Transgender man gives birth

[GlennB]

A person (A) who is genetically male, and has a history of heterosexual male activity, dates a person who self-identifies as a woman (B) after meeting on an internet dating site. They get close and cuddly, and A discovers that B has a a full set of "a boy's dangly bits".

Does he get a refund, or just an interesting new experience?

Seriously ... the scenario regarding the spa, upthread, is a real consideration.

 

[Belz...]

You're already been shown the dictionary definitions and rejected what it said.

If you're refering the time where _I_ quoted the dictionary, that isn't me being shown the definitions, and I didn't reject it. I disagreed on the interpretation. Once again you twist words in order to protect your conclusion.

I haven't confused 'accusation' and 'assertion'.

Well you've confused it with something, since your use of the word makes no sense.

Others have, and I have, explained other factors besides personal belief many times.

So they say, but haven't seen it. Would you be so kind as to remind you of yours?

You're making a massive straw man. I did not say people had to criticize each side equally, you're making that up. It is pointing out that any who claim to be objecting to things like my 'childish' mirroring are not doing it because they disagree with the form of the argument, nor consistent logic in general, nor keeping the 'level of debate' high (or anything like that). They would have to disagree with the argument for other reasons, such as they're on the 'other side' or personal animosity or whatnot.

You don't know what a strawman is, then. In no way did you make this argument. You said, and I quote: "I'd like to point out that none of the posters so concerned about my 'childish' posting give two rips about abjectly stupid strawmen like these." That's it. You can't strawman a position that hasn't been taken. You said those words and left it at that, and the words strongly imply that you are accusing your detractors of hypocrisy. Now you change your story, but you can't accuse me (that's how that word should be used, by the way) of misrepresenting something you didn't say.

It's basically to dispel the illusion of some high horse about 'my opponents are the lying side'.

It does no such thing, so it's a strange argument to make. Even if you were correct it would not dispel said "illusion".

I quoted you. I quoted the post you were responding too.

And yet you missed the distinction. Did you go back and read it just now?

EDIT: Eh, some stuff got cut off. Not too important, at least not important enough to type out again.

No worries. Happens to me fairly regularily.

 

[Belz...]

A person (A) who is genetically male, and has a history of heterosexual male activity, dates a person who self-identifies as a woman (B) after meeting on an internet dating site. They get close and cuddly, and A discovers that B has a a full set of "a boy's dangly bits".

Does he get a refund, or just an interesting new experience?

Seriously ... the scenario regarding the spa, upthread, is a real consideration.

Oh, we've had this discussion before. If person A rejects person B after learning this, they are a bigot.

 

[p0lka]

A person (A) who is genetically male, and has a history of heterosexual male activity, dates a person who self-identifies as a woman (B) after meeting on an internet dating site. They get close and cuddly, and A discovers that B has a a full set of "a boy's dangly bits".

Does he get a refund, or just an interesting new experience?

Seriously ... the scenario regarding the spa, upthread, is a real consideration.

That sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy, what if they just like each other, the dangly bits nothwithstanding?

 

[Brainster]

A person (A) who is genetically male, and has a history of heterosexual male activity, dates a person who self-identifies as a woman (B) after meeting on an internet dating site. They get close and cuddly, and A discovers that B has a a full set of "a boy's dangly bits".

What's the problem? A was obviously looking to date a woman, and if he doesn't think that's what he got in B, he just doesn't know what a woman is, to quote Tyr.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Somewhat on topic.

 

[Belz...]

Somewhat on topic.

Corrected link.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Corrected link.

Thanks!

 

[mike81]

What's the problem? A was obviously looking to date a woman, and if he doesn't think that's what he got in B, he just doesn't know what a woman is, to quote Tyr.

So what if he does not want to get sexual with a penis? If he does not want to, he is a bigot!

A lesbian woman meets someone that claims to be a woman. Later she finds out the woman has a penis. She should just go ahead and have sex with her or else she is a bigot too!

 

[tyr_13]

Oh, we've had this discussion before. If person A rejects person B after learning this, they are a bigot.

What's the problem? A was obviously looking to date a woman, and if he doesn't think that's what he got in B, he just doesn't know what a woman is, to quote Tyr.

So what if he does not want to get sexual with a penis? If he does not want to, he is a bigot!

A lesbian woman meets someone that claims to be a woman. Later she finds out the woman has a penis. She should just go ahead and have sex with her or else she is a bigot too!

These are especially stupid or dishonest straw men. No one has here has made any argument even adjacent to this. The quote from Argumemnon there is a straight up lie. No one has said you're a bigot if you don't want to date or have sexual relations with a transwoman. No one has implied that.

The two possibilities are you all know that no one has said that, in which case you're being dishonest, or you honestly think that is what others are saying, in which case you're not comprehending.

First of all, what counts as a 'dealbreaker' for you personally is your own to decide. If penis kills it for you, penis kills it for you. If red hair kills if for you, red hair kills it for you.

Second, and more importantly, do you all not even understand how horribly sexist to both men and women (cis, trans, or otherwise) what you are saying is? If you don't want to have sex with a person, that person's not a woman? Are men defined by just always wanting to have sex with all women? The actually hell? Is that how you all think? Is that why you think people like me think like that? This just raises so many more questions.

It does make it pretty clear that it's just not worth it. The outright lies were bad enough, but this exposes some pretty messed up thinking that I was not prepared for. Stuff all those 'PC SJW' accusations, you all know I've had my own issues with them. You guys though, damn.

 

[Ziggurat]

These are especially stupid or dishonest straw men. No one has here has made any argument even adjacent to this. The quote from Argumemnon there is a straight up lie. No one has said you're a bigot if you don't want to date or have sexual relations with a transwoman. No one has implied that.

You're wrong. People have definitely said that. I don't know about on this board specifically (though Argumemnon didn't claim anyone here said that either), but such an argument has in fact been made, explicitly.

Second, and more importantly, do you all not even understand how horribly sexist to both men and women (cis, trans, or otherwise) what you are saying is? If you don't want to have sex with a person, that person's not a woman?

It's ironic that you start out complaining about a straw man which wasn't actually a straw man, and then you turn around and construct your own straw man. That isn't what he's saying, at all.

It does make it pretty clear that it's just not worth it. The outright lies were bad enough, but this exposes some pretty messed up thinking that I was not prepared for. Stuff all those 'PC SJW' accusations, you all know I've had my own issues with them. You guys though, damn.

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

[Brainster]

You're wrong. People have definitely said that. I don't know about on this board specifically (though Argumemnon didn't claim anyone here said that either), but such an argument has in fact been made, explicitly.

There was a thread here on this, complete with a lot of brave "I wouldn't rule it outs," but I don't recall a lot of finger-wagging at the more hesitant.

[qimg]https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Trump-as-Hillary-600x322.jpeg[/qimg]

That is terrific!

 

[Belz...]

These are especially stupid or dishonest straw men. No one has here has made any argument even adjacent to this. The quote from Argumemnon there is a straight up lie. No one has said you're a bigot if you don't want to date or have sexual relations with a transwoman. No one has implied that.

I'm sorry Tyr, but perhaps you didn't participate in said thread. I was there. It was said. If I remember correctly the whole thread was about whether you would be ok if you learned that your partner used to be of a different sex, and anyone who said no was said to be a bigot. So I'd like you to retract your accusation (see, there's that word again), because you seem to be very eager to use it even when you don't know what you're talking about.

If you don't want to have sex with a person, that person's not a woman?

Oh, wow. That is hilarious. You lash out by accusing me of making a strawman, and right after that you trot out one of your own, and a very obvious one at that. That is absolutely NOTHING like what anyone here has said.

 

[uke2se]

These are especially stupid or dishonest straw men. No one has here has made any argument even adjacent to this. The quote from Argumemnon there is a straight up lie. No one has said you're a bigot if you don't want to date or have sexual relations with a transwoman. No one has implied that.

The two possibilities are you all know that no one has said that, in which case you're being dishonest, or you honestly think that is what others are saying, in which case you're not comprehending.

First of all, what counts as a 'dealbreaker' for you personally is your own to decide. If penis kills it for you, penis kills it for you. If red hair kills if for you, red hair kills it for you.

Second, and more importantly, do you all not even understand how horribly sexist to both men and women (cis, trans, or otherwise) what you are saying is? If you don't want to have sex with a person, that person's not a woman? Are men defined by just always wanting to have sex with all women? The actually hell? Is that how you all think? Is that why you think people like me think like that? This just raises so many more questions.

It does make it pretty clear that it's just not worth it. The outright lies were bad enough, but this exposes some pretty messed up thinking that I was not prepared for. Stuff all those 'PC SJW' accusations, you all know I've had my own issues with them. You guys though, damn.

Kinda sad that it comes to this on a skeptics forum.

I fully agree. It's just not worth it. The people you quote simply don't want to understand. I have too high opinions of their intellect to believe that they can't understand.

 

[Belz...]

Kinda sad that it comes to this on a skeptics forum.

I fully agree. It's just not worth it. The people you quote simply don't want to understand. I have too high opinions of their intellect to believe that they can't understand.

Perhaps you should've read my reply before responding, eh? Tyr is wrong.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but that wasn't the context. Argumemnon insists he can politely tell someone they're not the gender they claim to be if they are transgendered, not that someone could tell this person from the OP that. Not that they'd need to. Transgender people know their sex doesn't match their gender.

Transgender people *believe* their sex doesn't match their gender.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[Lithrael]

Is there a name for the idea that because someone somewhere on 'your side' expressed a position, that you can't argue your own position without addressing what they said? Or that you can't just say 'that's not the position I'm arguing' and the conversation gets to move on? 'Nobody is saying that' is not generally understood to mean 'literally nobody anywhere ever said that' and is more typically meant to be read as 'nobody in this current discussion/general consensus is saying that.'

It really is tiresome how much these things get derailed into arguments about argument. I mean this is a topic I'm interested in even, but the posts are more abysmal meta than meat.

"Oh? Nobody would call me a bigot if X? Well somebody in a thread from last year says I'm a bigot if X so you're wrong" like yes 40 tech points but can we please have a conversation instead of that?

 

[Ziggurat]

"Oh? Nobody would call me a bigot if X? Well somebody in a thread from last year says I'm a bigot if X so you're wrong" like yes 40 tech points but can we please have a conversation instead of that?

Had tyr simply said that this wasn't the issue here in this thread, then we could have quite easily moved on. But he didn't. He called Argumemnon a liar, and then basically said it wasn't worth talking to him because he's a liar, even though Argumemnon didn't actually lie. You think that advances the conversation?

 

[Lithrael]

Because the way Arg said it sounded like everyone had agreed on that conclusion. That you're a bigot if X. As opposed to it being an extreme position not being advocated in this discussion. That's why it was called a lie.

Why must we focus so damn hard on miscommunication?

"I don't see what people don't like about cream cheese"
"Oh we've had this conversation before. You're an idiot if you don't like cream cheese."
"What? That's a lie"
*links to thread where somebody said you're an idiot if you don't like cream cheese*

 

[uke2se]

Is there a name for the idea that because someone somewhere on 'your side' expressed a position, that you can't argue your own position without addressing what they said?

I'd say it a variation of a straw man argument.