Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Well then, what?

Well then, maybe we need to think very hard about what we can do to be confident you really do need to transcend sex segregation, in order to accommodate your feeling, and maybe we need to think very hard about what we can do to be confident you really feel the way you claim to feel.

I'm addressing Paul's point by arguing that context matters. In some contexts, with some feelings, we just take the claim for granted and move on. In other contexts, with other feelings, we try very hard to be confident that the claim is true and the demanded response is appropriate, before agreeing to the demand.

 

[Rolfe]

Well then, maybe we need to think very hard about what we can do to be confident you really do need to transcend sex segregation, in order to accommodate your feeling, and maybe we need to think very hard about what we can do to be confident you really feel the way you claim to feel.

You may also want to think very hard about the law of unintended consequences, and the rights of other people that might be violated if you accommodate that person's feelings. Except, it's only women, who cares?

 

[Paul2]

Because whatever organic basis there may be does not consist of the person actually being the sex they aren't.

But you as much admit that there might be an organic basis for gender dysphoria, and that is distinct from whether the person claims they are actually the sex they aren't, which is distinct from whether that person should be treated socially and legally. Can we take one at a time?

If we can't rule out an organic basis for gender dysphoria, then the internal experience of gender dysphoria may not be like having a fursona, for which we don't anticipate finding an organic basis for it.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps the issue is whether gender dysphoria has some organic basis to it, like pain does, and having a fursona doesn't.

That's not the issue at all, for me. I'm happy to stipulate that fursonas also have some organic basis. Or that neither does. Or that either one does, and the other doesn't. I don't even need you to define "organic basis".

On what basis do we rule that out, even if we haven't yet ruled it in?

It's a moot point, for me. My view of the issue is the same regardless of whether it's ruled in or out.

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps the issue is whether gender dysphoria has some organic basis to it, like pain does, and having a fursona doesn't. On what basis do we rule that out, even if we haven't yet ruled it in?

Won't anything we experience have some kind of basis in the brain? Schizophrenia certainly does, but we generally don't go around validating schizophrenics lived experiences.

 

[theprestige]

But you as much admit that there might be an organic basis for gender dysphoria, and that is distinct from whether the person claims they are actually the sex they aren't, which is distinct from whether that person should be treated socially and legally. Can we take one at a time?

If we can't rule out an organic basis for gender dysphoria, then the internal experience of gender dysphoria may not be like having a fursona, for which we don't anticipate finding an organic basis for it.

Again, the question of whether or not the internal feeling of gender dysphoria is similar to the internal feeling of a fursona isn't the issue. The issue is what you demand of public policy, in response to you reporting the internal feeling. We don't concern ourselves much with whether claims of fursona are "real", or whether they have an organic basis (whatever that means), because the people making the claims aren't demanding major concessions in public policy, at the expense of vast swaths of the populace. If people with fursonas were making those demands, we'd be examining their claim of an internal feeling, and the nature of that feeling, a lot more closely.

Which is what we're trying to do, in response to the public policy demands being made by trans-activists. This examination is being vehemently opposed, by trans-activists.

 

[smartcooky]

My sympathy is strained. My genuine response to this is "Oh well".

For primary and secondary school, yes - absolutely children should be using the restroom that corresponds with their sex. I don't care hoe they identify, I don't care what they wear. This is about bodies, and it's about respect for those bodily differences. If male students who identify as transgender are afraid of the other male students, it really seems like that's a problem that needs to be solved among those males. And realistically, a female student who identifies as transgender is highly unlikely to be in any material danger from female students - we've had butch presenting females in those restrooms forever, without any problems.

And for colleges, let them build a few neutral restrooms and call it good. Easy peasy, problem solved. Seriously, expecting to foist off someone else's identity issues for females to have to coddle is irrational, disrespectful, and incredibly inconsiderate toward females.

Well now this is a rare thing indeed... I agree 100% with everything in this post. It sums up my position perfectly...

 

[Rolfe]

But you as much admit that there might be an organic basis for gender dysphoria, and that is distinct from whether the person claims they are actually the sex they aren't, which is distinct from whether that person should be treated socially and legally. Can we take one at a time?

If we can't rule out an organic basis for gender dysphoria, then the internal experience of gender dysphoria may not be like having a fursona, for which we don't anticipate finding an organic basis for it.

If there were better research into autogynaephilia and the basis for these feelings, and ways to help men who are affected by it achieve a happy life without wrecking everything for everyone around them, it might help a lot, yes.

 

[d4m10n]

I think we all understand pretty well what "valid lived experience" could mean and probably does mean, as a convenient colloquialism or ad hoc jargon.

I've some sense of what the phrase means when I use it, but it wouldn't occur to me to tell people that their lived experience of any given mental illness isn't valid, whereas LJ evidently sorts lived experiences into the mutually exclusive categories of valid or pathological.

...we generally don't go around validating schizophrenics lived experiences.

I wouldn't say their experiences are invalid (they come by these experiences honestly and faultlessly) but I would say that their pathology needs to be treated.

 

[smartcooky]

If that were true, we could solve the entire trans controversy in a moment, by pointing out that a man can never know what it feels like to be a woman, and that therefore whatever gender dysphoria actually is, it cannot possibly be a "valid lived condition" of womanhood.

The reality is that progressives are more than happy to deploy the cliche to terminate any thought they disapprove of, but will steadfastly withhold it, when it comes to thoughts they wish to foster.

Not all progressives thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

Looks like it’s deleted

e

This one works for me

https://twitter.com/DrMoragKerr/status/1542610045510340610

 

[Mycroft]

And, (ick warning), it's part of the AGP complex to be sexually turned on by being in the space where women perform intimate tasks. They want to listen to women peeing and changing tampons and sanitary pads in the next cubicle. They (some of them) root in the bins for used sanitary protection and put this inside their underwear for masturbatory purposes. They masturbate in the Ladies' room, sometimes in the communal space. They hang around there staring at girls or trying to engage them in conversation, enjoying watching their discomfort.

Is this really what they do?

Prove it.

 

[Rolfe]

In denial, I see.

 

[shuttlt]

The reality is that progressives are more than happy to deploy the cliche to terminate any thought they disapprove of, but will steadfastly withhold it, when it comes to thoughts they wish to foster.

You thinking standpoint theory here?

 

[Rolfe]

I wish people would stop characterising those who have particular viewpoints on this as being of particular political persuasions. Especially when even the names used to designate these particular political persuasions are opaque to non-USA posters.

 

[theprestige]

You may also want to think very hard about the law of unintended consequences, and the rights of other people that might be violated if you accommodate that person's feelings. Except, it's only women, who cares?

I think that was adequately addressed in my next paragraph, which you deleted in your response. You seem to be trending towards a lot of unwarranted antagonism towards me, on a point where we are in substantial agreement.

 

[theprestige]

You thinking standpoint theory here?

Having never heard of it, I'm probably not thinking it.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that was adequately addressed in my next paragraph, which you deleted in your response. You seem to be trending towards a lot of unwarranted antagonism towards me, on a point where we are in substantial agreement.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your second paragraph as indicating that you imagined "agreeing to their demand" should even be on the cards.

 

[smartcooky]

If that were true, we could solve the entire trans controversy in a moment, by pointing out that a man can never know what it feels like to be a woman, and that therefore whatever gender dysphoria actually is, it cannot possibly be a "valid lived condition" of womanhood.

The reality is that progressives are more than happy to deploy the cliche to terminate any thought they disapprove of, but will steadfastly withhold it, when it comes to thoughts they wish to foster.

I wish people would stop characterising those who have particular viewpoints on this as being of particular political persuasions. Especially when even the names used to designate these particular political persuasion are opaque to non-USA posters.

Absolutely agree. Statements such as the highlighted are unfair generalisations.

I am an unapologetic liberal and progressive, but that does not mean I agree with all things in the progressive "agenda". I rebel against political correctness and am implacably opposed to transmen being allowed to compete in women's sports..

 

[shuttlt]

Having never heard of it, I'm probably not thinking it.

Oh, that's just what sits behind the whole "if you are the wrong identity group, you have to shut up and listen because only people from the right identity group have lived experiences that should be listened to, unless they have the wrong opinions".