, when they do’. Those words were actually written on my disciplinary. Believe me, there was no room for polite debate! "

https://twitter.com/WelshPegg/status/1780546341266968616?t=TU-sX7e9ymU5XI7tcuc0Sw&s=19j