Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Emily's Cat]

Sex is an idea (or a set of ideas) which we use to describe the world; many people do in fact think of it as determined by genitals. Any skeptic publication concerned with promoting scientific understanding of the topic should at some point address this naive sense of what people think "sex" should be taken to mean.

I don't know the best way to address this muddle.

First off, saying "sex is an idea we use to describe the world" is about as useful as saying "gravity is an idea which we use to describe the world". It's sophistry in service of denying objective reality. Nobody with any actual scientific basis would say "gravity is an idea... " because the only utility of that phrase is in using it to then argue a solipsistic perspective where nobody can actually know anything and it's all just made up models and maybe we're just in a simulation you totally can't tell...

Secondly, I don't think it's reasonable to think that a skeptic publications should spend any time at all giving credence to a false understanding of an objective reality. To the extent it should be addressed at all, it should be done only in order to demonstrate exactly why that false understanding is false.

3) A single human being who was never on a developmental path to produce either gamete and therefore cannot be classified using the gametic binary.

Absolutely, incontrovertibly no. This is entirely wrong.

If a fetus doesn't at least begin the process of sexual differentiation, they will terminate. Sex is a *required* developmental aspect, similar to brains or lungs. If a fetus doesn't have a reproductive system, it is not viable. It can be an incompletely developed system, it can be a system with problems, but it absolutely must be present. And the fetus absolutely has to trigger the differentiation process, even if it doesn't complete the process.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Individuals who are congenitally incapable of producing either gamete do not have any reproductive role in an anisogamous species. If you want to show that Novella is wrong about being able to classify every individual as either male or female, you'll have to show that everyone who has never produced any gametes is nonetheless classifiable using something other than gametes.

Go hang out with Steersman on this.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Page doesn't exist.... You posted this 3 minutes before my reply and I assume it wasn't deleted that fast... Is it because I'm not logged into Twitter (or even have an account)?

Must be logged in

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's logically possible always matters. I would like to see someone logically argue that sex is trinary as that would be a thread in itself.

This thread is not about whether sex is binary or a spectrum though it might have become that, check the title.

definitely a false dilemma as you didn't mention gender roles at all.

@p0lka would you mind using a different color to highlight the phrase you'd like to call out? I suspect the yellow looks great if you're using the dark mode skin... but it's almost impossible to read for those of us who prefer a light background. Thank you in advance.

 

[p0lka]

No. That is not an option. You can do that. I could do that, but in general I won't. But society as a whole? Nope, society will not. There is no constituency for doing so. Neither side in this debate has any interest in that.

And I've explained at length why it wouldn't even matter if we did. It's an idiotic delusion to think that the trans activists will stop pushing for trans-identifying males to be allowed into bathrooms with women because we label it "female" instead of "women". Of course they won't. Because it was never about the label. It was always about whether males could enter into bathrooms with females.

Early on, I could excuse this as simple ignorance on your part, just not knowing what the TRA's are actually arguing. But you do not have that excuse anymore. Why do you persist in believing something so demonstrably false?

Posters keep saying it's demonstrably false, or it's obviously false, or I'm daft to even consider it as 'the other side' would never accept it etc. I haven't seen any one actually demonstrate that it's false yet.
People on both sides of this argument seem to be as irrational as each other in that they think stating things makes them true.

 

[Ziggurat]

Posters keep saying it's demonstrably false, or it's obviously false, or I'm daft to even consider it as 'the other side' would never accept it etc. I haven't seen any one actually demonstrate that it's false yet.

You have had plenty of examples shown to you of people saying that trans identifying males are not just women but females.

People on both sides of this argument seem to be as irrational as each other in that they think
stating things makes them true.

You don't seem to understand what that actually means. It means that labelling the women's bathroom as female won't keep trans identifying males out any better than labeling it women's does. Because as you said, stating it doesn't make it true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There definitely is a third option, it would be to get rid of the 'man woman' gender labels? As you have literally done whilst typing. You keep referring to male female spaces but they are not labelled as that? Most public toilets etc are labelled as 'man woman', not what you want them to be.

That doesn't accomplish anything at all. You present this as an option, as if somehow changing the label will change the advocacy, as if by eliminating the word "woman" and using "female", suddenly all of the trans rights activists will say "Oh! You mean that facility was supposed to be for the female sex? I hadn't realized, I thought it was always intended to be for people in dresses regardless of sex! Well, gee, this changes everything!" That's not going to happen, because it has never ever not once been an argument based on confusion. It has never ever not once been because someone didn't realize we were using figurative language rather than literal language. Changing figurative to literal won't alter the argument one single bit.

At this point, you could make just as much headway by insisting that we replace the term "restroom" with "toilet and sink room" because that will somehow alleviate confusion about the rooms being places to take a nap.

 

[smartcooky]

Posters keep saying it's demonstrably false, or it's obviously false, or I'm daft to even consider it as 'the other side' would never accept it etc. I haven't seen any one actually demonstrate that it's false yet.
People on both sides of this argument seem to be as irrational as each other in that they think stating things makes them true.

You don't seem to understand the TRA position.

They absolutely KNOW that what they like to call "transwomen" are actually men/biological males, but they demand that their mere claim to be women/female MAKES them women/female, and therefore gives them the absolute right to access ANY AND ALL facilities exclusively reserved for women...

Women's toilet and restrooms
Women's domestic violence shelters
Women's rape crisis centres
Women-only wards in hospitals

as well as participating in women's sports and to be housed in women;'s prisons should they be sentenced to incarceration.

Changing the labels or title of those facilities from "Women Only" to "Females Only" will do absolutely nothing to change their views or their demands. It is not a solution to any problem, and in fact, we are already getting some of these TIM's claiming to be biologically female!

Trans Gender Ideology is a Cult of Misogyny the likes of which we have not seen in a long time

 

[Rolfe]

The more tightly and precisely we attempt to define women/female, the more these men claim to be in that category we have just defined.

 

[theprestige]

It helps to remember that the fundamental goal of the trans identifying male is to get access to the things society normally reserves for females. Changing the terms and nailing down the science won't change what TIMs want.

 

[Rolfe]

Shoving hormones into a body not designed to cope with them is not a good idea at all.

A New Paper Reveals Devastating Harms of Cross-Sex Hormones

Male use of estrogen is associated with a range of diseases and health complications.

www.city-journal.org

 

[smartcooky]

Shoving hormones into a body not designed to cope with them is not a good idea at all.

A New Paper Reveals Devastating Harms of Cross-Sex Hormones

Male use of estrogen is associated with a range of diseases and health complications.

www.city-journal.org

Well goodness me! So pumping drugs and chemicals into people who's bodies are incompatible with them will have long term, deleterious side effects? Who knew?

I will repeat what I have said previously about this... In years to come, people will look back on this with same scorn and disbelief as we do when we recall the thalidomide scandal. They will be wondering what the hell we thought we were doing.

There are going to be thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with untreatable long-term, irreversible health issues that will severely impact their lives. The doctors and politicians who supported them should be the ones to pay.

 

[p0lka]

You have had plenty of examples shown to you of people saying that trans identifying males are not just women but females.

You don't seem to understand what that actually means. It means that labelling the women's bathroom as female won't keep trans identifying males out any better than labeling it women's does. Because as you said, stating it doesn't make it true.

I understand what it means and I am applying it to both sides. It also means just stating that "labelling the women's bathroom as female won't keep trans identifying males out any better than labeling it women's does" doesn't make it true either. It seems to be wishful thinking on both sides of this 'war' that's going on.

 

[Ziggurat]

It also means just stating that "labelling the women's bathroom as female won't keep trans identifying males out any better than labeling it women's does" doesn't make it true either.

No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. It's not true because I said it, I said it because it's true. You've already been given plenty of an explanation for why it's true. You keep ignoring it. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

It seems to be wishful thinking on both sides of this 'war' that's going on.

You have that exactly backwards. It's wishful thinking on YOUR part that such a trivial step could resolve the conflict. It's realism, not wishful thinking, to recognize that it's not so easy.

 

[p0lka]

That doesn't accomplish anything at all. You present this as an option, as if somehow changing the label will change the advocacy, as if by eliminating the word "woman" and using "female", suddenly all of the trans rights activists will say "Oh! You mean that facility was supposed to be for the female sex? I hadn't realized, I thought it was always intended to be for people in dresses regardless of sex! Well, gee, this changes everything!" That's not going to happen, because it has never ever not once been an argument based on confusion. It has never ever not once been because someone didn't realize we were using figurative language rather than literal language. Changing figurative to literal won't alter the argument one single bit.

I respectfully disagree for the reasons I've said.

At this point, you could make just as much headway by insisting that we replace the term "restroom" with "toilet and sink room" because that will somehow alleviate confusion about the rooms being places to take a nap.

If there was a problem with people going into restrooms and just resting, then yes of course a potential solution would be to just change the name into something that doesn't have 'rest' in the title?
Why is that hard to understand?

 

[Ziggurat]

If there was a problem with people going into restrooms and just resting, then yes of course a potential solution would be to just change the name into something that doesn't have 'rest' in the title?
Why is that hard to understand?

Why do you suppose it is that people going into restrooms to rest ISN'T a problem? The answer to that question should give you a clue to why you're wrong about "women's" vs "female".

 

[p0lka]

No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock. It's not true because I said it, I said it because it's true. You've already been given plenty of an explanation for why it's true. You keep ignoring it. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

You have that exactly backwards. It's wishful thinking on YOUR part that such a trivial step could resolve the conflict. It's realism, not wishful thinking, to recognize that it's not so easy.

You are predicting the future and stating that it would never work because of a future prediction, I'm saying as far as I am aware it's not been tried yet maybe give it a go. It seems there's only one of us of sticking to realism.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are predicting the future

No. Get it through that thick skull: I'm observing the PRESENT, something you seem incapable of doing. Trans identifying male ALREADY say that they are female. Their supporters ALREADY agree with them. Relabeling bathrooms to "female" instead of "women" would make ZERO difference, because they ALREADY classify themselves that way.

It seems there's only one of us of sticking to realism.

You're right about that, but it's me, not you.

 

[p0lka]

Why do you suppose it is that people going into restrooms to rest ISN'T a problem? The answer to that question should give you a clue to why you're wrong about "women's" vs "female".

I don't know whether it is or isn't a problem actually? Where I live they are just called toilets, which is a nice clear label in and of itself, but then it has the gender labels on top.

 

[p0lka]

No. Get it through that thick skull: I'm observing the PRESENT, something you seem incapable of doing. Trans identifying male ALREADY say that they are female. Their supporters ALREADY agree with them. Relabeling bathrooms to "female" instead of "women" would make ZERO difference, because they ALREADY classify themselves that way.

You're right about that, but it's me, not you.

OK, as you are observing the present, then where's the data on what effect the change from gender based labels to sex based labels had?

I don't care and neither should anyone else care about what people want to imagine themselves to be amongst themselves, be it female male unicorn wizard bear or whatever, but the moment it hits reality is when it matters. Changing to sex based labels makes it easier to say nope to if you so wish.