International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Continuation Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337066)

caveman1917 17th June 2019 07:37 AM

Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan
 
Mod InfoThread continued from here. You may quote from that thread freely in this one.
Posted By:Loss Leader




Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12728830)
Sounds like I was right: they just didn't want the black folk to integrate. Good old racism.

Yes, as anyone can read the reference states "The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor because they just didn't want the black folk to integrate.":rolleyes:

Quote:

Racism exists, by the way, before you ask.
Obviously. The question is why it exists. According to you racism exists because racism exists, according to me it exists because it served a particular purpose for the ruling class.

JoeMorgue 17th June 2019 07:38 AM

Guns, germs, and steel. There's the "why."

Belz... 17th June 2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728837)
Yes, as anyone can read the reference states "The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor because they just didn't want the black folk to integrate."

It's pretty surprising that, in your search for root causes, you stop at an arbitrary point in time without going back to find its root causes.

I suggest you read your quote again.

Quote:

According to you racism exists because racism exists
Strawman. I never said or implied this. I used racism as a root cause of the events we observe. Racism's as old as the world. If you're looking for a cause of that, then I suggest you look up tribalism.

Quote:

according to me it exists because it served a particular purpose for the ruling class.
You think the ruling class invented racism? Get real.

caveman1917 17th June 2019 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12728841)
It's pretty surprising that, in your search for root causes, you stop at an arbitrary point in time without going back to find its root causes.

What makes you think I haven't? Africans weren't seen as inferior during the first centuries of exploration and colonialism, it was only with the advent of the slave trade that this changed.

Quote:

Strawman. I never said or implied this. I used racism as a root cause of the events we observe. Racism's as old as the world. If you're looking for a cause of that, then I suggest you look up tribalism.
A "root cause" that only appeared after the economic basis for it (Trans-Atlantic slave trade) was created is not a root cause, it's an effect and not a cause.

Quote:

You think the ruling class invented racism? Get real.
Invented it? No. Emphasized and promoted it to the extent that it lead to a structuring of society along racial lines? Yes.

Belz... 17th June 2019 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728848)
Africans weren't seen as inferior during the first centuries of exploration and colonialism, it was only with the advent of the slave trade that this changed.

Maybe but that predates your proposed root cause of racism.

Quote:

Invented it? No. Emphasized and promoted it to the extent that it lead to a structuring of society along racial lines? Yes.
So it already existed, then.

ponderingturtle 17th June 2019 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728829)
Only two of which are sexes, hence sex is a binary.

But the question of what sex is someone has three answers. Hence not binary.

ponderingturtle 17th June 2019 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728848)
What makes you think I haven't? Africans weren't seen as inferior during the first centuries of exploration and colonialism, it was only with the advent of the slave trade that this changed.

Got any actual evidence for that?

caveman1917 17th June 2019 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12728854)
Maybe but that predates your proposed root cause of racism.

So it already existed, then.

I was giving a root cause for institutional racism in US society (this discussion started off with the Jim Crow segregation). Racist sentiments themselves can be even be traced back to Aristotle. I'm sure you can find some people who hold discriminatory beliefs about red-heads but that doesn't mean that we live in a hairist society, society isn't structured so as to have one group of people hold institutional power over another group based on hair colour.

Wage labour already existed in Ancient Egypt yet that doesn't mean that Ancient Egypt was a capitalist society (ie a society whose economics is structured around wage labour).

Darat 17th June 2019 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728789)
How would you expect your "real world solutions" to make racism go away if you refuse to analyze where racism comes from?

We aren't meant to be discussing racism in this thread...

caveman1917 17th June 2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12728884)
Got any actual evidence for that?

The ADL's page on "What is Racism?" notes this:
Quote:

This belief was not "automatic": that is, Africans were not originally considered inferior. When Portuguese sailors first explored Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries, they came upon empires and cities as advanced as their own, and they considered Africans to be serious rivals. Over time, though, as African civilizations failed to match the technological advances of Europe, and the major European powers began to plunder the continent and forcibly remove its inhabitants to work as slave laborers in new colonies across the Atlantic, Africans came to be seen as a deficient "species," as "savages." To an important extent, this view was necessary to justify the slave trade at a time when Western culture had begun to promote individual rights and human equality. The willingness of some Africans to sell other Africans to European slave traders also led to claims of savagery, based on the false belief that the "dark people" were all kinsmen, all part of one society as opposed to many different, sometimes warring nations.
The important point is that societies don't structure themselves along certain lines for no reason, things like institutional racism don't just arbitrarily fall out of the sky. First comes the power differential (in this case the technological advantage of European societies vs African societies) and the material basis for exploitation (slave labour in this case) and then comes the ideological structuring of society so as to justify said things (the introduction of institutional racism since skin colour happened to be what distinguished Africans from Europeans, as opposed to say hair colour or handedness). If Africans were distinguished from Europeans not by skin colour but by hair colour we'd now be living in a hairist society rather than a racist one.

JoeMorgue 17th June 2019 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12728901)
We aren't meant to be discussing racism in this thread...

Wait you mean we didn't solve racism by keeping separate white and black bathrooms and just letting everyone "identify" was white or black, therefore solving the problem?

caveman1917 17th June 2019 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12728880)
But the question of what sex is someone has three answers. Hence not binary.

If you take a course you can either get a passing grade or a non-passing grade. Grades are binary. The fact that the answer to "what was your grade" can also be "I didn't take that class so I don't have a grade" doesn't change that. Just like the fact that the response to "what is your sex" can also be "I don't have a sex" doesn't change sex from being binary.

theprestige 17th June 2019 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12728901)
We aren't meant to be discussing racism in this thread...

Is this posted as a mod or as a member?

I think that when discussing a question of discrimination and segregation, it can be useful to compare and contrast with other similar questions and how they've been answered over time.

---

Not, mind you, that it would be useful to try to prove something by analogy between the two things being compared. But as food for thought and perhaps some insights into the kinds of answers that might apply, such comparisons can be very useful.

---

So I disagree with Darat. We are meant to be discussing racism in this thread. In the sense that we're meant to be discussing whatever comparisons we think might inform the central questions of the thread.

If you don't think the discussion of racism is relevant, the appropriate responses are to argue against the relevance of racism, or just ignore it as irrelevant to the discussion you're having.

---

And of course if you're a mod or admin, it probably makes sense to be much more clear about what you mean when you jump into a thread and start declaring stuff off topic.

Belz... 17th June 2019 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728896)
I was giving a root cause for institutional racism in US society (this discussion started off with the Jim Crow segregation).

Right, right.

But regardless, Jim Crow laws sprung up in the south where racism were the strongest and where reaction to reconstruction was most negative. This thing you speak of would only work if the racism already existed. It didn't engender it, as you stated. Furthermore, those laws certainly in a lot of cases appeared regardless of what those "elites" did.

Myriad 17th June 2019 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728678)
Really? So you've not seen any of my posts on the relation between hormones and behaviour, on anthropological evidence of cultures with entirely different structures than our own in the relevant aspects of this thread, or indeed even on testing specific hypotheses made in this thread such as ThePrestige's hypothesis that transgenderism is the result of the social imposition of strict gender roles which can be tested by cross-cultural comparisons of Native American tribes? How could you possibly have missed all that?


I see you've skipped question 3 and gone on with the pot-stirring instead.

I didn't miss all that, but I did miss (and I'm still missing) any connection you're making between those various relations and hypotheses and any actual position on the practical matters of public policy regarding claimed gender identity and places of public accommodation that are under discussion in this thread.

Congratulations on keeping the distraction and pot-stirring going for another two pages, though.

Belz... 17th June 2019 09:36 AM

I thought it was shaken, not stirred.

isissxn 17th June 2019 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12728736)

So they'd just go outside of their workplace on the street, find a bush and urinate there? I doubt that.

I would guess they'd be more likely to hold it.

I don't think caveman is wrong about that part. This source seems to agree. https://www.livescience.com/54692-wh...egregated.html

From the article:
Quote:

But for the most part, public facilities in Western nations were male-only until the Victorian era, which meant women had to improvise. If they had to be out and about longer than they could hold their bladders, women in the Victorian era would urinate over a gutter (long Victorian skirts allowed for some privacy). Some would even carry a small personal device called a urinette that they could use discretely under their skirts and then pour out, Cavanagh said. Strangely, these urinettes were sometimes shaped like the male genitals

This lack of female facilities reflected a notable attitude about women: that they should stay home. This "urinary leash" remains a problem in some developing nations, said Harvey Molotch, a sociologist at New York University and co-editor of "Toilet: The Public Restroom and the Politics of Sharing" (New York University Press, 2010). Women in India today, for example, often have to avoid eating or drinking too much if they have to be out in public, because there is no place for them to go, Molotch told Live Science.


As for why people get more fired up about racial prejudices than hair color or handedness prejudices, I assume that's because different races usually come with different cultures. People who are racist tend to think that their own culture is the better one or the right one. So they hate people for having an inferior culture. There's more to it than just skin color and appearance, although it is still obviously very wrong.

Additionally, left-handedness prejudice was absolutely a thing until fairly recently. My own grandmother had her knuckles constantly beaten as a student until she learned to use her right hand. Left-handed people were called "sinister."

Redheads catch a lot of crap too (especially since South Park did that stupid "ginger kids" episode and launched a thousand bullies' arsenals), and how many "dumb blonde" jokes have y'all heard in your lifetimes?

The consequences of racism tend to be much more serious than these other types of prejudices, but my point is simply that people will look for absolutely any piddling little reason to hate each other. People are just combative and dickish. I don't think any grand conspiracy is needed. It may indeed benefit certain powerful people to have lower "classes" squabbling amongst themselves, but I don't think those powerful people have to orchestrate said squabbling. People handle that themselves, just fine.

Belz... 17th June 2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12729100)
I would guess they'd be more likely to hold it.

For a whole day? That sounds fantastically uncomfortable. And irresponsible.

isissxn 17th June 2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12729105)
For a whole day? That sounds fantastically uncomfortable. And irresponsible.

Well, read on. Gutters are mentioned, personal devices called urinettes. I'm not saying it's good or healthy, I'm just saying it's true.

Belz... 17th June 2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12729118)
Well, read on. Gutters are mentioned, personal devices called urinettes. I'm not saying it's good or healthy, I'm just saying it's true.

I read it. Still fantastically stupid. You'd think employers would provide at least a minimum for their employees, male or female.

isissxn 17th June 2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12729120)
I read it. Still fantastically stupid. You'd think employers would provide at least a minimum for their employees, male or female.

Yeah, I guess there really were so few women in most workplaces back then that they could get away with it.

It kind of puts a damper on my admiration for fancy, flowing Victorian skirts to learn that they were probably all piss-sodden (joke).

ponderingturtle 17th June 2019 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isissxn (Post 12729125)
Yeah, I guess there really were so few women in most workplaces back then that they could get away with it.

It kind of puts a damper on my admiration for fancy, flowing Victorian skirts to learn that they were probably all piss-sodden (joke).

They did all wear crotchless underwear. To many petticoats to mess around with such things. OF course such dresses were never worn by women who sullied themselves with work.

d4m10n 17th June 2019 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12728915)
So I disagree with Darat. We are meant to be discussing racism in this thread. In the sense that we're meant to be discussing whatever comparisons we think might inform the central questions of the thread.

Agreed; an analogy mine too rich to pass up. Segregated toilets, platoons, pools, sports leagues, etc. The rationalizations alone are worth pondering.

ponderingturtle 17th June 2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12729170)
Agreed; an analogy mine too rich to pass up. Segregated toilets, platoons, pools, sports leagues, etc. The rationalizations alone are worth pondering.

And of course the responses to it and when it was right to compromise vs when compromise is just a factor of the bigotry.

GlennB 17th June 2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12729120)
I read it. Still fantastically stupid. You'd think employers would provide at least a minimum for their employees, male or female.

I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well know, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.

GlennB 17th June 2019 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12729120)
I read it. Still fantastically stupid. You'd think employers would provide at least a minimum for their employees, male or female.

I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well known, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.

He also has understated the number of women - and married women - in organised employment in those days, but seems to have missed the rebuttal to his claim.

d4m10n 17th June 2019 04:03 PM

Behold! The unisex changing room of the future...

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e5cc78c8f1.jpg

ETA: With lockable door! :D

The Atheist 17th June 2019 08:22 PM

Pity about the US Military not acknowledging transgender any more.

The Pentagon would have no trouble with bathrooms - they could use the ones that used to be blacks-only.

Puppycow 17th June 2019 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12729615)
Pity about the US Military not acknowledging transgender any more.

On a Navy ship, it would get complicated. The berthing areas where the crew sleeps are very close quarters.
https://bit.ly/2MRuANT
Typically 3 racks high and 50-100 racks in each compartment. The heads and showers likewise. So if public restrooms are an issue, it would definitely be an issue in the Navy. They can't have their own private room of course, unless they are very high in rank. So they will have to live and share facilities with either male or female sailors.

The Atheist 17th June 2019 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12729637)
On a Navy ship, it would get complicated.

Anyone dumb enough to join a navy is way beyond anything I'd care about.

Given signing on for potential death, I imagine where you go potty is pretty secondary anyway.

caveman1917 18th June 2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12729205)
I have no doubt they did, including for the mill workers mentioned upthread, for example. A lack of public facilities I can accept, and the image of the Victorian lady squatting over the gutter is fairly well known, but caveman1917 seems to have extended the public place reality to the workplace reality, and that's a load of nonsense.

On the contrary, I literally acknowledged them using the men's facilities at work:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Caveman
At least some would use the men's facilities at the workplace. But outside of that going in the bushes was the way to go if they had to be out for longer than they could hold their bladders.

Indeed, I remember having seen in some feminist history book a very early flyer that was being distributed which demanded women's facilities in the workplace because of peeping tom's problems when they used the men's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB
He also has understated the number of women - and married women - in organised employment in those days, but seems to have missed the rebuttal to his claim.

I didn't miss it, just have nothing to add.

Brainster 18th June 2019 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12728837)
Mod InfoThread continued from here. You may quote from that thread freely in this one.
Posted By:Loss Leader






Yes, as anyone can read the reference states "The race element was emphasized in order that property-holders could get the support of the majority of white laborers and make it more possible to exploit Negro labor because they just didn't want the black folk to integrate.":rolleyes:



Obviously. The question is why it exists. According to you racism exists because racism exists, according to me it exists because it served a particular purpose for the ruling class.

Racism exists because for most of human history it was a very useful survival trait to be hate-filled at the sight of people who did not look like your people, because usually the next thing they did after seeing you was try to kill you.

Note: this does not mean that it is a good survival trait any longer.

Crossbow 18th June 2019 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12729644)
Anyone dumb enough to join a navy is way beyond anything I'd care about.

Given signing on for potential death, I imagine where you go potty is pretty secondary anyway.

Wow!

I had no idea that you hated both active duty Navy people and formerly active duty Navy people so very much.

Belz... 18th June 2019 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12729644)
Anyone dumb enough to join a navy is way beyond anything I'd care about.

Given signing on for potential death, I imagine where you go potty is pretty secondary anyway.

You're signing up for potential death by doing anything. I see no reason to belittle people willing to put themselves on the line to serve a greater whole.

caveman1917 18th June 2019 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12730026)
Racism exists because for most of human history it was a very useful survival trait to be hate-filled at the sight of people who did not look like your people, because usually the next thing they did after seeing you was try to kill you.

Ah yes, the well-known achievement of early humans of fast intercontinental travel and the regular meeting of people of different races :rolleyes:

Loss Leader 18th June 2019 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12728915)
Is this posted as a mod or as a member?

...

And of course if you're a mod or admin, it probably makes sense to be much more clear about what you mean when you jump into a thread and start declaring stuff off topic.



Mod InfoAll mods and admins post only as members in all substantive threads unless they declare themselves to be doing otherwise. In Forum Management, it is the opposite. Mods and admins post in their official capacity unless they note otherwise.

Do not bring up a member's status as a moderator/admin in a substantive thread. It is off topic. Ignoring this edict will bring further mod action.

Thank you.
Posted By:Loss Leader

The Atheist 18th June 2019 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crossbow (Post 12730081)
I had no idea that you hated both active duty Navy people and formerly active duty Navy people so very much.

Don't hate them at all. Despise is the word you're looking for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12730111)
You're signing up for potential death by doing anything. I see no reason to belittle people willing to put themselves on the line to serve a greater whole.

Jeez mate, I hope you had your hand on your heart while hugging the flag when you typed that.

"serve a greater whole"

"bomb innocent civilians"

I choose the latter.

caveman1917 18th June 2019 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12730436)
Don't hate them at all. Despise is the word you're looking for.



Jeez mate, I hope you had your hand on your heart while hugging the flag when you typed that.

"serve a greater whole"

"bomb innocent civilians"

I choose the latter.

Oil companies are a kind of "greater whole" though.

The Atheist 18th June 2019 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 (Post 12730440)
Oil companies are a kind of "greater whole" though.

Nice!

Belz... 18th June 2019 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12730436)
Jeez mate, I hope you had your hand on your heart while hugging the flag when you typed that.

Once again you mistake me for an American. What's your problem with Americans, anyway?

Quote:

"serve a greater whole"
Yes. Sorry to break it to you, but humans are a social species and very often individual humans do things in what they consider to be in the service of the larger community. It might be alien to you -- hell, it might be alien to me -- but it doesn't change that fact, and you deriding that choice for no other reason that those sentiments can be exploited or twisted for evil deeds sounds like little more than an ideological crusade by you.

Quote:

"bomb innocent civilians"

I choose the latter.
...you choose to bomb civilians? What?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.