Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Rolfe]

Worth reading the replies to this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1670484029236301824

 

[Thermal]

But is a well-evidenced counter-example to your wild generalisation.

No, it is not. Upton says 'being biologically female is nebulous, and there is no agreed upon definition for biological sex', and other navel-gazing bull ◊◊◊◊ word games. Upton does not have a delusion (that is what was being discussed, in case you forgot). Upton is waxing philosophical, not confused about why a bio female (if he actually thought he was one) would be getting harassed for being in a female changing area. Playing dickhead word games does not mean you are under a delusion.

I doubt there is a single transwoman that actually believes they are biologically female. If there were, they would not understand the 'trans' prefix, and would be legit mentally ill. They would definitionally not be trans.

I still don't understand what you are arguing for on this thread as your claims are all over the place.

Then pay more attention. For starters, I am not arguing *for* anything. I'm conflicted on the issue. Might have mentioned that a few dozen times.

 

[Ziggurat]

Worth reading the replies to this.

But there are no official statics on this, so it doesn't matter to Thermal.

Alternatively, she's just transphobic and deserves her self exile.

Which answer at any given moment depends on the tides and the direction of the wind.

 

[Thermal]

There've been multiple analyses that demonstrate that the rate of sexual and violent offending among males with transgender identities is as high or higher than the rate for males as a whole.

Why are you determined to ignore it, and continually pretend that such analyses are misrepresentations?

Because they are repeatedly shown to be. Smartcooky recently linked a paper that has been repeatedly presented. In it, the authors try to address the criticisms of the Swedish study... and basically concede them. For example, one of the important criticisms of the Swedish study was that "If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear". The authors of the 'rebuttal' say 'well yeah, that's true, but the Swedish study didn't break it down that way'. News flash: that's the criticism, and a nasty flaw with the conclusions.

Ziggurat will soon be along to add that the Swedish study and literally every other one did not control for other variables, either. And in Rolfe's recent tweety that was criticized, I've already laid out the appallingly obvious shortcomings and deliberate misrepresentations.

Anything else?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then pay more attention. For starters, I am not arguing *for* anything. I'm conflicted on the issue. Might have mentioned that a few dozen times.

Indeed, you mostly argue against things.

It's a sort of intellectual cowardice. Don't take a committed position, and you can't be wrong.

 

[Thermal]

But there are no official statics on this, so it doesn't matter to Thermal.

Alternatively, she's just transphobic and deserves her self exile.

Which answer at any given moment depends on the tides and the direction of the wind.

Please stop lying about other posters. Its a bad look for your integrity and the forum.

I've said very consistently that simple modesty is one of the more persuasive arguments, and in changiing areas, sex segregation should be implemented. What I tend to argue against is the assertion by the bigots that them trannys is all a bunch of dangerous cross dressing pervs.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed, you mostly argue against things.

It's a sort of intellectual cowardice. Don't take a committed position, and you can't be wrong.

Stop being obtuse. You know damn right well what I'm doing here. I'm not one of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ picking a side and mindlessly bickering about it for years. I'm actually looking for skeptical discussion. Here, of all places.

 

[Ziggurat]

Stop being obtuse. You know damn right well what I'm doing here. I'm not one of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ picking a side and mindlessly bickering about it for years. I'm actually looking for skeptical discussion. Here, of all places.

No, you aren't looking for a skeptical discussion. Every time anyone asks you for definitions, you run away. But you can't have a meaningful discussion without definitions of the terms you use.

You aren't here for a skeptical discussion, you're here to snipe, to lay accusations of transphobia against anyone who is gender critical, to support the TRA position even though you claim to disavow it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've said very consistently that simple modesty is one of the more persuasive arguments

And yet, you seem to remain unpersuaded by it. Funny, that.

What I tend to argue against is the assertion by the bigots that them trannys is all a bunch of dangerous cross dressing pervs.

No one here has taken that position. So for you to accuse me of lying about you when you keep repeating this lie yourself is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Thermal]

No, you aren't looking for a skeptical discussion. Every time anyone asks you for definitions, you run away. But you can't have a meaningful discussion without definitions of the terms you use.

You aren't here for a skeptical discussion, you're here to snipe, to lay accusations of transphobia against anyone who is gender critical, to support the TRA position even though you claim to disavow it.

GTFOOH. I have defined 'gender' as I use it. The posters who then try to peanut butter sandwich it out of existence are dildos, and aren't that interesting or productive.

 

[Thermal]

And yet, you seem to remain unpersuaded by it. Funny, that.

One persuasive point doesn't end the whole debate, no. This is surprising to you?

No one here has taken that position. So for you to accuse me of lying about you when you keep repeating this lie yourself is the height of hypocrisy.

Of course they haven't. They are just misunderstood angels.

 

[Ziggurat]

GTFOOH. I have defined 'gender' as I use it.

No. You provided a definition of gender which actually contradicts your use. Even getting that was pulling teeth, and it's not a definition that's even usable for any policy purpose.

And you still haven't defined what it even means to be trans. It doesn't mean having gender dysphoria, you've made that much clear, but you haven't said what it does mean.

You aren't interested in meaningful discussion. If you were, you would try to actually provide meaningful discussion. You don't do that. You are far more interested in insulting other posters, as demonstrated by how much of your posts are centered around that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course they haven't. They are just misunderstood angels.

Look in the mirror.

 

[Thermal]

No. You provided a definition of gender which actually contradicts your use.

So you keep saying.

Even getting that was pulling teeth, and it's not a definition that's even usable for any policy purpose.

Because policy purposes are the final dumbed down, one size fits all implementation. Your policy proposal is "let's just say gender is bio sex and not acknowledge trans people at all", and the TRAs is "let's just say gender is whatever we we think and not acknowledge bio sex at all". Both are unsatisfying.

And you still haven't defined what it even means to be trans.

Yes I have. It's when your internal ID doesn't classicly jibe with your natal sex.

It doesn't mean having gender dysphoria, you've made that much clear, but you haven't said what it does mean.

It's not me saying that. It's Western medicine.

You aren't interested in meaningful discussion. If you were, you would try to actually provide meaningful discussion.

I try to at every opportunity. Rolfe presented another vacuous tweety recently, and i read the source material and criticized it. Have you engaged? No. Instead...

You don't do that. You are far more interested in insulting other posters, as demonstrated by how much of your posts are centered around that.

...you want to talk about me.

 

[Thermal]

Look in the mirror.

I see you snipped out the first half of that post. I mean, that was one of the dumber things you've said.

Eta: and I'm not misunderstood, except in this thread, which is That Thread. Don't seem to have this problem anywhere else. "Funny, that".

 

[Ziggurat]

I see you snipped out the first half of that post. I mean, that was one of the dumber things you've said.

Eta: and I'm not misunderstood, except in this thread, which is That Thread. Don't seem to have this problem anywhere else. "Funny, that".

You are completely inconsistent in this thread. That's not us misunderstanding you, that's you not being coherent. Evidently, this isn't an issue where you can actually make logical and consistent conclusions.

Which is true of the left in general, when it comes to trans issues. The desire to follow the progressive stack hierarchy clashes with biological facts. For some, this leads to a rejection of biology. For others, including you, it puts them in a state of intellectual confusion. They aren't willing to outright reject biology, but they aren't willing to discard the progressive stack either. And so, we find you and others making self-contradictory claims as you try to reconcile the irreconcilable. Your only real consistency is labelling the non-progressives as being bad people motivated by hatred, because you can do that without having to choose between ideology and biology.

This thread is That Thread not because the gender critical folks have abandoned reason, but because progressivism has adopted contradictions it cannot resolve.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you keep saying.

Because policy purposes are the final dumbed down, one size fits all implementation.

How "dumbed down" they are depends on the policy. But even when they have to be dumbed down, that's not an argument against having policy. We need to have policy. At the end of the day, policy matters a lot more than any of the discussions we have here. Policy has consequences.

You don't seem to like consequences.

Your policy proposal is "let's just say gender is bio sex and not acknowledge trans people at all",

No, it isn't. I'm fine with acknowledging trans people. I'm not fine with them transcending sex segregation on the basis of self-ID.

and the TRAs is "let's just say gender is whatever we we think and not acknowledge bio sex at all". Both are unsatisfying.

You are not satisfied with my ACTUAL position because I do not hold on to the progressive stack, and you are not satisfied with the TRA answer because it abandons biology.

But you cannot cling to both, no matter how much you want to. You will never, ever find a satisfying answer because these things are incompatible.

Yes I have. It's when your internal ID doesn't classicly jibe with your natal sex.

Are non-binary people trans? Are gender fluid people trans?

Oh, that's right, you don't think they even exist.

I try to at every opportunity.

No, you do not.

Rolfe presented another vacuous tweety recently, and i read the source material and criticized it. Have you engaged? No. Instead...

...you want to talk about me.

I'm not pretending that I'm the only one interested in high brow intellectual discussion and nobody else is.

 

[smartcooky]

You are completely inconsistent in this thread. That's not us misunderstanding you, that's you not being coherent. Evidently, this isn't an issue where you can actually make logical and consistent conclusions.

Which is true of the left in general, when it comes to trans issues. The desire to follow the progressive stack hierarchy clashes with biological facts. For some, this leads to a rejection of biology. For others, including you, it puts them in a state of intellectual confusion. They aren't willing to outright reject biology, but they aren't willing to discard the progressive stack either. And so, we find you and others making self-contradictory claims as you try to reconcile the irreconcilable. Your only real consistency is labelling the non-progressives as being bad people motivated by hatred, because you can do that without having to choose between ideology and biology.

This thread is That Thread not because the gender critical folks have abandoned reason, but because progressivism has adopted contradictions it cannot resolve.

QFT... especially the highlighted bit

There are some of is who will not, under any circumstances, compromise our belief in the truth of scientific fact (in this case the fact of biological sex: that there are two and only two sexes, and therefore, transgender identified males are NOT women). I am one of them!

I don't have any problem with men who think they are women. I think they are delusional, but that's OK, they're allowed to be. But I don't have to play along with their delusion. I will NOT go along with the idea that "transwomen" are women. The reason I don't go along with it is because I do not think its true... IMO it is science denial, which I refuse to be a part of. I also refuse to use their pronouns, because it enables delusional people to maintain their delusion.

They can identify however they like, but how I identify them is my business!!

 

[Thermal]

But you cannot cling to both, no matter how much you want to. You will never, ever find a satisfying answer because these things are incompatible.

I'll agree with you on this point. Whatever resolution is proposed is short ending one party or the other.

I still feel confident in keeping force of law out of it, in both directions, and let us manage ourselves, with the exception that in areas where nudity is expected, strict sex segregation should be introduced and enforced by law.

I'm not pretending that I'm the only one interested in high brow intellectual discussion and nobody else is.

Hardly anything 'high brow and intellectual' about a base level criticism of presented data. You game, or going to keep rocking the personal jabs?

 

[Thermal]

How "dumbed down" they are depends on the policy. But even when they have to be dumbed down, that's not an argument against having policy. We need to have policy. At the end of the day, policy matters a lot more than any of the discussions we have here. Policy has consequences.

Forgot to respond to above: we are not arguing 'not having a policy'. Of course we need one. But the end policy is just a one size fits all resolution, and usually a clumsy one. It doesn't remotely deal with the subtleties and nuances of the issue. Whether policy is directed by sexism and bigotry or mutual respect is a major talking point in how we craft a fair policy.