ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags New Zealand incidents , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old Today, 08:30 AM   #2201
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,899
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is actually an angle I wanted to bring into this at some point.

How much of this is a distinction that other languages can really even make?
English can't do it either. Until recently, gender and sex were synonyms. The distinction was created specifically to accomodate social concerns.

Other languages can also adapt. Reality is somewhat less flexible.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:47 AM   #2202
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think that Belz... agrees, and is simply working through a necessary "Shapiro is technically correct, but it's important that I not undermine my posture of dismissal towards everything he says" process.
No, I said what I said because I think it is correct.

Notice that I didn't comment on the things Shapiro said that are factual.

He's still a dishonest weasel, though.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:49 AM   #2203
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,511
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
English can't do it either. Until recently, gender and sex were synonyms. The distinction was created specifically to accomodate social concerns.
What exactly the non-arbitrary, non-pure semantics, non-circular, distinction is between sex and gender is another one of those ancillary topics I'd love to get a straight answer to.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:02 AM   #2204
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,000
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm not even sure there's much of a difference between sex and gender, historically. In French we generally don't distinguish between the two, for instance.
Historically, there hasn't been much difference. Most of the social structure that's grown up around the biology has been a pragmatic adaptation to the biological differences between the sexes. You don't need separate words for bio-man and socio-man, when the two are already closely linked by practicality and long tradition.

The issue here is that there are some bio-women who want to be socio-men, but explicitly without having a separate word for it. The entire point, by definition, is to describe women who are socio-men with the same terms used to describe bio-men.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:05 AM   #2205
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,926
An analogy occurred to me this morning. Several thousand years ago when I was doing the online dating thing I remember coming across a few profiles of woman who seemed like they'd be a decent match, but who had specified a minimum height which was a few inches above my own. I never bothered contacting them since if for whatever reason they wanted a man 6' 4" or taller what would be the point of trying to convince them to change their preference?

In any case, what if instead I contacted one of them and said I was 6' 6" and after a while we agreed to meet for dinner. That's when she sees all 5' 9" of me and rightly asks 'hey, what the hell?'. I answer her by saying that I truthfully told her what my internal sense of stature was, not my physical height. See, my internal image doesn't match up, so despite my height being 5' 9", my stature was really 6' 6", and she dare not invalidate my internal identity.

I'd rightfully be called a loon, but something similar is going on in the sex/gender area. For the most part the argument isn't "no, your internal sense of gender isn't what you claim it is", but rather "your internal sense of gender doesn't map to anything external, and therefore doesn't determine how to treat you in areas that depend on that external reality".

That still doesn't leave us with a neat and tidy answer to everything, of course. There's still the question of which discriminatory (in the neutral sense of the word) processes are based on external reality and which on internal image. Names I think are safe to say would be internal based, medical procedures on external. All the other stuff would need to be hammered out and I won't pretend to have the answers on all the various questions myself.

Someone can have the right to have an internal image and the right to be treated with normal human dignity, but still not have the right to force the rest of the world to treat that internal image as an external reality in all situations.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:09 AM   #2206
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
Several thousand years ago when I was doing the online dating thing
...presumably using smoke signals.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:19 AM   #2207
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
...presumably using smoke signals.

At the risk of doxing myself, this was my first profile :




Yeah, I know it's cliche and doesn't really stand out from the crowd, but at least I didn't lie on it like some did. And you'll note the utter lack of duckface or the Myspace Angle.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:20 AM   #2208
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
I have to confess I have no idea what you mean. :\
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:23 AM   #2209
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,511
And again I do want to stress that I do, to a large degree, completely respect what trans people are going through.

We have been putting B.S., arbitrary, unfair, harmful, and other assorted meaingless standards on the sexes for a long time, longer we should have. There's still a lot of stupid "Men do this, women do this" nonsense floating around.

I understand in the abstract trying to square that circle by just going "Okay we're never going to get rid of all the stupid arbitrary standards, so I'll do the next best thing and just claim the right to decide which arbitrary standard I have to follow." I get it. I just don't think that way of looking at is A) factually correct or B) logically congruent enough for the center to hold.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:53 AM   #2210
Joe Random
Graduate Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I have to confess I have no idea what you mean. :\
Simple version : it's been so long since I've been in the dating scene that back then if we wanted to send someone a picture we had to make cave paintings.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:05 AM   #2211
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,960
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, you just made a major mistake: it's not about identification; it's about objective facts. It's an objective fact that I'm not a left-winger or a right-winger. The point being that people on both sides of the issue can't even consider any sort of disagreement on it, so much so that anyone who disagrees must be on the other side, entirely. It's a failure to think rationally.
Being 'left wing' or 'right wing' is not an objective fact. You're right wing for European standards. You're center or center/left for US standards.

Oh there are plenty of failures to think rationally, including by you here. The reverse of what you're saying is more true. Identify a stance as bigoted or wrong suddenly becomes making the person whose statements are being criticized attacks on that person as 'an enemy' or 'evil bigot' or something. After all, you couldn't be making bigoted statements because only bigots do that, and you're not a bigot. That other person must be calling you a bigot if they are calling your statement bigoted! Pure identity politics.

Of course it doesn't really work that way. Moreover, the failure to even consider that yes, it is possible you're a bigot and are unaware of it poisons the analysis. Starting with the premise, consciously or not, that 'I can't be the bad guy', can derail reasoning. And does. A lot.

Quote:
As for "pain", you made that up, once again, because you're clearly not looking for a reasoned discussion. You're looking for a "gotcha" that'll earn you virtue points. "Oh, look! He's on our side!"
I didn't make it up; I observed it. It's cognitive dissidence that comes out when comparisons are made to forms of bigotry you recognize (against homosexuals, against black people) do actually connect to the reasoning you are using against trans gender people.

Who exactly do you think I'm earning 'virtue points' from here? You're making famous Bernie supporter TBD style arguments. Most of the posters in this thread don't even accept the understanding of the medical community. Those who do aren't looking to give out any virtue points.


Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Hey, pay attention: just like your self-idenfitication can be wrong, so can your labeling of other people. And it's not "outing" someone when you're lying or are mistaken about that person. This reflexive tendency to label people bigots at the first sign of disagreement is counter-productive and malicous. Remember when right-wingers accuse liberals or wanting to take all guns away or murder babies or turn the US into a marxist state? That's exactly what you're doing.
You're losing the plot. If someone gets fired because some guy from New York calls their employer and identifies the employee as a bigot, that is a weird employer. You normally have to show what bigoted thing they did or said was. If the employer agrees, well, that person should really consider that maybe they are being bigoted.

And you'll note that I haven't actually called you a bigot. You're doing the straw man thing, but you obviously do believe your straw man. I'm sure someone calls you a bigot, but it isn't at first disagreement.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That comparison would work if I was somehow arguing that I had all the defining characteristics of a bigot but just wanted to not be one because I didn't identify as it.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ah, but you do have all the definint characteristics of a bigot, see? You disagree with some members here about who should be considered a woman. That's all that's needed, apparently
Exactly! Joe, you have made this exact rant before. You know how upset you get when people think something can't be racism, just because the person doing or saying that something isn't a self-identified racist?

You don't have to be a capital b bigot to say bigoted things or use bigoted reasoning. You don't have to be a villain. Also, and I think you know this one but I'll add it anyway, being called a bigot, or racist, or sexist even wrongfully doesn't make you right in the statements that led to the inaccurate label.

The entire 'hierarchy of victims' is actually how some (many?) people appear to model these sorts of interactions, but it is FAR from the only model or explanation for various stances. It would be for people who think not giving a subset of cis women's beliefs privilege over all others is 'throwing women under the bus'. It would be for people who don't think they could be 'the villain' because they're a 'real woman' and that means 'victim', never perp. But I'll tell you right now for me who I 'side' with go with the merits of the case. I'll 'side' with men when college rape accusations don't leave them with proper protections or due process, and then turn around and 'side' against them when college systems too easily brush rape/sexual assault (to not confuse the UK population) under the rug. When a subset of cis women are doing wrong by trans women, I'll side with the trans women. When trans women do wrong by cis women, I'll 'side' with the cis women (and there is a police report with my name as a complainant to prove that, although another trans woman is too, so is that being against trans women?). It's not about 'allegiance' but the merits of the case.

Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Just a general suggestion for this discussion (or any discussion):

I think it will be more productive if we all try to use the principle of charity and not assume the worst motives or the worst interpretation of other's posts, where possible.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...le-of-charity/

I have gone back and forth on the issue myself. I don't want to be a bigot or unkind to anyone, but the skeptic in me wonders what is the underlying truth.
The motives generally don't matter regardless next to the merits of the argument. But people do get hung up on their own personal identity as 'a feminist' or 'not-bigoted' or 'skeptic' and it constrains their reasoning. 'I wouldn't fall for that because I'm a skeptic'. 'I wouldn't say something bigoted because I'm not a bigot.'

If the motivations get in the way of advancement, then it might be worth exploring. In such cases, it's better to try to go for the abstract. Doesn't work when people instantly personalize criticisms of their statements.

To be fair, I'm not taking this thread as seriously anymore because generally speaking those being trans 'critical' reject the best evidence that science (and the medical community) has. I'm not reading as closely because it's all circles again. As long as people won't incorporate the best understanding of the medical community, there isn't much of a point in discussing with them.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:16 AM   #2212
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Being 'left wing' or 'right wing' is not an objective fact.
It is so long as you define your terms, as with everything else. "This object weighs 3 kg" is objectively true once you define what the hell a kilogram is.

Quote:
You're right wing for European standards. You're center or center/left for US standards.
No.

Quote:
Identify a stance as bigoted or wrong suddenly becomes making the person whose statements are being criticized attacks on that person as 'an enemy' or 'evil bigot' or something.
It's very clear that calling posters here bigots, or transphobes or whatever, simply because they don't agree that self-identification suffices as an indicator of gender, is a transparent attempt to shame the other person into submission lest they be labeled as a bad person. Call it what you will, but it's neither rational nor constructive. It's also incorrect.

Quote:
After all, you couldn't be making bigoted statements because only bigots do that, and you're not a bigot. That other person must be calling you a bigot if they are calling your statement bigoted!
Do you know how we call someone who tells lies? A liar. Do you know how we call someone who commits a crime? A criminal. Someone who holds bigoted views is a bigot. You're trying to walk back comments made here because you know it's beyond the pale, but you don't want to take back your belief that said comments were bigoted. You're trying to have it both ways.

Quote:
Moreover, the failure to even consider that yes, it is possible you're a bigot and are unaware of it poisons the analysis.
A bigot is not defined as someone who disagrees with a premise. It's defined as someone who is intolerant of a certain view or group, and no one here has demonstrated such a view. Well, aside from those who don't tolerate disagreement on trans issues, that is.

Quote:
I didn't make it up; I observed it.
Since no one has expressed 'pain' at anything, you indeed made it up. I understand that your belief about gender might mean that you think mere interpretation shapes objective reality, but I assure you, it doesn't.

Quote:
Who exactly do you think I'm earning 'virtue points' from here?
You tell me. Maybe it's the opposite, though. Maybe you're overly concerned with being called a bigot yourself and so are agreeing with the gender-as-social-construct view as a defense.

Quote:
If someone gets fired because some guy from New York calls their employer and identifies the employee as a bigot, that is a weird employer.
Don't play dumb, please. You know full well that people get fired because their employer refuses to be associated with bigots because it's bad for business. Exactly the type of behaviour I described above. So making a campaign to "oust" people as bigots, especially based on very broad interpretations, is malicious because you know full well what the result will be.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; Today at 10:17 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:54 AM   #2213
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,487
Words mean things but there are also lots of nebulous concepts where the same words will mean different things to different people, and that, at least, I should hope, is an incontrovertible fact. The words “god” “left wing” and “gender” may mean eight different things to eight different people, and that that’s annoying and unclear doesn’t make it not so. You can argue that they are using language wrong till the cows come home. Language is always mid-evolution. Clarity is useful, and probably a laudable goal, but certainly not fundamental to language.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:13 AM   #2214
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Language is always mid-evolution.
Yeah it is, but too often that's used as an excuse to have words mean whatever's convenient at the time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:32 AM   #2215
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,825
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Words mean things but there are also lots of nebulous concepts where the same words will mean different things to different people...
Even the word discussed most in this thread admits of various meanings. I certainly don’t mean to convey the same meaning when I say “women’s clinic” as when I say “women’s clothier,” since the former usage implies biological needs specific to female humans and the latter has only a mild correlative connection to biology. As it happens “women’s sport” and “women’s STEM scholarships” wouldn’t easily fit into either one of those usages, but each require their own careful line drawing. Personally, I’m fine with doing the conceptual line drawing time and again, bearing in mind the initial justification for separating women and men in the first place.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah it is, but too often that's used as an excuse to have words mean whatever's convenient at the time.
Words are indeed tools of human contrivance and convenience.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:34 AM   #2216
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Words are indeed tools of human contrivance and convenience.
Sure, but they only work when agreed upon. Seeking to use words to change reality and smear those who disagree with you doesn't seem to be a winning recipe.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:46 AM   #2217
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,825
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sure, but they only work when agreed upon. Seeking to use words to change reality and smear those who disagree with you doesn't seem to be a winning recipe.
I could hardly agree more. Just saying that I'd be content with a handful of various values for "woman" and "man" I'd be putting my social standing at significant risk in polite progressive circles.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:07 PM   #2218
IsThisTheLife
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No, he's saying that being labelled with a vicious slur can have consequences for people's jobs and suchlike.

People can imagine themselves to be anything they like. Napoleon. Black. Stunningly beautiful. Female. Nobody is under any obligation to behave as if any of these things is literally true, even if not doing so might hurt their feelings. Labelling people with derogatory slanders that might get them sacked is something else. Of course trans activists are very fond of trying to get people who disagree with them sacked, we've noticed.
It's a trademark of "progressives", perfectly OK in their effed-up world of 'moral relativism'

Quote:
If you work with a Liberal voter, be nice but keep a diary of what they say. When you have the evidence, go to HR and get them fired. We have not yet made it sufficiently unsafe to be a right-wing
https://twitter.com/carolmcalliste2/...80347494621184
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:11 PM   #2219
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,511
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Exactly! Joe, you have made this exact rant before. You know how upset you get when people think something can't be racism, just because the person doing or saying that something isn't a self-identified racist?
Progressivism is not a club I've pledged my allegiance to. I'm not required to agree with about Y just because I agree with it about X.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:24 PM   #2220
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,899
As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:41 PM   #2221
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,000
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."
Not bigoted yet, but will be soon.

I predict that "trans woman" is on the way out, since it perpetuates the idea that there's a difference between this woman and that woman.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:34 PM   #2222
Ron Obvious
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."
While they can't actually have babies which is nobody's fault, not even the bigots, we can say that they have the right to have babies.
Ron Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:53 PM   #2223
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,093
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I didn't make it up; I observed it. It's cognitive dissidence that comes out when comparisons are made to forms of bigotry you recognize (against homosexuals, against black people) do actually connect to the reasoning you are using against trans gender people.
Nah, that which is called bigotry to transgender people is failing/refusing to participate in it (for example "misgendering" someone). The equivalent would be calling someone homophobic for failing/refusing to participate in sex with someone of the same sex.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:08 PM   #2224
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,000
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
While they can't actually have babies which is nobody's fault, not even the bigots, we can say that they have the right to have babies.
We can, but I hesitate. A lot of people use "right" to mean "entitlement". I don't want to support the idea that men are entitled to government funding to enable them to have babies.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:58 PM   #2225
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,825
Originally Posted by Ron Obvious View Post
While they can't actually have babies which is nobody's fault, not even the bigots, we can say that they have the right to have babies.
Personally, I blame the Romans.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:41 PM   #2226
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Progressivism is not a club I've pledged my allegiance to. I'm not required to agree with about Y just because I agree with it about X.
Ooh, that's it Joe. Turn in your membership card!!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:11 PM   #2227
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,899
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
For the most part the argument isn't "no, your internal sense of gender isn't what you claim it is", but rather "your internal sense of gender doesn't map to anything external, and therefore doesn't determine how to treat you in areas that depend on that external reality".

That still doesn't leave us with a neat and tidy answer to everything, of course. There's still the question of which discriminatory (in the neutral sense of the word) processes are based on external reality and which on internal image. Names I think are safe to say would be internal based, medical procedures on external. All the other stuff would need to be hammered out and I won't pretend to have the answers on all the various questions myself.

I think this is a very good description of the problem.


I, too, won't pretend to have all the answers, although admittedly I have some pretty strong opinions on a few of them.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:47 PM   #2228
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,355
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
It's a trademark of "progressives", perfectly OK in their effed-up world of 'moral relativism'

Quote:
If you work with a Liberal voter, be nice but keep a diary of what they say. When you have the evidence, go to HR and get them fired. We have not yet made it sufficiently unsafe to be a right-wing
https://twitter.com/carolmcalliste2/...80347494621184
Probably the work of a 4chan troll.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:50 PM   #2229
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,355
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As best I can tell, "Men can't have babies." is a bigoted statement, according to the Official Field Guide to Bigotry.

What if I say "Trans women can't have babies."
Stop oppressing me.




You are worse than the Romans. Maybe even worse than the Judean People's Front.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:00 PM   #2230
d4m10n
Illuminator
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 3,825
It occurs to me, apropos of no particular post, that there exist identities which we can take off and on based on what's up in our brains, and there are other sorts of identities as well.

Xn) I believe Jesus was the Christ, foretold by the prophets.
~Xn) I'm not on Team Xn

That's one example of an identity which tracks subjective beliefs.

M) I'm the kind of person who produces sperm and must guard against accidentally impregnating someone who doesn't want my children.
~M) People who don't produce sperm.

That's an example of an identity which is located not in one's brain, but in one's body.

I've been on all of the above teams over the years, but the process of changing from ~M to M was not a matter of mental effort whereas the process of changing from Xn to ~Xn required a fair bit of ratiocination.
__________________
I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network!
Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility
http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

Last edited by d4m10n; Today at 05:03 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:06 PM   #2231
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,355
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The motives generally don't matter regardless next to the merits of the argument. But people do get hung up on their own personal identity as 'a feminist' or 'not-bigoted' or 'skeptic' and it constrains their reasoning. 'I wouldn't fall for that because I'm a skeptic'. 'I wouldn't say something bigoted because I'm not a bigot.'
I understand that, yes. It's a fair point. Skepticism is a process, not an attribute, and self-identification as a "skeptic" is no guarantee against falling into the same errors in reasoning that skeptics point out in others. And I'm prone to all of these errors too (see my sig).

Quote:
To be fair, I'm not taking this thread as seriously anymore because generally speaking those being trans 'critical' reject the best evidence that science (and the medical community) has. I'm not reading as closely because it's all circles again. As long as people won't incorporate the best understanding of the medical community, there isn't much of a point in discussing with them.
Could you restate the key evidence and scientific facts that have been rejected by people in this thread (and/or best understanding of the medical community)? I think I might have a general idea of what you're referring to, but I'm not certain. Is it the autogynephilia thing that some have referred to (not myself)? Anything else?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:10 PM   #2232
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,960
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I have quite a lot of information if you're interested, although I'm not sure which aspects you're specifically talking about here.

You say 'both sides', and that indicates you might be talking about something other than what I thought you were. There is this widespread 'positioning' tactic, often employed in other woo beliefs, of pitting the idea one is a proponent of versus 'everything else' to create the illusion the proposed idea is on equal footing. This is seen in homeopathy vs 'alleopathy'. It's seen here in 'Blanchard's hypothesis' vs 'mainstream trans gender theory'. It also makes it simpler to straw man all of the science and debate on the subject to 'just about the feels' vs 'this science man's long really plus extra sciency words'.

At any rate, Blanchard's work and followers are one 'side' but the other 'side' actually are many competing theories and research that actually argue with each other on the details but don't even take his work as worth exploring. This is akin to evolution, just with a lot less data to work with. Specifically discrediting Blanchard isn't something most would even think to engage in because his work has simply bore no fruit to address predicatively. That said, his methods specifically have been taken apart and found not just lacking, but ridiculous. For example, using his definition of 'autogyophile' and apply it to cis women results in 90%+ being categorized as 'autogynophiles', and a more rigorous application (stricter than Blanchard uses) resulting in almost %30 being 'autogynophiles'. That means that using Blanchard's own hypothesis, trans women being autogynophiles would mean they are more like cis women than less like them in that regard. If Blanchard had decided to bother using a control group, perhaps he would have found that himself. Or if he had bothered to use samples that were not from the same clinic. Or if his results had ever been replicated. Basic scientific method issues arise from his work that would normally get any actually skeptical community to laugh his 'study' out the door as, at best, a poorly done pilot study. Here is a brief overview of many of the problems in his work, but of course the real interesting stuff is in the studies that paper cites.

Similarly, and this might interest you specifically because you are concerned about children, studies showing very high rates of desistance among children identified as trans have been shown to be very flawed as well. Specifically, they used outdated criteria to identify trans gender children. 25% or 40% of those children simply don't meet the criteria to identify as trans gender to begin with, so of course they aren't going to be found to be trans gender at a later date. Indeed, the studies showing very high rates of desistance didn't even ask the question 'are you a boy/girl?' of the participants. Therapists have actually shown a very high rate of identifying trans children over time. (If all the links before are too much to go through, this article lays it out pretty well if a little over-simplified, and seems to be the most related to your interest.)

Yes, they do actually use feedback from the subject to determine that, but that does not mean it is 'just feelings'. This quick overview from 2016 has only had more evidence in support come out after.

Notice where many of these links get published and cited. NIH, WHO, APA, Harvard...not mommy blogs. Yeah, a couple are to trans-positive pages but of course they're going to compile articles that link to evidence supporting their view.

Oh, and every time someone cites 'male pattern of criminality', know that the author herself of the work they are misquoting disagrees heavily and specifically with them. It emphatically does NOT show that trans women are as likely as cis men to commit violence against cis women (ironically it is cis lesbians are more likely too, not that this means they should be banned from locker rooms).

Now, it isn't that this topic overall doesn't have some aspects that are genuinely confusing, or debatable, or lacking enough good data that has me so 'over' trying to explain to the general poster what is going on. How to deal with some aspects really is difficult with a lot of room for valid views. What has got me that way is how such nakedly bad 'science' and reasoning is used to bolster some pretty silly positions and being taken as valid reasoning.

Blanchard's work is of no utility to the discussion besides to show what the anti-trans gender people are desperate enough to grasp at. Gender-affirmation therapy (which is NOT just to transition tomboys to men but “listen to the child and decipher with the help of parents or caregivers what the child is communicating about both gender identity and gender expression") isn't the scientific mainstream's most supported method for no good reason; it has evidence, predictive value, and repeatability supporting it.
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
I understand that, yes. It's a fair point. Skepticism is a process, not an attribute, and self-identification as a "skeptic" is no guarantee against falling into the same errors in reasoning that skeptics point out in others. And I'm prone to all of these errors too (see my sig).


Could you restate the key evidence and scientific facts that have been rejected by people in this thread (and/or best understanding of the medical community)? I think I might have a general idea of what you're referring to, but I'm not certain. Is it the autogynephilia thing that some have referred to (not myself)? Anything else?
I think the above post has most of the primary points I've seen that are simply not consistent with current evidence, and I'll not that the response it received was a hand-wave about how you can't apply Blanchard's criteria to cis women because...well because.

Oh, the above links don't address the 'well I identify as Napoleon!' refrain that displays, at this point, a willful ignorance of trans gender mental health.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:13 PM   #2233
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,960
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It's not about 'allegiance' but the merits of the case.
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Progressivism is not a club I've pledged my allegiance to. I'm not required to agree with about Y just because I agree with it about X.
I expected Belz's 'no, you!' obstinate response, but come now, you're better than this. That simply wasn't the argument I made.

The argument was that you agree with you, and in that case you only agree with me because I already agree with you.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:24 PM   #2234
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,355
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I think the above post has most of the primary points I've seen that are simply not consistent with current evidence, and I'll not that the response it received was a hand-wave about how you can't apply Blanchard's criteria to cis women because...well because.

Oh, the above links don't address the 'well I identify as Napoleon!' refrain that displays, at this point, a willful ignorance of trans gender mental health.
Thanks. I took the time to check those links and while I didn't read every single word of all of them, I read enough to be personally satisfied of their quality. I think we can safely dismiss Blanchard's theories. As for ROGD, it seems that the quality of research on it isn't up to snuff yet. It may warrant further study, if studies can be better designed. I would like to see more long-term follow up on youths who transitioned medically or took hormones and/or had surgical intervention to change their bodies. This may take decades for the results to be fully known (are they still happy with the decision at age 50 or beyond, for example).

But, yeah. I can only speak for myself, but I am not dismissing any of that, and I accept it as evidence. It does not appear to have much bearing on certain issues that have been discussed in this thread, such as whether MtF athletes or XY chromosome athletes have an unfair athletic advantage over XX chromosome athletes. But I think it does have bearing on other questions that are also the topic.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.