Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Hercules56]

...What do you think the point of a discussion thread is? To post bigots from twitter to advertise how poor our thinking is?...

People who call folks who don't see things their way "weirdos" and "abnormal", shouldn't complain about bigotry. The whole glass house thing, ya know.

 

[Hercules56]

I’ve believed for some time that whenever people bring up racial segregation and gay rights in this thread they have run out of valid arguments and can only throw about the “bigot” label. It’s pathetic really.

Black people cant hide who they are, make believe they are white.

Transwomen? They can very quickly go back to looking like their natural selves.

The comparison is ignorant and offensive. Some might say racist.

 

[smartcooky]

7

People who call folks who don't see things their way "weirdos" and "abnormal", shouldn't complain about bigotry. The whole glass house thing, ya know.

And "liar". Don't forget about "liar"

 

[smartcooky]

I’ve believed for some time that whenever people bring up racial segregation and gay rights in this thread they have run out of valid arguments and can only throw about the “bigot” label. It’s pathetic really.

Indeed, and furthermore, they are false analogy fallacies anyway.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/false-analogy-fallacy-weak-examples.html

Gay rights:
Granting gays the right live their chosen lifestyle, to not face discrimination for being gay, and to marry the person they love, impacts no-one else... No third parties whatever are impacted by gay rights. Same goes for most trans-rights, such as relief from discrimination in housing, and employment. Those rights don't impact third parties either, however, some of the rights they demand DO negatively impact at least 51% of the general population.

Segregation:
Women, members of the oppressed group, wanting a space free from men, the oppressor group, is not the same as white oppressors demanding that black people not be allowed in white people's spaces. Black people are black - they cannot do anything about that, but transwomen are male, and they CHOOSE to identify as women. The 51% of the population this effects are under no obligation to accept males into their spaces.

It should NEVER be acceptable to grant any person or group rights at the cost of abrogating the rights of others.

 

[Aber]

I don't acknowledge non binary and gender fluid so that's not really an issue. They're just being recreationally difficult.

What's your logic for this, as you seem to saying that that a transwomen is based "between the ears" (even if things remain sex-segregated)?

 

[Rolfe]

Possibly sometimes, but Thermal is bringing it up in rebuttal to the "I like it to stay the way it's been" criterion.

He is failing to understand the nuance. The nuance is that it is up to the people who support change to make their case. Not to announce that their preferred position is now de facto adopted, claim the status of "normie" for himself, and label those who believe the change is detrimental as "weirdos".

Rights for black people and gay people were argued for, often eloquently, and gradually won acceptance as people came to appreciate the force of the arguments and agree with them. That is conspicuously not what Thermal is doing.

In contrast to rights for black people and gay people, which gained support the more people were encouraged to think about them and learn about the issues, the clear trend is for demands for trans people to be given access to the single sex spaces of the sex they aren't to lose support as people understand the issues better and come to realise the real nature of the demands and the people making them.

Thermal doesn't want to know anything about that part. He's wedded to the notion of the sweet, harmless "transwoman" who only wants to pee and is really a sort of woman anyway. Any examples of trans identifying men behaving badly, no matter how numerous, are dismissed as irrelevancies that should not for a moment be seen as a reason not to allow this mythical sweet marginalised trans lady to do anything he damn well pleases.

 

[smartcooky]

In contrast to rights for black people and gay people, which gained support the more people were encouraged to think about them and learn about the issues,
the clear trend is for demands for trans people to be given access to the single sex spaces of the sex they aren't to lose support as people understand the issues better and come to realise the real nature of the demands and the people making them.
Thermal doesn't want to know anything about that part. He's wedded to the notion of the sweet, harmless "transwoman" who only wants to pee and is really a sort of woman anyway. Any examples of trans identifying men behaving badly, no matter how numerous, are dismissed as irrelevancies that should not for a moment be seen as a reason not to allow this mythical sweet marginalised trans lady to do anything he damn well pleases.

The tide on this counter-factual BS is absolutely turning, and I firmly believe that it was a big contributing factor in Kamala Harris' loss in the presidential election. Some Democratic politicians agree...

Some Democrats blame party’s position on transgender rights in part for Harris’ loss

Republicans spent millions attacking Democrats on transgender rights. Some say that’s one reason why Harris lost.

www.nbcnews.com

“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”​

​

Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”​

The Republicans hammered the trans issues big time in the last few days before the election. Even trans-advocates themselves acknlowlege that their approach has turned people off.

Trans activists reconsidering their abrasive approach as public support slips: ‘We looked unreasonable’

“We have to make it OK for someone to change their minds,” Rodrigo Heng-Lehtinen, executive director of Advocates for Transgender Equality, said.

nypost.com

Drilling down into polling on specific issues — such as transgender bathroom policy, trans athletes competing in female sports and laws allowing gender-questioning youth to procure medical sex change treatment — reveals support from many Americans is waning.​

​

Some LGBTQ activists recently told the New York Times they believe the worrying dip in support is attributable to the zealotry of the movement, which emphasizes shame and forced compliance while discouraging any critical debate.​

 

[Rolfe]

Or maybe it's because the demands themselves are seen to be unreasonable and oppressive once considered objectively. That was always the reason for the "no debate" strategy, simply claiming the desired rights and shaming people who argued a contrary position, rather than honest campaigning.

 

[smartcooky]

Or maybe it's because the demands themselves are seen to be unreasonable and oppressive once considered objectively. That was always the reason for the "no debate" strategy, simply claiming the desired rights and shaming people who argued a contrary position, rather than honest campaigning.

Yup, 100% agree Rolfe. They know their arguments don't stack up to observable reality, so they don't want any open discussion, and will label anyone who shows the slightest dissent from their viewpoints as "transphobes" and "bigots".

The worst example of this is in the UK where, not only you can be reported to Police for dead-naming or misgendering someone, but the Police will visit you in repsonse, and you will have a "Non-Crime Hate Incident" recorded against your name by the Police. This means you now have a Police record, even though you have never even been charged, let alone convicted. Even worse, that incident is searchable - prospective employers can find that incident if they perform a CRB check.

The recording of things like "Non-Crime Hate Incidents" against your name are the tools and tactics of a Police State... its analogous to the sort of information collecting the Stasi used to do in East Germany in the 1970s and 80s

 

[Rolfe]

It absolutely is.

 

[varwoche]

Black people cant hide who they are, make believe they are white.

Transwomen? They can very quickly go back to looking like their natural selves.

The comparison is ignorant and offensive. Some might say racist.

More to the point, there's not a meaningful biological difference between black and white people, despite which black people have been treated as inferior. Whereas there is a meaningful biological difference between men and women, and it's pertinent to all the issues.

Moreover, it's women who have gotten the short end historically. The comparison is a double failure.

 

[Thermal]

What's your logic for this, as you seem to saying that that a transwomen is based "between the ears" (even if things remain sex-segregated)?

Your ID is your core identity, and it is not variable. It's essential. It's already pushing the limits to accept that the wrong ID is valid in the first place, but the idea of a crossed wire up there is palatable enough. But to say your core essence flits around willy nilly (gender fluid) means you seem.to have a problem.identifying what a core essence is, and that needs to be straightened out.

Non binary means you just aren't taking the whole thing seriously. Anyone could say 'well I don't really feeeeel like a man or woman specifically'. Just consider your junk and say to yourself 'well how I feel right now is the way that a person with this junk feels', and you're done.

Not sure if this is off topic, but it seems to be, so we should prob not pursue it.

 

[Hercules56]

Your ID is your core identity, and it is not variable. It's essential. It's already pushing the limits to accept that the wrong ID is valid in the first place, but the idea of a crossed wire up there is palatable enough. But to say your core essence flits around willy nilly (gender fluid) means you seem.to have a problem.identifying what a core essence is, and that needs to be straightened out.

Non binary means you just aren't taking the whole thing seriously. Anyone could say 'well I don't really feeeeel like a man or woman specifically'. Just consider your junk and say to yourself 'well how I feel right now is the way that a person with this junk feels', and you're done.

Not sure if this is off topic, but it seems to be, so we should prob not pursue it.

"Non-binary" people are just weirdos. Everybody is a male or a female, whether they like it or not.

 

[Thermal]

More to the point, there's not a meaningful biological difference between black and white people, despite which black people have been treated as inferior. Whereas there is a meaningful biological difference between men and women, and it's pertinent to all the issues.

Moreover, it's women who have gotten the short end historically. The comparison is a double failure.

Come on varwoche, you're better than this. No analogy is made to be a perfect 1:1 and you damn right well know it.

If the argument is "well we've always done it like this for decades", it's fair to draw a parallel to segregationists using the identical logic. Or sufferagettes. Or a freaking monarchy. The analogy is intended to show no more than the flawed justification with a concrete parallel use of the same type of thinking.

Scrutinizing an analogy beyond its obvious intent is dishonest. Anyone could do that anywhere at any time with any analogy, because there will always be a difference somewhere. That's why dissection is dishonest.

 

[varwoche]

Come on varwoche, you're better than this. No analogy is made to be a perfect 1:1 and you damn right well know it.

If the argument is "well we've always done it like this for decades", it's fair to draw a parallel to segregationists using the identical logic. Or sufferagettes. Or a freaking monarchy. The analogy is intended to show no more than the flawed justification with a concrete parallel use of the same type of thinking.

Scrutinizing an analogy beyond its obvious intent is dishonest. Anyone could do that anywhere at any time with any analogy, because there will always be a difference somewhere. That's why dissection is dishonest.

This particular analogy is so far from perfect that's its not really applicable, other than as a rebuttal to "we've always done it like this for decades". And as I recall, that's how you used it. But you're not the only one to have drawn the parallel.

No, I'm not better than this and I reject the inference of dishonesty.

 

[Thermal]

People who call folks who don't see things their way "weirdos" and "abnormal", shouldn't complain about bigotry. The whole glass house thing, ya know.

Refresher: you asked about people who would refuse to have partitions in a changing area. Weirdos, I replied, might. Because a weirdo might, in fact. Is that disputable?

And I didn't refer to anyone as abnormal.

<SNIP> Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Please tone down the incivility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Hercules56]

This particular analogy is so far from perfect that's its not really applicable, other than as a rebuttal to "we've always done it like this for decades". And as I recall, that's how you used it. But you're not the only one to have drawn the parallel.

No, I'm not better than this and I reject the inference of dishonesty.

Racial identity is not fluid. You can't choose to be black on Monday and White on Wednesday. Gender identity, apparently IS fluid. You can be male on Monday, female on Wednesday and "non-binary" on Friday. Any analogy is just dishonest.

 

[Hercules56]

Refresher: you asked about people who would refuse to have partitions in a changing area. Weirdos, I replied, might. Because a weirdo might, in fact. Is that disputable?

And I didn't refer to anyone as abnormal.

<SNIP> Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Please tone down the incivility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

You called people like you "normies". The logical conclusion is that folks who disagree with you are abnormal. They're your bigoted words, bra.

And yes, its bigoted to call people weirdos just cuz they disagree with you.

 

[Thermal]

This particular analogy is so far from perfect that's its not really applicable, other than as a rebuttal to "we've always done it like this for decades". And as I recall, that's how you used it.

Which, since the criticism.was directed at my use, should settle that.

But you're not the only one to have drawn the parallel.

Yet that's what the current discussion is about.

No, I'm not better than this and I reject the inference of dishonesty.

I don't imply that you are dishonest. I know you aren't. Im.pointing out that you are jumping on a dog pile that, as you just acknowledged above, doesn't apply to the usage at hand.

Eta: *you* are not dishonest, but you are dogpiling on a highly dishonest criticism, possibly without realizing it, if that makes sense. That's why I say you are better than that.

 

[Thermal]

You called people like you "normies". The logical conclusion is that folks who disagree with you are abnormal. They're your bigoted words, bra.

And yes, its bigoted to call people weirdos just cuz they disagree with you.

I pointed out that us "normies" comply with law when it is reasonable. Do you dispute that normal people do so?

And that in no way extrapolates to calling any other group "abnormal", which was your claim.

Thirdly, I didn't call anyone a 'weirdo' who disagrees with anything. I said a weirdo might refuse to comply with a privacy requirement.

There's no room left for your claimed misunderstanding.

Eta: edited to remove the 'L' word. I'm starting to believe Herc that all this is beyond his grasp.