[Continuation] Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan - Page 58

Meadmaker · 1st January 2020, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

The point seems to be that biological and behavioral definitions can be isolated from each other when it suits people, then they turn around and feign ignorance at how such a thing could be suggested.

Examples of this being used for purely negative reinforcement or othering/shaming doesn't mean the very concept of these being two different forms of identity is wrong.

I can use a scouring sponge to clean someone's face. It will be painful and a poor use of that kind of tool. That doesn't mean scouring sponges are bad and we shouldn't use them.

Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation.

In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man".

Delphic Oracle · 1st January 2020, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation.

In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man".

That depends on the nature of your objection.

If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology.

Plus, when we're talking about adults of consenting age, deciding by sex is not how it really works. Plenty of men can shower with other men, but if they find out one of them is gay, suddenly it's a "big deal." Plenty of women quite want to be seen naked by men they approve of doing so.

So it seems to have a lot more to do with dynamics of attraction or whatever other criteria that particular person has, socialized norms all buried under a double-scoop of hasty generalizations assigning all of that to a binary, biological "hard-wiring."

Meadmaker · 1st January 2020, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

That depends on the nature of your objection.

If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology.

And if we aren't?

Delphic Oracle · 1st January 2020, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And if we aren't?

Feel free to explain the nature of your objection.

Nice try, though.

Robin · 1st January 2020, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I suppose the answer is yes.

I'm reluctant to say that, because it's hard to figure out what possible purpose the answer (or the question) could serve. After we decide that someone is or isn't "a real man", what does that even mean? Even in the not so distant past where people frequently talked about "real men", they weren't using the phrase to actually identify a gender. The most common use was to identify some set of culturally desirable behaviors that people who are of a particular gender should aspire to. Other uses were to ridicule those who fell short of the standards, and more rarely, to praise people who had the desirable traits associated with the opposite sex. The last sort of use was almost always to praise women who had character traits commonly associated with and admired among men.

But ok, I'll play along. Yes. There is one sense of the word "man", in which it could be said, for a purely cultural sense, that there were biological males who were not "men".

Now what?

I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?

cullennz · 1st January 2020, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?

Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates

Meadmaker · 1st January 2020, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Robin

I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see.

No, they are not.

The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man.

When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man").

These are extremely different senses.

8enotto · 1st January 2020, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates

If like in Mexico City its a stack of papers backed by the original document. The past isn't truly erased.
I suspect its all emotional and a hefty filing fee in state coffers.

Robin · 2nd January 2020, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see.

No, they are not.

The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man.

When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man").

These are extremely different senses.

In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc.

On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is.

So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference.

Meadmaker · 2nd January 2020, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc.

On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is.

So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense.

I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference.

I think we are dealing with three different senses of the word.

When in doubt, we should ask google. Google knows everything.

When I google the phrase "real man", the first hit was to Urban Dictionary. In that lingo, a "real man" was synonymous with "old fashioned" in the way they act toward women.

The next entry was a question "What does it mean to be a real man?" And the answer began,

" 'A real Man' for me, personally is someone with true Dignity, Integrity, and willing to sacrifice himself to take care of others.'A real Man' is someone who has the up most respect for Women, therefore does not harm them in any way.'A real Man' is someone who doesn't give up as easily..."

That was the sense I was talking about as a "real man", and it seems that me and google are on the same page with that phrase.

What you are talking about is someone who has effeminate mannerisms, and
certainly their masculinity is questioned, and, especially in times gone by they were ridiculed, shunned, or bullied.

Similarly, and with some overlap, a homosexual might be considered less masculine.

So those are three different senses in which someone's "manhood" might be thrown into doubt. However, in none of those senses would anyone think to call those people actual women.

Interestingly, we can think of the corresponding cases for women.

"Real woman" is somewhat fuzzier, and used far less frequently as a phrase than "real man". Googling the phrase ends up with far more diverse answers. Interestingly, the most common use of the phrase in the top google hits was actually some sort of "less than perfect" sense. "Real women" were ordinary women who were not supermodels or did not fit some sort of idealized version of beauty or sex appeal. However, there were also other uses of the phrase for all sorts of different attributes. The phrase wasn't as common or the usage not as consistent as "real man".

On the other hand, corresponding to the sense of effeminacy in men, women who are "butch" might be called less feminine, and homosexual women might have their femininity questioned.

Again, though, though, these sorts of women would not be considered actual men. People who were not "real men", or men who were "girly" or women who were "butch" weren't perceived as the opposite sex. They were more perceived as somehow sexless.

So there are multiple senses of words that might be used, or have been used in the recent past, to signal that a person who was a given biological sex somehow did not fit into some sort of idealized version of that sex, and so were not "really" a man or a woman, or were "less of" a man or woman, but in no sense of those words was there ever a sense that made them actually part of the other sex.

In short, I'm still not following your reasoning. If we talk about biological males who were somehow said to not be "real men", or otherwise characterized as something other than male, they sure as heck weren't considered to be "real women" either.

Tsukasa Buddha · 2nd January 2020, 08:33 PM

For an analogous situation, for many races there are derogatory terms oreo/banana/etc. for not being "real" Black/Chinese/etc people. But no one takes that to mean Rachel Dolezal could possibly be a Black person. (Again, I'm not claiming trans people are like Dolezal, I am making the reference in the context of an argument I think is problematic and reject.)

My problem with the line of argument is that it seems to endorse that gender non-conforming people really aren't men or women, so it is a weirdly conservative and reactionary take.

cullennz · 2nd January 2020, 10:24 PM

Sorry, but do you mind clarifying your question in the last paragraph?

Yes I am probably dim

d4m10n · 4th January 2020, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

JK Rowling comes out in support of fired anti-trans bigot in the UK.

Rowling finally a mask-off TERF

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...maya-forstater

Originally Posted by Strawberry

It's about time Rowling stood up for what is right, since she's one of the few women in a position to do so without being sacked or no platformed, which is the usual reaction of the increasingly delusional and authoritarian trans lobby.

Saw an interesting exchange on this topic recently, between a former JREF poster and another skeptic blogger named Andy Lewis.

https://twitter.com/skepchicks/statu...04236620460032

https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/sta...23227644420101

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020...cepticism.html

Rolfe · 4th January 2020, 04:41 PM

You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.

d4m10n · 4th January 2020, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.

I think it's fair to say that Andy is doing scientific skepticism somewhat better than Rebecca at this point, inasmuch as he is carefully outlining and addressing specific scientific questions under dispute. He is, alas, completely failing at signaling social virtue in the usual sense.

zooterkin · 13th January 2020, 01:54 AM

Graham Linehan (author of Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd, among other things), is under attack on Twitter (there's a hashtag!) for making what seem to me reasonable points.

Quote:

So why is all this happening? It’s happening because of one phrase, because of one piece of dogma, perhaps initially meant as a kindness, but which has mutated into a tribal signal and an expression of literal truth. That statement is, of course, “Trans women are women”. An ideology that came out of the whackiest corner of American academia, has, via social networks, cognitively conquered mainstream organisations all through the western world, including—sorry, Sacha— including the ADL.

You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’.

“Repeat after us. Trans women are women”. Projected onto the seat of power in the UK.

But here’s one major problem with the phrase. Before you can redefine what the word woman means, you must receive the unanimous approval of every woman living on earth.

theprestige · 13th January 2020, 08:51 AM

I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.

d4m10n · 13th January 2020, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.

I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definition^WP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.

Ziggurat · 13th January 2020, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definition^WP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.

I wouldn't, because it doesn't actually take consensus among native speakers of English, but only among the editors of said standard dictionary. Although ideally the editor's consensus matches the consensus of English speakers, there is no mechanism to actually enforce that. And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.

Ziggurat · 13th January 2020, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Quote:

You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’.

Yeah, that's some totalitarian **** right there. An attitude summed up by the phrase "You will be made to care."

theprestige · 13th January 2020, 10:12 AM

Sooner or later, M-W and Oxford are going to turn into Urban Dictionary.

d4m10n · 13th January 2020, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.

Fair point, but have said activists converged on a definition which isn't explicitly self-referential yet? (I hear dictionarists are uptight about that sort of thing.)

Robin · 14th January 2020, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

When I google the phrase "real man",

Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying?

How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this?

Meadmaker · 14th January 2020, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by Robin

Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying?

How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this?

Well it seems I am not very good at following pretty straightforward reasoning. I keep thinking you must be getting at something, but it seems that I'm not very good at figuring out what it is, so I'll give up trying to figure out the import of any questions you have.

I'll continue to answer them, though, if you would like answers. I'll go back to your last one.

Quote:

I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?

The answer is no.

1st January 2020, 06:57 PM	#2285
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,320	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I suppose the answer is yes. I'm reluctant to say that, because it's hard to figure out what possible purpose the answer (or the question) could serve. After we decide that someone is or isn't "a real man", what does that even mean? Even in the not so distant past where people frequently talked about "real men", they weren't using the phrase to actually identify a gender. The most common use was to identify some set of culturally desirable behaviors that people who are of a particular gender should aspire to. Other uses were to ridicule those who fell short of the standards, and more rarely, to praise people who had the desirable traits associated with the opposite sex. The last sort of use was almost always to praise women who had character traits commonly associated with and admired among men. But ok, I'll play along. Yes. There is one sense of the word "man", in which it could be said, for a purely cultural sense, that there were biological males who were not "men". Now what? I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes?
	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

1st January 2020, 07:34 PM	#2286
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,947	Originally Posted by Robin I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes? Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

2nd January 2020, 03:19 AM	#2289
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,320	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see. No, they are not. The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man. When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man"). These are extremely different senses. In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc. On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is. So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference.
	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 2nd January 2020 at 03:22 AM.

2nd January 2020, 08:33 PM	#2291
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 15,194	For an analogous situation, for many races there are derogatory terms oreo/banana/etc. for not being "real" Black/Chinese/etc people. But no one takes that to mean Rachel Dolezal could possibly be a Black person. (Again, I'm not claiming trans people are like Dolezal, I am making the reference in the context of an argument I think is problematic and reject.) My problem with the line of argument is that it seems to endorse that gender non-conforming people really aren't men or women, so it is a weirdly conservative and reactionary take.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 2nd January 2020 at 09:10 PM.

2nd January 2020, 10:24 PM	#2292
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 17,947	Sorry, but do you mind clarifying your question in the last paragraph? Yes I am probably dim
	__________________ I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

1st January 2020, 02:01 PM	#2281
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,943	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle The point seems to be that biological and behavioral definitions can be isolated from each other when it suits people, then they turn around and feign ignorance at how such a thing could be suggested. Examples of this being used for purely negative reinforcement or othering/shaming doesn't mean the very concept of these being two different forms of identity is wrong. I can use a scouring sponge to clean someone's face. It will be painful and a poor use of that kind of tool. That doesn't mean scouring sponges are bad and we shouldn't use them. Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation. In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man".

1st January 2020, 03:43 PM	#2282
Delphic Oracle Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 3,906	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Absolutely. Whether we are talking about tools or talking about different uses of a word, we should use one appropriate to the situation. In my opinion, when deciding whether someone ought to be allowed to see my sister naked in the shower, we should use the biological definition of "man". That depends on the nature of your objection. If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology. Plus, when we're talking about adults of consenting age, deciding by sex is not how it really works. Plenty of men can shower with other men, but if they find out one of them is gay, suddenly it's a "big deal." Plenty of women quite want to be seen naked by men they approve of doing so. So it seems to have a lot more to do with dynamics of attraction or whatever other criteria that particular person has, socialized norms all buried under a double-scoop of hasty generalizations assigning all of that to a binary, biological "hard-wiring."

1st January 2020, 04:01 PM	#2283
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,943	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle That depends on the nature of your objection. If it's because of the behaviors often exhibited by males, then we're really still talking about gender and gendered expectations, not biology. And if we aren't?

1st January 2020, 04:26 PM	#2284
Delphic Oracle Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 3,906	Originally Posted by Meadmaker And if we aren't? Feel free to explain the nature of your objection. Nice try, though.

1st January 2020, 07:46 PM	#2287
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,943	Originally Posted by Robin I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes? Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but I'll play along and see. No, they are not. The trans man is saying something along the lines of "Despite my biological condition, I feel more like a man than a woman. Indeed, the thought of me as a woman causes me anxiety. (i.e. dysphoria). Therefore, I will identify myself as a man. When a biological male is told by someone, "You are not a man." the speaker is making a judgment about the other person, saying that although he possesses the biology of a male, his character does not meet a sufficiently stereotypically masculine pattern to be considered a "true man". Perhaps the male is cowardly, or weak, or is insufficiently stoic (as is "take it like a man"). These are extremely different senses.

1st January 2020, 08:48 PM	#2288
8enotto Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 1,405	Originally Posted by cullennz Then why all the fuss for some about changing their sex on birth certificates If like in Mexico City its a stack of papers backed by the original document. The past isn't truly erased. I suspect its all emotional and a hefty filing fee in state coffers.

2nd January 2020, 05:44 AM	#2290
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,943	Originally Posted by Robin In my long experience someone can be as brave and stoic as all get out but it would not cut it with the "You're not a man" crowd if he has the wrong voice, mannerisms, interests etc. On the other hand if someone has the right mannerisms, voice etc he will be accepted as a man no matter how cowardly or unstoic he is. So we have, on the one hand, biological males who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. And on the other hand we have biological females who consider themselves "men" in some mysterious non-biological sense. I don't understand either, but I don't see any big difference, never mind an extreme difference. I think we are dealing with three different senses of the word. When in doubt, we should ask google. Google knows everything. When I google the phrase "real man", the first hit was to Urban Dictionary. In that lingo, a "real man" was synonymous with "old fashioned" in the way they act toward women. The next entry was a question "What does it mean to be a real man?" And the answer began, " 'A real Man' for me, personally is someone with true Dignity, Integrity, and willing to sacrifice himself to take care of others.'A real Man' is someone who has the up most respect for Women, therefore does not harm them in any way.'A real Man' is someone who doesn't give up as easily..." That was the sense I was talking about as a "real man", and it seems that me and google are on the same page with that phrase. What you are talking about is someone who has effeminate mannerisms, and certainly their masculinity is questioned, and, especially in times gone by they were ridiculed, shunned, or bullied. Similarly, and with some overlap, a homosexual might be considered less masculine. So those are three different senses in which someone's "manhood" might be thrown into doubt. However, in none of those senses would anyone think to call those people actual women. Interestingly, we can think of the corresponding cases for women. "Real woman" is somewhat fuzzier, and used far less frequently as a phrase than "real man". Googling the phrase ends up with far more diverse answers. Interestingly, the most common use of the phrase in the top google hits was actually some sort of "less than perfect" sense. "Real women" were ordinary women who were not supermodels or did not fit some sort of idealized version of beauty or sex appeal. However, there were also other uses of the phrase for all sorts of different attributes. The phrase wasn't as common or the usage not as consistent as "real man". On the other hand, corresponding to the sense of effeminacy in men, women who are "butch" might be called less feminine, and homosexual women might have their femininity questioned. Again, though, though, these sorts of women would not be considered actual men. People who were not "real men", or men who were "girly" or women who were "butch" weren't perceived as the opposite sex. They were more perceived as somehow sexless. So there are multiple senses of words that might be used, or have been used in the recent past, to signal that a person who was a given biological sex somehow did not fit into some sort of idealized version of that sex, and so were not "really" a man or a woman, or were "less of" a man or woman, but in no sense of those words was there ever a sense that made them actually part of the other sex. In short, I'm still not following your reasoning. If we talk about biological males who were somehow said to not be "real men", or otherwise characterized as something other than male, they sure as heck weren't considered to be "real women" either.

4th January 2020, 09:33 AM	#2293
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,478	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey JK Rowling comes out in support of fired anti-trans bigot in the UK. Rowling finally a mask-off TERF https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...maya-forstater Originally Posted by Strawberry It's about time Rowling stood up for what is right, since she's one of the few women in a position to do so without being sacked or no platformed, which is the usual reaction of the increasingly delusional and authoritarian trans lobby. Saw an interesting exchange on this topic recently, between a former JREF poster and another skeptic blogger named Andy Lewis. https://twitter.com/skepchicks/statu...04236620460032 https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/sta...23227644420101 http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020...cepticism.html
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

4th January 2020, 04:41 PM	#2294
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 44,430	You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

4th January 2020, 04:55 PM	#2295
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,478	Originally Posted by Rolfe You know, I read that and didn't clock the "Rebecca" part at the time. My bad. Sudden lightbulb moment. I think it's fair to say that Andy is doing scientific skepticism somewhat better than Rebecca at this point, inasmuch as he is carefully outlining and addressing specific scientific questions under dispute. He is, alas, completely failing at signaling social virtue in the usual sense.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

13th January 2020, 01:54 AM	#2296
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 44,307	Graham Linehan (author of Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd, among other things), is under attack on Twitter (there's a hashtag!) for making what seem to me reasonable points. Quote: So why is all this happening? It’s happening because of one phrase, because of one piece of dogma, perhaps initially meant as a kindness, but which has mutated into a tribal signal and an expression of literal truth. That statement is, of course, “Trans women are women”. An ideology that came out of the whackiest corner of American academia, has, via social networks, cognitively conquered mainstream organisations all through the western world, including—sorry, Sacha— including the ADL. You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’. “Repeat after us. Trans women are women”. Projected onto the seat of power in the UK. But here’s one major problem with the phrase. Before you can redefine what the word woman means, you must receive the unanimous approval of every woman living on earth.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

13th January 2020, 08:51 AM	#2297
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 41,052	I don't think unanimous approval is necessary.

13th January 2020, 08:58 AM	#2298
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,478	Originally Posted by theprestige I don't think unanimous approval is necessary. I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definition^WP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

13th January 2020, 09:34 AM	#2299
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 45,286	Originally Posted by d4m10n I'd be impressed if enough consensus was achieved among native speakers of English (men and women alike) to get the new meaning of the word listed as a lexical definition^WP in one or two standard dictionaries of the language. I wouldn't, because it doesn't actually take consensus among native speakers of English, but only among the editors of said standard dictionary. Although ideally the editor's consensus matches the consensus of English speakers, there is no mechanism to actually enforce that. And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law Last edited by Ziggurat; 13th January 2020 at 09:36 AM.

13th January 2020, 09:47 AM	#2300
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 45,286	Originally Posted by zooterkin Quote: You may remember someone projected the phase on the side of Westminster, but perhaps you forgot, as I did, that they actually preceded it with the words. ‘Repeat after us’. Yeah, that's some totalitarian **** right there. An attitude summed up by the phrase "You will be made to care."
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

13th January 2020, 10:12 AM	#2301
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 41,052	Sooner or later, M-W and Oxford are going to turn into Urban Dictionary.

13th January 2020, 01:51 PM	#2302
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,478	Originally Posted by Ziggurat And we are under exactly the conditions where you might expect them to diverge: a politically contentious issue with strident activists who apply pressure to use preferred definitions. Fair point, but have said activists converged on a definition which isn't explicitly self-referential yet? (I hear dictionarists are uptight about that sort of thing.)
	__________________ 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; 13th January 2020 at 01:52 PM.

14th January 2020, 03:16 AM	#2303
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,320	Originally Posted by Meadmaker When I google the phrase "real man", Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying? How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this?
	__________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

14th January 2020, 05:38 AM	#2304
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,943	Originally Posted by Robin Why would you do that? I haven't used the expression 'real man' as far as I am aware, so how is that relevant to what I am saying? How do you expect to follow my (pretty straightforward) reasoning if you go off on tangents like this? Well it seems I am not very good at following pretty straightforward reasoning. I keep thinking you must be getting at something, but it seems that I'm not very good at figuring out what it is, so I'll give up trying to figure out the import of any questions you have. I'll continue to answer them, though, if you would like answers. I'll go back to your last one. Quote: I doubt that any trans man is claiming to be biologically male, so when a trans man says "I am a man" and a biological male is told by someone "you are not a man" then they are presumably talking in the same sense, yes? The answer is no.