Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Aber]

In the usual ways--it places limits on rights of association.

So sex-segregated spaces are allowed if the religion demands it?

 

[Thermal]

One of the fundamental things about being a skeptic is that skeptics generally demand empirical evidence for the sort of claims we evaluate, that is, we want evidence which can be verified or falsified by everyone concerned with the truth of the claim under consideration.

When such evidence can be expected, sure. Do you really think when Rene says 'Cogito' a skeptic would demand 'Evidence''?

Claims like "I am a bag of potato chips" can be evaluated objectively,

Yes it can. But I was not responding to external evaluation. The somewhat sledgehammered point was that a person can intentionally lie about their self ID, and falsify it.

claims like "I am more comfortable being treated according to the social norms of associated with femininity rather than masculinity" must be taken on faith.

'More comfortable'? Comfort is not being discussed?

 

[d4m10n]

The somewhat sledgehammered point was that a person can intentionally lie about their self ID, and falsify it.

Your sledgehammer misses once again.

Self-identification is a process, something you do when asked by another entity to identify oneself.

When asked (e.g. by the Wi Spa attendant) whether you'd like to be treated as a woman or a man, whatever you say will determine how you are treated.

It is possible to lie about how you would really like to be treated, of course, but what would be the point of doing so?

 

[d4m10n]

Comfort is not being discussed?

Any reference to gender dysphoria is implicitly about discomfort with one's sexed body and how people treat you on account of it.

 

[Thermal]

Any reference to gender dysphoria is implicitly about discomfort with one's sexed body and how people treat you on account of it.

...okay? Should the subject of gender dysphoria come up sometime, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[d4m10n]

Ok, but we do acknowledge gender dysphoria as a recognizable condition. There's an area of the brain that corresponds with that specific ID.

Are you linking gender dysphoria with self-identification here?

 

[Thermal]

Your sledgehammer misses once again.

Self-identification is a process, something you do when asked by another entity to identify oneself.

It may be a process at the early stages. Then it becomes something you have determined and can quickly answer. If you ask me what posters I am, it's not much of a 'process' anymore to respond.

When asked (e.g. by the Wi Spa attendant) whether you'd like to be treated as a woman or a man, whatever you say will determine how you are treated.

They don't ask how you would like to be treated. They ask what your gender *is*. Unless you have dug up something that indicates otherwise?

It is possible to lie about how you would really like to be treated, of course, but what would be the point of doing so?

Sounds like you are saying that the transgender patrons of WI Spa must have regularly been going to the opposite sex area, and Merager was nothing novel? Care to share? Or do your assertions not actually play out anywhere but in this thread?

 

[Thermal]

Are you linking gender dysphoria with self-identification here?

...and we are back in April? Whatever.

Yes, it is 'linked'. GD is the life-affecting stress that sometimes accompanies a self ID.

 

[d4m10n]

They ask what your gender *is*

Why would they ask that at point of service, other than to determine how to treat you? I doubt they have much interest in unanswerable metaphysical questions about whether an immaterial soul can have a disembodied gender.

Sounds like you are saying that the transgender patrons of WI Spa must have regularly been going to the opposite sex area,

Sounds like one or both of us are having trouble communicating clearly, since you are responding to a general comment here rather than one about the spa, while at the same time ducking my question.

 

[d4m10n]

GD is the life-affecting stress that sometimes accompanies a self ID.

Other than dysphoria, what else might cause someone to assert that they ought to be treated as the opposite sex?

Whatever that other (non-DSM) cause might be, should we be expected to comply in the absence of a therapeutic rationale?

 

[Thermal]

Other than dysphoria, what else might cause someone to assert that they ought to be treated as the opposite sex?

Whatever that other (non-DSM) cause might be, should we be expected to comply in the absence of a therapeutic rationale?

I don't care. I am challenging your assertion that a WI Spa attendant or transgender person frames the identification as 'for my comfort I want to be treated as' versus 'I am'.

 

[Thermal]

Why would they ask that at point of service, other than to determine how to treat you?

I don't care. You are trying to conflate "I am" with "I prefer to be treated in a particular way for my comfort". They are not equivalent and I'm not biting.

Sounds like one or both of us are having trouble communicating clearly, since you are responding to a general comment here rather than one about the spa, while at the same time ducking my question.

Yes, I probably should have snipped it out as I was continuing with challenging your previous assertion, which was that the WI Spa (or anyone) would choose the odd recording you try to slip in there.

I'll ask again: do you have any reason to believe the WI Spa would ask the question in such an odd way? Not even odd- it's passive-aggressively denying their ID and suggesting it's an act. "I want to be treated like I am loved for my comfort" is vastly and qualitatively different than "I am loved". The first is an instruction for a call girl, and the second an affirmation of a relationship.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, congratulations! You understand what an internal sense of self means! Do you want a gold star or a smiley face sticker?

Still bogging down? Ok. I am Thermal. That is my internal sense of self. I am not, for instance, Ziggaraut. Now, let me put on your hat: "But how can we tell you're Thermall?" Well, I post like Thermal. I use the Thermal account and phrases and figures of speech and hold some predictable positions. "You could be just faking that. The only person who can possibly know that it's true is you." Yeah, that's what an internal sense of self means.

Now take that extra half a step and apply all of this to the actual context of this discussion.

You have acknowledged that the only person who can tell if you're lying about how you identify is you. Only you know if you're being truthful about how you feel about yourself.

That also means that only the person claiming to have a transgender identity knows whether or not their identity is honest or not. Nobody else can possibly tell whether they're being truthful about how they feel about their own internal sense of identity.

Now... we have legislation that is based on the self-professed identity of people. If people say that they identify as trans, then those people get to violate the boundaries of others.

And we're right back to the start of this: Females are placed in a position by law where we are required to tolerate the presence of males in intimate spaces against our will... based on those males saying that they identify as trans. Their unfalsifiable claim is required to be accepted as true, because they said it, and because laws grant them the right to place their stated identity above the objectively verifiable reality of females.

Why do you think that females should be required to accept a male's stated but unverifiable internal sense of self as being of more importance than their sex, and to accept that their unverifiable claimed identity is real?

"Cogito ergo sum", to which y'all literally reply "but you can't prove it to us" and you think you're saying something insightful.

On the other hand... you're pretty much accepting "I think I'm a woman therefore I am a woman" as being somehow meaningful enough that females should be required by law to allow those males into female restrooms.

An internal sense is perfectly falsifiable, internally. Watch: "I am a bag of potato chips", says I. "That is untrue", I say after consideration. Really not much more to it. And this is when you repeat "but how can we tell?" for the hundredth time, or come back a few pages later and take it from the top.

IT'S ONLY FALSIFIABLE BY THE PERSON WHO SPEAKS THE ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ WORDS!

Hannah Tubbs says that they have a transgender identity, and therefore they're a woman. The only person who can say that Tubbs is false is Tubbs. You can't say they're lying, because you can't read their mind. Only Tubbs can determine whether or not Tubbs is being truthful.

And that catch-22 resulting in a 26 year old fully intact male serving their jail sentence for raping a 10 year old female in a female juvenile detention facility.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. It is, however, a protected class in New York.

And by being a protected class in NY, it necessarily overrides the equal rights of female humans in NY.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you really think when Rene says 'Cogito' a skeptic would demand 'Evidence''?

Honestly, I'm not sure you actually understand the philosophical argument Descartes is making at all. I definitely don't see how you think it applies here.

Like seriously - in Descartes' approach is that I can observe that I am thinking, therefore, the act of thinking is evidence that I do actually exist. The philosophical principle is "I think, therefore I exist" it's not "I think [that I am X], therefore I am [actually for realsies X].

 

[Thermal]

Why do you think that females should be required to accept a male's stated but unverifiable internal sense of self as being of more importance than their sex, and to accept that their unverifiable claimed identity is real?

I don't, and have said so repeatedly.

On the other hand... you're pretty much accepting "I think I'm a woman therefore I am a woman" as being somehow meaningful enough that females should be required by law to allow those males into female restrooms.

I don't, and have said so repeatedly.

IT'S ONLY FALSIFIABLE BY THE PERSON WHO SPEAKS THE ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ WORDS!

Correct. What I was arguing against was the assertion that an internal sense is not falsifiable. Of course it is, by definition. And that came from another assertion that its not possible to subjectively lie about an internal sense.

What you are responding with is a seperate (but related) argument that was not happening. It makes responses easier, anyway, because they never have anything to do with the postings.

 

[Thermal]

Honestly, I'm not sure you actually understand the philosophical argument Descartes is making at all. I definitely don't see how you think it applies here.

Like seriously - in Descartes' approach is that I can observe that I am thinking, therefore, the act of thinking is evidence that I do actually exist. The philosophical principle is "I think, therefore I exist" it's not "I think [that I am X], therefore I am [actually for realsies X].

By what mystical means do you think Rene was able to observe that he thought? Think it might have been an internal sense of self that he couldn't "prove" to anyone else?

 

[Ziggurat]

Correct. What I was arguing against was the assertion that an internal sense is not falsifiable.

No one gives a ◊◊◊◊ if you can falsify that to yourself, just like no one gives a ◊◊◊◊ how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It only actually matters in policy if someone else can falsify it.

 

[Thermal]

No one gives a ◊◊◊◊ if you can falsify that to yourself, just like no one gives a ◊◊◊◊ how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It only actually matters in policy if someone else can falsify it.

You seem.to have forgotten what was being challenged. It was the assertion that one couldn't lie about a self ID, or internally falsify it. Whether you give a ◊◊◊◊ about that is not just irrelevant, but out in left field somewhere, in a different ballpark.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't care. I am challenging your assertion that a WI Spa attendant or transgender person frames the identification as 'for my comfort I want to be treated as' versus 'I am'.

Do you really think that the specific words involved here matter?

What the hell do you think "I'm a transwoman" is supposed to convey? Because as far as I can tell, it's shorthand for "I have (or used to have) a dick and balls, but I want to use spaces where people with vaginas go, and I don't think that my dick and balls should exclude me from the vagina places, and it will make me feel better about myself if I get to take my dick and balls into the vagina space. And if any of those vagina people dislike it, well ◊◊◊◊ them, they're bigots"