BRB imma find one of the many times you've complained about being broad-brushed as a "TRA" and apply this handy heuristic of yours to see if that complaint still makes any sense.
OMG are we all seeing this?
Just for consideration, the supremacy angle wasn't added until well after the European Slave Trade was well established. It was a justification after-the-fact, that only arose when predominantly protestant abolitionists started voicing objections to slavery. And in its first waves, it wasn't white supremacy, it was formed more around framing African people as unevolved savages. Other non-white people, like Arabs and Indians, were not considered to be lesser, as they were viewed to have robust civilizations. The white aspect of the supremacy mostly got tossed in the pot in the prelude to the civil war, at which point the atlantic slave trade was already shut down.
I've been seeing it for months, and I am sure @Ziggurat, @Rolfe, @Emily's Cat, and @theprestige have also seen it. Its why there is so much confusion about his flip-flopping from one position to the next. ...first he states views that align with TRA's, then views that don't, then they do, then they don't.BRB imma find one of the many times you've complained about being broad-brushed as a "TRA" and apply this handy heuristic of yours to see if that complaint still makes any sense.
OMG are we all seeing this?
You laid out the principle that it's okay to assume POV based on lingo/colors and then complained about it happening to you in the same goddamned post.
This is performance art.
I didn't specify white supremacy, I just said racism, of which white supremacy is only one strain. If you aren't aware of black vs. black racism, you haven't been paying attention, even to recent history.
A few points to add to this. Most physicians are not scientists, and to folks in the life sciences it's no secret that the many of the worst studies are carried out by them. That's partly because doing human expts is fraught w/ difficulties but also because they're not trained to design and carry out research.
I've not seen that term used in our notes. I'm at a large children's hospital (though we have patients well into their 20s). Rather the clinical notes will refer to gender identity, while making it clear what their actual sex is.
Translation: He's talking horse-◊◊◊◊!
You're rather comically misreading that post. Louden Wilde is saying quite clearly that YOUR terminology is not used in the real world.
There are however a few things that are irrefutably true scientifically, medically, psychologically and observationally...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Bwhahahaha! Really?
You accidentally snipped out the pist LW was quoting. In it, i mention one terminology by name:Bwhahahaha! Really?
Huffed again!!
But you knew that it wasn't clear which one LW was referring to when they said "that term"- the one alluded to at the beginning, or the one named at the end. I assumed the one named at the end, because 'transwoman" is definitely used in medical literature, and TIM/TIF are definitely not, but Louden Wilde can clarify if they so please.
Please, do so. Please do report back on all my 'TRA positions" and we'll see how I wear those colors. Please don't punk out and wither from delivering.
I don't consider myself to be wearing TRA colors by any metric, so whatever this 'OMG you guys, are we all seeing this?' dickheadedness is supposed to be is falling pretty flat too.OMG are we all seeing this?
You laid out the principle that it's okay to assume POV based on lingo/colors and then complained about it happening to you in the same goddamned post.
This is performance art.
And if they do not have a choice, because single-sex spaces are not available?
No, I deliberately snipped it out because it wasn't relevant.
I thought it was the one at the beginning, because it was the only one that made sense in the context all the other posters' reactions
I can't control what you assume!
It wasn't dishonest or misleading. It was honest and intentional
Generations? How many generations of medical researchers have been saying 'transwoman'?
I mostly try not to.
Confident.
I'm not confident now, but I'll project that on you instead.
Well you made an ass out of 'u' at least. Notice how transwoman is no longer 'used in all the medical literature for generations,' just 'definitely used in (some) medical literature'. I don't think thermal cares enough about facts to bother trying to find even one example.
And, finally recognising he's almost certainly wrong about what he thought LW was saying 'quite clearly,' he adds the insurance policy: their definition of medical literature isn't valid anyway.
You are expecting people on a skeptic forum to go beyond "trust the science" and start digging in to which scientific studies will most likely stand the test of time? Good luck!
They certainly can sign it away in some places and times (e.g. every pub in 80s Chicagoland); they cannot sign it away in other places and times. Whether the right not to be exposed to tobacco smoke is alienable or inalienable is a fact about legal constructs put in place by legislators and courts, not an objective moral fact or a fact about the universe itself. If you want to appeal to the new progressive regime on this specific issue, you might want to bear in mind that they are by and large the same legal systems which decided gender identity rights cannot be infringed over roughly the same time period.
I'll not be dragged any further into a discussion of racism in a thread about trans rights, I've already stated time and again why the idea of (four or five or six) distinct human races is arbitrary and downright pseudoscientific compared to the idea of exactly two sexes; the latter classification scheme is rooted much more firmly in reality.