• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
If we aren't talking about helping someone by playing along with their image of themselves as someone who fulfills the social role traditionally reserved to the opposite sex, then what are we talking about?
Click to expand...
Who they are, not a role they are playing for yuks.
d4m10n said:
(Sorry but I didn't grok the analogies at all.)
Click to expand...
You specified morally, not this bull ◊◊◊◊ Mr Spock 'I can only speak in terms of pure fact' action.

Morally, we don't call obese people obese at every opportunity. You can claim that your standard is to only speak the biological truth, so you must call them obese, but no one anywhere believes those who say that (it only survives ITT because it is an echo chamber). Doing so is a not-even-remotely-veiled moral judgement against them, like repeatedly setting up a gay man with women. Or calling a transwoman 'he'.
 
Thermal said:
Morally, we don't call obese people obese at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
We don't call skinny people skinny at every opportunity either. Not because it's rude, but because generally it's not relevant But sometimes it is. And when it is, using accurate descriptors isn't hateful. But let's take your comparison seriously for a moment. The actual parallel you're setting up here wouldn't be simply that we should avoid calling fat people fat. The actual parallel would be saying that we should call fat people skinny because it makes them feel better. But nobody is under any such obligation.
Thermal said:
You can claim that your standard is to only speak the biological truth, so you must call them obese, but no one anywhere believes those who say that (it only survives ITT because it is an echo chamber). Doing so is a not-even-remotely-veiled moral judgement against them, like repeatedly setting up a gay man with women. Or calling a transwoman 'he'.
Click to expand...
That's an even stupider comparison. One of the reasons that repeatedly setting up a gay man with a woman would be offensive is that nobody has to set him up with anyone. It takes significant effort to try to set someone up. But not only does it take no real effort to use pronouns, it's natural to do so. It takes effort to avoid doing so. It takes even more effort to use pronouns that do not match how you view that person. Making a judgment about what sex you think they are isn't a moral judgment. Why are you trying to make it one?

ETA: and the actual parallel to setting up a gay man with women isn't using "he" pronouns for a trans identifying male. It would be buying him beard wax or similar male-targeted stuff he doesn't want. Which absolutely would be rude and uncalled for.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Do you object to euphemisms and figures of speech, too? Do we really have to be Mr Spock at every turn?

I call my wife stunning and gorgeous, and to me she is. Do I have to put that up to your approval for objective veracity, or do you 'get it', much like we all 'get it' when calling a transwoman a she?

eta: I get your point about being made to say something we don't personally believe. But how badly is your integrity really compromised by observing a social form of address? Do you regularly call people fat or ugly who inarguably are? No one thinks you are a liar if you tell a homely person they look great. They just think you're a nice person.
Click to expand...

There's an important difference between the different examples.

If you don't recite the school prayers, the administration of the school is ready to step in with penalties.

If you don't call a transwoman she, HR is ready to step in with penalties. (In the UK, so are the police.)

If you decided not to call your wife stunning and gorgeous, what third party would step in to impose penalties on you?

If you decided to call a fat person fat, what third party would step in to penalize you?
 
Thermal said:
eta: I get your point about being made to say something we don't personally believe. But how badly is your integrity really compromised by observing a social form of address?
Click to expand...
How badly does it need to be compromised before we don't make people do it?
Thermal said:
Do you regularly call people fat or ugly who inarguably are?
Click to expand...
No. But you know what else I don't do? Call people skinny when they are inarguably fat.
Thermal said:
No one thinks you are a liar if you tell a homely person they look great. They just think you're a nice person.
Click to expand...
If they're looking great for them (because the same person can look better or worse depending on factors which can easily change), then you aren't lying. If they don't look great for them, then you are a liar, even if you're trying to be nice. I have no objection to saying that a trans identifying male looks feminine (if they in fact do).

Furthermore, once again you get the parallel wrong. No one here is arguing that you CANNOT call a trans identifying male "she". The equivalent that you're arguing here isn't that you can call an ugly person great looking, but that you must do so.
 
Thermal said:
Who they are, not a role they are playing for yuks.
Click to expand...
No one said anything about yuks, and I don't think "who they are" is nearly as clear-cut as you are claiming here.
Thermal said:
Morally, we don't call obese people obese at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
Morally, we recognize that they would be better off recognizing the truth of their situation even though we are probably not well positioned to help out. That said, I'm much more likely to rave about peptides to my fat friends than my skinny ones.
Thermal said:
Or calling a transwoman 'he'.
Click to expand...
To be clear, you're saying that failing to play along with preferred pronouns smacks of judgementalism?
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
There's an important difference between the different examples.

If you decided to call a fat person fat, what third party would step in to penalize you?
Click to expand...
Which is a separate issue to The Assault on Truth and Reality and How it Horrifically Compromises Your Intellectual Integrity that was under debate.
 
Thermal said:
Which is a separate issue to The Assault on Truth and Reality and How it Horrifically Compromises Your Intellectual Integrity that was under debate.
Click to expand...

Coercion is the issue. No one is arguing they shouldn't be allowed to use someone else's preferred pronouns.
 
Ziggurat said:
How badly does it need to be compromised before we don't make people do it?
Click to expand...
A little beyond recreationally douchey, at least.
Ziggurat said:
No. But you know what else I don't do? Call people skinny when they are inarguably fat.

If they're looking great for them (because the same person can look better or worse depending on factors which can easily change), then you aren't lying. If they don't look great for them, then you are a liar, even if you're trying to be nice. I have no objection to saying that a trans identifying male looks feminine (if they in fact do).

Furthermore, once again you get the parallel wrong. No one here is arguing that you CANNOT call a trans identifying male "she". The equivalent that you're arguing here isn't that you can call an ugly person great looking, but that you must do so.
Click to expand...
No, my point is that being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ for no other reason than to be an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is antisocial. Refusing to call someone a she doesn't condemn you to the intellectual Hell of Hypocrisy. It just shows you are not an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and you can set aside your personal vitriol long enough to function in society. I don't see that as such a high bar.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Care to make the argument that the State of California was captured by special interests—rather than following popular opinion—when it decided to add gender identity to its list of protected statuses? Last I checked Californians were pretty keen on this stuff.

I'd much rather that the state legislature had allowed Wi Spa to make their own call, but I bet it wouldn't've changed anything in practice because popular support for trans-inclusive policies is generally high in prosperous West Coast cities.
Click to expand...
Do you genuinely think that Californians as a whole - not just LA and SF residents - are keen on putting intact males in female prisons based on nothing more than those males saying they have gendery feels?
 
Myriad said:
Coercion is the issue. No one is arguing they shouldn't be allowed to use someone else's preferred pronouns.
Click to expand...
Coercion is another issue (which isn't really coercion any more than penalties for other forms of harassent).

But you are still moving the goalposts. The argument was that it 'harms truth and reality'. It doesn't. It may offend your personal senses, but reality remains unaffected. So phrase it that way: I am personally offended by being required to use pronouns that the rest of the world casually uses, although I don't actually have to use said pronouns, unless I want to obliquely make a personal value stance".
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
No, my point is that being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ for no other reason than to be an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is antisocial.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with that statement on its own. But you seem to think that being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ is the only possible reason that someone might use male pronouns for a trans identifying male, and I simply don't agree with that assessment. Furthermore, insisting that other people deny biological reality in order to conform to your preferences is also a dick move, and antisocial. Complaining to HR because people won't flatter your fantasies is a dick move, and antisocial.
 
Thermal said:
Coercion is another issue (which isn't really coercion any more than penalties for other forms of harassent).

But you are still moving the goalposts. The argument was that it 'harms truth and reality'. It doesn't. It may offend your personal senses, but reality remains unaffected.
Click to expand...
If you cannot tell the truth, then your ability to describe reality is impaired. And that will, in turn, end up affecting peoples actions, because we act upon information we receive. And our actions then change reality. It's not that refusing to call a male a male will turn that male into a female, nobody is suggesting anything like that. But denial of reality is how we get stuff like tolerating Richard Cox invading girls' locker rooms. There are actual real-world consequences to the inability or refusal to tell the truth.
 
Thermal said:
Coercion is another issue (which isn't really coercion any more than penalties for other forms of harassent).

But you are still moving the goalposts. The argument was that it 'harms truth and reality'. It doesn't. It may offend your personal senses, but reality remains unaffected. So phrase it that way: I am personally offended by being required to use pronouns that the rest of the world casually uses, although I don't actually have to use said pronouns, unless I want to obliquely make a personal value stance".
Click to expand...

The harm of course is to ones freedom to express their own concept of truth and reality. Whether or not the argument you're responding to spelled that out exactly.

And again, you can say all the same things about forced religious participation. Whether or not you pray has no effect on the reality of whether God exists or not so why shouldn't society demand you just bow your head and say the words? Don't be the insensitive jerk who ruins it for everybody when God decides to flood the place again.
 
I go back and forth on the pronouns thing. I don't want to upset people for no good reason, but I do wonder how kind it really is to encourage someone to believe they actually have changed reality with the thoughts in their head, because sooner or later reality to going to bite them on the arse. It seems a bit too much like encouraging an anorexic to join their local weightwatchers club.
 
Thermal said:
Yet entirely objective well over 99.5% of the time. Even most ranspeople can be clocked as the gender they identify with, if not flawlessly passing. An accuracy rate that high rises to objectivity in the practical sense.
Click to expand...
"Hey, that dude is in a dress and lipstick, I bet he identifies as a chick" isn't a hard leap to make. What's more challenging is determining whether a male in a pink t-shirt with a unicorn on it, jeans, and sparkly chucks identifies as a female or whether they're simply into sparkles. Or determining whether the female in a metallica shirt, jeans, and steel-toed boots identifies as a transman or whether they're just not trying to be barbie.

Gender is stereotypes. And to the extent that all stereotypes are reflective of observed patterns, that holds. The problem is that sex is NOT a stereotype, it's an objective biological reality.

Black people liking rap music, fried chicken, watermelon, and sagging jeans is a stereotype. It's common enough among black people that it forms a pattern, but it's far from being causal, or even predictive. There are lots of black people that like classical music and steak and apples and suits; similarly there are plenty of white people who like rap and fried chicken and watermelon and sagging jeans. In that sense, "blackness" is analogous to gender.

On the other hand, black people have a higher melanin content in their skin, a predisposition toward extremely tight curls in their hair, and a materially higher prevalence of sickle cell disease and susceptibility to diabetes. Those are all objective biological realities, tied to genetic traits associated with descent from african ancestors.

It might be reasonable in some contexts to say that a white person "identifies as black" because they like rap and fried chicken and watermelon and sagging jeans. But it would be entirely unreasonable to say that such a person's psychological identity therefore makes them black in reality, and therefore entitles them to private clubs and scholarships that are exclusively intended for biologically black recipients.

I think we can ALL understand that distinction between an affinity with a stereotype and actual biological reality when it comes to race. Sex, being actually binary, is far less wishy-washy than race is... but somehow we keep ending up with people demanding that an affinity with sex-based stereotypes should override the reality of sex and allow males to access female single-sex spaces and sports.
 
Something's been bugging me about the "cherry orchard", and this morning I figured out what it is: They're all middle-aged white males.

I think I first had some inkling of this when considering the case of Admiral Levine, a year or so back. Part of my assessment was that Levine had accomplished most of their career advancement as a cis-identifying male. I.e., as a bog-standard white male with all the advantages that carries. He got to be the "first ever trans" to reach that rank or whatever mostly by being "yet another white male" to reach every preceding rank. The only part of his career that he achieved while openly trans was that final step, which coincidentally only happened right at the moment when society was most likely to reward him for being trans over rewarding him for being white and male.

And it seems like there's a lot of that in the "cherry orchard". Middle aged white men who have figured out that being openly and toxically "trans" is something they're allowed to get away with, now. To me, this is less "ameliorating the distress of gender dysphoria" and more "finding a socially acceptable outlet, either for untreated mental illness (best case), or for being an anti-social dickhead (worst case). This is probably just a stereotype, but the next time you hear about a trans restroom harasser, or a trans prison rapist, try guessing the ethnicity and age of the perpetrator, and see if you're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom