Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

I didn't actually know that Randi had done that. Surely it was unlike him not to support the mainstream science position?
 
Rolfe said:
I didn't actually know that Randi had done that. Surely it was unlike him not to support the mainstream science position?
Click to expand...
I remember being quite shocked by that post on his Swift blog. I just googled it, and it seems quite a few people were.

www.psychologytoday.com

James Randi, global warming and the meaning of skepticism

James “the Amazing” Randi is an icon of skepticism. The man has done more — over a span of several decades — to further the cause of critical thinking and to expose flimflammery of all sorts than arguably anyone else in the world, ever. That is why I was struck with incredulity and sadness...
www.psychologytoday.com www.psychologytoday.com

He walked back most of it, after listening to the feedback.

I AM NOT "DENYING" ANYTHING

James Randi Educational Foundation
archive.randi.org archive.randi.org
 
Well, as you eloquently said, it's not about never making mistakes, it's about changing one's mind when presented with evidence.
 
smartcooky said:
These are not statistics, these are hard counts.
Click to expand...

Technically anything that's a percentage of a larger set IS a statistic. This just happens to be based, as you say, on hard data rather than a sample or a projection, but it's still a statistic. Like, if I count all the face cards in a deck, and find that yeah, it's still got the expected 23.08% you'd expect, or count them in a dodgy casino's blackjack shoe and find 20% instead, yeah, it involves a hard count, but it's nevertheless a statistic.

The problem in his case is just subtly mis-understanding or possibly mis-representing it as it being the percentage of sexual cases among those who are incarcerated, instead of the per-capita statistic among the whole population it actually is. The message you answer to was exactly that mis-representation. I missed the slight rewording too the first time. Once you understand that, then most of his questions and messages for the last two pages make some sense. (Well, not really, but you can see what caused them.)

Well, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I like to think it wasn't a deliberately dishonest argument. Probably more like just 3 rows were enough to be TL; DR, gonna answer anyway.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
I support the idea of private spaces for everybody, regardless of sexual orientation. Why can't we have that?
Click to expand...
The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about protecting transwomen from violence in men's restrooms. Why can't we set that red herring aside, and have a debate about the actual issue?

Transwomen want access to women's restrooms not to be safe, but to pretend to be women, and to have society participate in their pretense. And they want a standard of fiat self-ID because it's the easiest solution for them.

That's it. That's the issue. Men's access to women's spaces, simply because they say they want it, in the name of trans rights.

There are several lines of rebuttal to this claim of entitlement. One is that it makes women measurably less safe, without making transwomen safer. Another closely related rebuttal is that it has a chilling effect on safe spaces for women, and defeats their purpose.

---

Another line of rebuttal is that it serves no proven medical or scientific purpose. Nowhere is it credibly alleged that a transwoman must have access to women's spaces (by fiat self-ID or otherwise), as the best treatment for any kind of medical condition.

---

So there you have it. Fiat self-ID access to women's spaces makes women less safe, degrades the usefulness of those spaces to women, does not make transwomen safer, and serves no medical purpose.

Ample evidence supporting each of these claims has been presented many times in this thread. All the common responses (including the ones you're probably thinking of right now) have already been addressed repeatedly. Why can't we have you bringing something new to the table, instead of the same tired old red herrings? Why can't we have that?
 
theprestige said:
The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different, if it were actually about protecting transwomen from violence in men's restrooms. Why can't we set that red herring aside, and have a debate about the actual issue?

Transwomen want access to women's restrooms not to be safe, but to pretend to be women, and to have society participate in their pretense. And they want a standard of fiat self-ID because it's the easiest solution for them.
Click to expand...
We can't set aside the red herring because the TRA's won't argue the real reason, because the real reason isn't enough to justify their demands and they know it. They need to claim that their opponents hate trans people, and that requires wanting to harm them, so they need to claim some harm beyond just not catering to their feels. That's why acbytesla is stuck on claiming we're all transphobes, even though he can't argue the harm we're actually doing.
 
Ziggurat said:
We can't set aside the red herring because the TRA's won't argue the real reason, because the real reason isn't enough to justify their demands and they know it. They need to claim that their opponents hate trans people, and that requires wanting to harm them, so they need to claim some harm beyond just not catering to their feels. That's why acbytesla is stuck on claiming we're all transphobes, even though he can't argue the harm we're actually doing.
Click to expand...
Hope springs eternal. RR usually comes across with strongly argued positions, usually directed at the point raised.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It took me too long to realize you weren't relating a myth that eggs and butter turn boys into girls. It says something when I read that and thought it was entirely plausible that millions of people would believe that could happen.
Click to expand...
It doesn't help that schools turning boys into girls is a thing that's already happening.
 
Pixel42 said:
The Gisèle Pelicot case is yet another reminder of what many men are willing to do, as long as they think there's a good chance they'll get away with it. See also Epstein, Saville et al. Men who don't understand why women believe sexual predators would take advantage of the opportunities offered if the demands of TRAs are met (usually because they wouldn't dream of doing such things themselves) need to take a long hard look at such cases.
Click to expand...
The Pelicot case sickens me to my core. :( It borders on unfathomable to me, the sheer volume and violation involved is astounding.
 
Rolfe said:
I see we've fallen back on the "there are more important things to be concerned about in the world, therefore you should agree that my position is the right one" defence. Not biting.
Click to expand...
TBF, ivor's position is to retain single-sex female spaces that disallow males of any sort. They're "it's not important" was more directed at the males who identify as wanting to invade female spaces.

Rolfe said:
It's not just that he thinks you shouldn't be posting about it, he thinks you should quit the field to leave him the victor. Which, given that you are defending the position which has been the status quo for a very long time, shows a pretty serious brass neck.
Click to expand...

I get that we've seen this approach many times before... but in this case, Ivor's position is the opposite of what you've assumed ;)
Ivor the Engineer said:
Unisex toilets and biologically female only toilets. Everyone has a "safe space" to piss in. For prisons the rule should be not to put predators in the same space as their prey no matter what their biological sex is. Binary biological sex classification is a very good approximation to reality for many animals including humans. Mentally ill people should be tolerated and helped but not pandered to.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
Absolutely. But as I say, it's worse in Ivor's case, because he is campaigning to have women's protections removed, protections that have been in place for a very long time, then when the women protest he tells them that there are more important things they should be worrying about, and they ought simply to agree with his proposals and butt out.

The gall is actually breathtaking.
Click to expand...
But Ivor is NOT campaigning for that! Reread their post, with an open mind. It's not saying what you expected it to say.
 
theprestige said:
I think y'all are missing the most significant thing about Ivor's latest: He concedes the necessity for sex segregated spaces for women, and (by implication) rejects the principle of fiat self-ID.

His appeal to relative privation is as irrelevant as it is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
I'm happy I wasn't the only person to see that :)
 
acbytesla said:
No, you didn’t. What you did was suggest that the motives of those pushing these bigoted laws was based on a desire to protect women from the evil trans women. That it wasn't based on insecure hate. That people like yourself are truly worried that women need protection from the boogeyman. And I was wrong to fail to see that women are truly threatened by the boogeyman. I've asked over and over and over about assaults on women committed in public restrooms and all I have heard is crickets. The only evidence you have presented is a right wing article citing a documentary of a right wing Troglodyte by the name of Matt Walsh.

I know gays and transgender individuals. I associate with them. They are not freaks to me. They are human beings deserving of kindness and respect. Just as I believe everyone is. The only presumption I make is that we live in a shared reality. I do presume everyone is good and deserves kindness until it is demonstrated otherwise. Oh, and faith is the excuse people provide when they lack evidence.
Click to expand...
JFC, let's try this crazy fringe reset response again.

It is not about protecting females from "evil transwomen". It's about allowing females to have boundaries that exclude ALL MALES from spaces where females are vulnerable. ALL MALES regardless of how they ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dress. Because you know what?

WE CANNOT TELL IF THE OBVIOUS MALE IN THE DRESS IS "TRANS" OR JUST A PERV. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. ALL WE CAN TELL IS THAT THEY ARE MALE AND WE DON'T WANT MALES IN OUR SHOWERS OR OUR PRISONS OR OUR SINGLE-SEX SPORTS... AND WE DON'T GIVE A ◊◊◊◊ WHAT THEY FEEL LIKE ON THE INSIDE OF THEIR MINDS.
 
acbytesla said:
What do you think this article tells you? Does it say that teen age girls were in danger? Nope. It says a girl was pushed and some girls were uncomfortable. And some parents are outraged. Do you really think this incident even if it happened warrants a total ban? And I question it's veracity.
Click to expand...
I see you support the right of males to engage in flashing and voyeurism, and support depriving females of the right to refuse to consent to such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom