[Continuation] Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan - Page 10

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by caveman1917

I was going off this (pdf)

I don't believe the Conway paper implies what you think it does.

Quote:

In the United States there are varying estimates of the prevalence of crossdressing. Most conservative estimates are in the range of 2% to 5% of all adult males engage in routine crossdressing (1:50 to 1:20). These are people who crossdress part-time either privately at home, or in private CD clubs, and who find great satisfaction in this practice. In a majority of these cases there is mainly a male fetishistic motivation for the crossdressing. However, in a moderate fraction (1/3rd?) it mainly provides an outlet for mild to moderate to strong transgender feelings.

So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now. What I was half-joking about upthread was the process of "gender expression," which is how you present yourself to the world. The practice of crossdressing privately for the sake of fetishistic satisfaction doesn't really come into it.

p0lka · 26th June 2019, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well, there's the biological differences, which means that on average a man is going to have more size, mass, and strength with which to resist and drive off a bully. So that role of physical protector is going to end up being a male role, and the virtues of that role are going to be seen as masculine virtues. Not that women can't be big and strong, or small and strong, or small and fierce, etc. But we're talking about social norms and expectations evolving organically over (tens of) thousands of years, in feedback loops with biological differences on average.

---

But whatever. How about a much more modern gender role, p0lka? How do you feel about gender roles like "professional women's basketball player" or "women's world cup soccer forward"?

As I have said previously..

Originally Posted by p0lka

I'm perfectly ok with treating a transwoman as a woman and a transman as a man, (I don't treat males and females differently anyway, so makes no odds to me), I'll treat people how they wish to be treated as I like seeing smiles on peoples faces, define yourself and I will just go along with it to make you ok.

But I am suspending reality as I do so.

In terms of sporting events, I think the decision of who gets to compete should be based on reality. What's gender got to do with it.

TomB · 26th June 2019, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now.

This line from your quote seems to indicate that they are not the same thing:

Quote:

In a majority of these cases there is mainly a male fetishistic motivation for the crossdressing. However, in a moderate fraction (1/3rd?) it mainly provides an outlet for mild to moderate to strong transgender feelings.

It appears that crossdressing is, for lack of a better word, a symptom that can have multiple causes.

One cause is fetishistic. Another cause would be transgender feelings (which I associate with dysphoria).

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by TomB

One cause is fetishistic. Another cause would be transgender feelings (which I associate with dysphoria).

Right, but the author qualifies the distinction with "mainly" both times. Also, search upthread for Rolfe's posts on the prevalence of autogynephelia among those with transgender feelings. Maybe these two mechanisms really are distinct, but we'd need further evidence.

JihadJane · 26th June 2019, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

As I have said previously..

Quote:

(I don't treat males and females differently anyway, so makes no odds to me)

.

To know whether this is really true would require objective study of your behaviour. It cannot be ascertained subjectively.

caveman1917 · 26th June 2019, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I don't believe the Conway paper implies what you think it does.

So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now. What I was half-joking about upthread was the process of "gender expression," which is how you present yourself to the world. The practice of crossdressing privately for the sake of fetishistic satisfaction doesn't really come into it.

Yeah I suppose that's fair if we're only talking about private cross-dressing. Still, there are categories which would publicly cross-dress without being transgender - drag queens come to mind, or butch lesbians who wear masculine clothing.

Steve · 26th June 2019, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

To know whether this is really true would require objective study of your behaviour. It cannot be ascertained subjectively.

So therefore......?

Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial?

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial?

Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc.

Steve · 26th June 2019, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc.

Oh my! Treating people as equals is now controversial? I think not. Spending time deciding on individual classifications for everyone I meet before I can decide how to interact with them is not going to happen.

For myself I will not treat anyone differently because of their choice of physical activities, interests, clothes, or anything else you listed. People get the same level of respect from me unless they show that it is not warranted. Women, men, and anyone in between are free to associate, or not, with whomever they please. That has no effect on how treat them. I do not wish to do away with any of the things you listed.

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

I do not wish to do away with any of the things you listed.

All of those things require making exceptions to your idea that we should "Treat everyone the same." The idea of any women's only spaces requires that we turn men away.

p0lka · 26th June 2019, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial?

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc.

you seem to have a habit of putting words into the mouths of people you are quoting, when they never actually said it.

the highlighted is just a big false dichotomy.

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

the highlighted is just a big false dichotomy.

Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward.

Steve · 26th June 2019, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward.

Why do you persist in reading things into posts that are not there? Neither p0lka nor myself used the word “we”.

I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave. I do not care at all what rooms a woman (or man or ?) chooses to use, what sports organizations a woman (or man or ?) chooses to belong to, or what conferences or meetings a woman (or man or ?) chooses to attend. None of these things will influence me to treat any person differently than any other.

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave.

So what you're saying is that you aren't in a position to personally deal with the tricky questions when it comes to existing social segregation by sex and/or gender, and that your position is quite relaxing, but no one else need follow your example.

Cool.

I may have been entirely mistaken to believe that you wrote "Treat everyone the same" in an attempt to persuade other people to take your approach.

theprestige · 26th June 2019, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

So what you're saying is that you aren't in a position to personally deal with the tricky questions when it comes to existing social segregation by sex and/or gender, and that your position is quite relaxing, but no one else need follow your example.

Cool.

I can pass as a white male. If what they say about white male privilege is true, I'd be an idiot to give it up, and a fool to cede an inch of ground to anyone who tried to take it from me.

p0lka · 26th June 2019, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward.

Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward.

p0lka · 26th June 2019, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

So what you're saying is...snip

oops, you did it again..

d4m10n · 26th June 2019, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward.

Morally speaking, do you think it's okay to have separate sports leagues/conferences/changing rooms/festivals/etc. just for women? This is a yes/no question, but you are welcome to hit these issues one-by-one.

theprestige · 26th June 2019, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward.

This is all straightforward, but your point is too twisty for me to follow. Are you saying there should be no spaces just for women?

Yes or no?

Ziggurat · 26th June 2019, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward.

Quite true.

But the consequences for women of not having any spaces of their own may be quite different than the consequences for men of not having any spaces of their own.

Steve · 26th June 2019, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Morally speaking, do you think it's okay to have separate sports leagues/conferences/changing rooms/festivals/etc. just for women? This is a yes/no question, but you are welcome to hit these issues one-by-one.

Not directed at me but my answer may clarify my position.

Morals have little to do with my position.

Yes, I think it is ok and I think it is reasonable. I do not think it is mandatory although a majority of society seems to think that it should be. I am ok with that too.

This in no way means that I will treat any named gender differently than any other in my daily interactions with people.

JihadJane · 27th June 2019, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

Why do you persist in reading things into posts that are not there? Neither p0lka nor myself used the word “we”.

I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave. I do not care at all what rooms a woman (or man or ?) chooses to use, what sports organizations a woman (or man or ?) chooses to belong to, or what conferences or meetings a woman (or man or ?) chooses to attend. None of these things will influence me to treat any person differently than any other.

You don't care if women and girls are forced out of women's sport by men who choose to call themselves women?

You don't care if men who choose to call themselves women use women's toilets, refuges and changing rooms?

Originally Posted by Steve

So therefore......?

Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial?

No, I'm suggesting that your claim to treat everyone the same is unreliable because your only reference is subjective. Babies are treated differently from the moment their sex is known. This is mostly subconscious behaviour.

d4m10n · 27th June 2019, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

This in no way means that I will treat any named gender differently than any other in my daily interactions with people.

I'm totally on board with this, and I've said as much before.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It is possible to treat transwomen as women for all of your own social and personal purposes while recognizing that the designated gatekeepers of gender/sex-segregated spaces have a difficult and thankless task ahead of them.

It's cool that you strive not to treat women any differently than men in your everyday life, Steve, so say we all. That said, this thread is about the difficult policy choices which must be made in order to maintain, reform, or eliminate existing sex- and/or gender-segregated leagues/institutions/public spaces. It's not enough just to say, hey not my problem. Or rather, it is exactly enough to say that if you don't really hope to address any of the difficult issues which we've been addressing in this thread.

The Atheist · 27th June 2019, 03:39 PM

So, what does a boy at an all-boys school do when he decides to transition to female?

Go ahead and do it* - no change of school necessary: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/edu...tioning-senior

*May not work in some countries.

theprestige · 27th June 2019, 03:43 PM

If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that the best women are men. Transwomen are ******* feminism right in the ass, and the primary beneficiaries are men.

Sorry Rolfe. Even this unreconstructed conservative wishes it were otherwise. But progress marches on, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.

d4m10n · 27th June 2019, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Transwomen are ******* feminism right in the ass, and the primary beneficiaries are men.

Turbocharging?

p0lka · 28th June 2019, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

You don't care if women and girls are forced out of women's sport by men who choose to call themselves women?

You don't care if men who choose to call themselves women use women's toilets, refuges and changing rooms?

No, I'm suggesting that your claim to treat everyone the same is unreliable because your only reference is subjective. Babies are treated differently from the moment their sex is known. This is mostly subconscious behaviour.

In your opinion..

The amount of putting words into other peoples mouths in this thread is quite interesting.

d4m10n · 28th June 2019, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

The amount of putting words into other peoples mouths in this thread is quite interesting.

As is the amount of failing to count up the foreseeable consequences of one's norms, when applied broadly.

8enotto · 28th June 2019, 04:02 PM

Or the ability to see consequences of elimination of norms. In life not everyone gets exactly what they want. Someone has to lose when neither side accepts compromise.

And it is nearly alway the greater numbers that win long term.

Ron_Tomkins · 28th June 2019, 08:22 PM

Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion?

d4m10n · 28th June 2019, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion?

I have a theory about this.

Meadmaker · 28th June 2019, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion?

Hope springs eternal.

If we explain it just one more time, the other side will get it, surely.

The Atheist · 28th June 2019, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion?

That's why they're the most active - groups of people talking right past each other, repeating themselves ad nauseum.

GlennB · 29th June 2019, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I have a theory about this.

AHEM! Is it yours?

d4m10n · 29th June 2019, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

AHEM! Is it yours?

I may well have appropriated it.

p0lka · 29th June 2019, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Morally speaking, do you think it's okay to have separate sports leagues/conferences/changing rooms/festivals/etc. just for women? This is a yes/no question, but you are welcome to hit these issues one-by-one.

Morally speaking? that's a completely different topic.

I think I might have took the thread offtopic a bit, it's gender roles that make no sense to me, whereas the thread seems to be more about the physical attributes.

theprestige · 29th June 2019, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

Morally speaking? that's a completely different topic.

I think I might have took the thread offtopic a bit, it's gender roles that make no sense to me, whereas the thread seems to be more about the physical attributes.

This thread is about the intersection of physical attributes, self-perception of gender, and gender roles in society.

You seem to be trying to pick out the thread of gender roles in society, but the problem is that you can't really do this without unraveling the whole tapestry.

The Atheist · 29th June 2019, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

This thread is about the intersection of physical attributes, self-perception of gender, and gender roles in society.

Nope.

The thread is about the simple fact that trans women are not women.

Everything else is actually a red herring.

d4m10n · 29th June 2019, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by p0lka

...I might have took the thread offtopic a bit, it's gender roles that make no sense to me, whereas the thread seems to be more about the physical attributes.

The thread(s) have been about sex, gender, and people who don't find the one to match the other. We've ranged over all sorts of variations on the theme. I feel like you've sort of dodged my question, though, so I'll ask it a different way. Do you think the gendered role "women's professional soccer player" is a role which ought to exist?

Originally Posted by theprestige

This thread is about the intersection of physical attributes, self-perception of gender, and gender roles in society.

Yes.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The thread is about the simple fact that trans women are not women.

No.

theprestige · 29th June 2019, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope.

The thread is about the simple fact that trans women are not women.

Everything else is actually a red herring.

Nope.

Everything else is just figuring out what that means and whether it's actually true.

But go on being wrong, if that's your pleasure.

26th June 2019, 12:40 PM	#361
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by caveman1917 I was going off this (pdf) I don't believe the Conway paper implies what you think it does. Quote: In the United States there are varying estimates of the prevalence of crossdressing. Most conservative estimates are in the range of 2% to 5% of all adult males engage in routine crossdressing (1:50 to 1:20). These are people who crossdress part-time either privately at home, or in private CD clubs, and who find great satisfaction in this practice. In a majority of these cases there is mainly a male fetishistic motivation for the crossdressing. However, in a moderate fraction (1/3rd?) it mainly provides an outlet for mild to moderate to strong transgender feelings. So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now. What I was half-joking about upthread was the process of "gender expression," which is how you present yourself to the world. The practice of crossdressing privately for the sake of fetishistic satisfaction doesn't really come into it.
	__________________ 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; 26th June 2019 at 12:46 PM.

26th June 2019, 01:02 PM	#362
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by theprestige Well, there's the biological differences, which means that on average a man is going to have more size, mass, and strength with which to resist and drive off a bully. So that role of physical protector is going to end up being a male role, and the virtues of that role are going to be seen as masculine virtues. Not that women can't be big and strong, or small and strong, or small and fierce, etc. But we're talking about social norms and expectations evolving organically over (tens of) thousands of years, in feedback loops with biological differences on average. --- But whatever. How about a much more modern gender role, p0lka? How do you feel about gender roles like "professional women's basketball player" or "women's world cup soccer forward"? As I have said previously.. Originally Posted by p0lka I'm perfectly ok with treating a transwoman as a woman and a transman as a man, (I don't treat males and females differently anyway, so makes no odds to me), I'll treat people how they wish to be treated as I like seeing smiles on peoples faces, define yourself and I will just go along with it to make you ok. But I am suspending reality as I do so. In terms of sporting events, I think the decision of who gets to compete should be based on reality. What's gender got to do with it.
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Last edited by p0lka; 26th June 2019 at 01:08 PM.

26th June 2019, 01:20 PM	#363
TomB Muse Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 651	Originally Posted by d4m10n So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now. This line from your quote seems to indicate that they are not the same thing: Quote: In a majority of these cases there is mainly a male fetishistic motivation for the crossdressing. However, in a moderate fraction (1/3rd?) it mainly provides an outlet for mild to moderate to strong transgender feelings. It appears that crossdressing is, for lack of a better word, a symptom that can have multiple causes. One cause is fetishistic. Another cause would be transgender feelings (which I associate with dysphoria).
TomB Muse Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 651

26th June 2019, 01:29 PM	#364
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by TomB One cause is fetishistic. Another cause would be transgender feelings (which I associate with dysphoria). Right, but the author qualifies the distinction with "mainly" both times. Also, search upthread for Rolfe's posts on the prevalence of autogynephelia among those with transgender feelings. Maybe these two mechanisms really are distinct, but we'd need further evidence.
	__________________ 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; 26th June 2019 at 02:50 PM.

26th June 2019, 01:32 PM	#365
JihadJane not a camel Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 71,530	Originally Posted by p0lka As I have said previously.. Quote: (I don't treat males and females differently anyway, so makes no odds to me) . To know whether this is really true would require objective study of your behaviour. It cannot be ascertained subjectively.
JihadJane not a camel Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 71,530	__________________ "Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response." Rolfe

26th June 2019, 01:33 PM	#366
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,850	Originally Posted by d4m10n I don't believe the Conway paper implies what you think it does. So far as I can tell, the author doesn't seem ready to draw a bright line between crossdressing behaviour and transgender identity, but let's put that aside for now. What I was half-joking about upthread was the process of "gender expression," which is how you present yourself to the world. The practice of crossdressing privately for the sake of fetishistic satisfaction doesn't really come into it. Yeah I suppose that's fair if we're only talking about private cross-dressing. Still, there are categories which would publicly cross-dress without being transgender - drag queens come to mind, or butch lesbians who wear masculine clothing.
caveman1917 Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 6,850	__________________ "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

26th June 2019, 01:49 PM	#367
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by JihadJane To know whether this is really true would require objective study of your behaviour. It cannot be ascertained subjectively. So therefore......? Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial?
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

26th June 2019, 02:15 PM	#368
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by Steve Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial? Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

26th June 2019, 02:44 PM	#369
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by d4m10n Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc. Oh my! Treating people as equals is now controversial? I think not. Spending time deciding on individual classifications for everyone I meet before I can decide how to interact with them is not going to happen. For myself I will not treat anyone differently because of their choice of physical activities, interests, clothes, or anything else you listed. People get the same level of respect from me unless they show that it is not warranted. Women, men, and anyone in between are free to associate, or not, with whomever they please. That has no effect on how treat them. I do not wish to do away with any of the things you listed.
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

26th June 2019, 02:48 PM	#370
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by Steve I do not wish to do away with any of the things you listed. All of those things require making exceptions to your idea that we should "Treat everyone the same." The idea of any women's only spaces requires that we turn men away.
	__________________ 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; 26th June 2019 at 02:50 PM.

26th June 2019, 03:44 PM	#371
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by Steve Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial? Originally Posted by d4m10n Of course it should, unless you're happy to do away with all women's leagues / spaces / conferences / clothiers / changing rooms / etc. you seem to have a habit of putting words into the mouths of people you are quoting, when they never actually said it. the highlighted is just a big false dichotomy.
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Last edited by p0lka; 26th June 2019 at 03:52 PM.

26th June 2019, 03:54 PM	#372
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by p0lka the highlighted is just a big false dichotomy. Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward.
	__________________ 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; 26th June 2019 at 04:16 PM.

26th June 2019, 04:45 PM	#373
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by d4m10n Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward. Why do you persist in reading things into posts that are not there? Neither p0lka nor myself used the word “we”. I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave. I do not care at all what rooms a woman (or man or ?) chooses to use, what sports organizations a woman (or man or ?) chooses to belong to, or what conferences or meetings a woman (or man or ?) chooses to attend. None of these things will influence me to treat any person differently than any other.
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

26th June 2019, 04:48 PM	#374
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by Steve I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave. So what you're saying is that you aren't in a position to personally deal with the tricky questions when it comes to existing social segregation by sex and/or gender, and that your position is quite relaxing, but no one else need follow your example. Cool. I may have been entirely mistaken to believe that you wrote "Treat everyone the same" in an attempt to persuade other people to take your approach.
	__________________ 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; 26th June 2019 at 04:50 PM.

26th June 2019, 04:52 PM	#375
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,785	Originally Posted by d4m10n So what you're saying is that you aren't in a position to personally deal with the tricky questions when it comes to existing social segregation by sex and/or gender, and that your position is quite relaxing, but no one else need follow your example. Cool. I can pass as a white male. If what they say about white male privilege is true, I'd be an idiot to give it up, and a fool to cede an inch of ground to anyone who tried to take it from me.

26th June 2019, 05:17 PM	#376
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by d4m10n Not at all. If we're unwilling to treat women differently from men, then there will be no spaces just for women. This is entirely straightforward. Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward.
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697

26th June 2019, 05:18 PM	#377
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by d4m10n So what you're saying is...snip oops, you did it again..
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697

26th June 2019, 05:22 PM	#378
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by p0lka Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward. Morally speaking, do you think it's okay to have separate sports leagues/conferences/changing rooms/festivals/etc. just for women? This is a yes/no question, but you are welcome to hit these issues one-by-one.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

26th June 2019, 05:49 PM	#379
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,785	Originally Posted by p0lka Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward. This is all straightforward, but your point is too twisty for me to follow. Are you saying there should be no spaces just for women? Yes or no?

26th June 2019, 07:49 PM	#380
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 44,875	Originally Posted by p0lka Well you could equally be unwilling to treat men differently from women, then there will be no spaces just for men. This is equally entirely straightforward. Quite true. But the consequences for women of not having any spaces of their own may be quite different than the consequences for men of not having any spaces of their own.
	__________________ "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

26th June 2019, 08:53 PM	#381
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	Originally Posted by d4m10n Morally speaking, do you think it's okay to have separate sports leagues/conferences/changing rooms/festivals/etc. just for women? This is a yes/no question, but you are welcome to hit these issues one-by-one. Not directed at me but my answer may clarify my position. Morals have little to do with my position. Yes, I think it is ok and I think it is reasonable. I do not think it is mandatory although a majority of society seems to think that it should be. I am ok with that too. This in no way means that I will treat any named gender differently than any other in my daily interactions with people.
Steve Philosopher Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,139	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

27th June 2019, 02:51 AM	#382
JihadJane not a camel Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 71,530	Originally Posted by Steve Why do you persist in reading things into posts that are not there? Neither p0lka nor myself used the word “we”. I have had no personal involvement with segregating women by any of the examples that you gave. I do not care at all what rooms a woman (or man or ?) chooses to use, what sports organizations a woman (or man or ?) chooses to belong to, or what conferences or meetings a woman (or man or ?) chooses to attend. None of these things will influence me to treat any person differently than any other. You don't care if women and girls are forced out of women's sport by men who choose to call themselves women? You don't care if men who choose to call themselves women use women's toilets, refuges and changing rooms? Originally Posted by Steve So therefore......? Seems a reasonable position to me. Treat everyone the same. Keeps life simple. Are you suggesting that it should be controversial? No, I'm suggesting that your claim to treat everyone the same is unreliable because your only reference is subjective. Babies are treated differently from the moment their sex is known. This is mostly subconscious behaviour.
JihadJane not a camel Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 71,530	__________________ "Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response." Rolfe Last edited by JihadJane; 27th June 2019 at 02:58 AM.

27th June 2019, 07:08 AM	#383
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by Steve This in no way means that I will treat any named gender differently than any other in my daily interactions with people. I'm totally on board with this, and I've said as much before. Originally Posted by d4m10n It is possible to treat transwomen as women for all of your own social and personal purposes while recognizing that the designated gatekeepers of gender/sex-segregated spaces have a difficult and thankless task ahead of them. It's cool that you strive not to treat women any differently than men in your everyday life, Steve, so say we all. That said, this thread is about the difficult policy choices which must be made in order to maintain, reform, or eliminate existing sex- and/or gender-segregated leagues/institutions/public spaces. It's not enough just to say, hey not my problem. Or rather, it is exactly enough to say that if you don't really hope to address any of the difficult issues which we've been addressing in this thread.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

27th June 2019, 03:39 PM	#384
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,260	So, what does a boy at an all-boys school do when he decides to transition to female? Go ahead and do it* - no change of school necessary: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/edu...tioning-senior *May not work in some countries.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

27th June 2019, 03:43 PM	#385
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 39,785	If there's one thing I've learned from this thread, it's that the best women are men. Transwomen are ******* feminism right in the ass, and the primary beneficiaries are men. Sorry Rolfe. Even this unreconstructed conservative wishes it were otherwise. But progress marches on, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.
	Last edited by theprestige; 27th June 2019 at 03:45 PM.

27th June 2019, 05:47 PM	#386
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by theprestige Transwomen are ******* feminism right in the ass, and the primary beneficiaries are men. Turbocharging?
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

28th June 2019, 01:57 PM	#387
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Originally Posted by JihadJane You don't care if women and girls are forced out of women's sport by men who choose to call themselves women? You don't care if men who choose to call themselves women use women's toilets, refuges and changing rooms? No, I'm suggesting that your claim to treat everyone the same is unreliable because your only reference is subjective. Babies are treated differently from the moment their sex is known. This is mostly subconscious behaviour. In your opinion.. The amount of putting words into other peoples mouths in this thread is quite interesting.
p0lka Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,697	Last edited by p0lka; 28th June 2019 at 01:58 PM.

28th June 2019, 03:17 PM	#388
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by p0lka The amount of putting words into other peoples mouths in this thread is quite interesting. As is the amount of failing to count up the foreseeable consequences of one's norms, when applied broadly.
	__________________ 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; 28th June 2019 at 03:22 PM.

28th June 2019, 04:02 PM	#389
8enotto Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 1,313	Or the ability to see consequences of elimination of norms. In life not everyone gets exactly what they want. Someone has to lose when neither side accepts compromise. And it is nearly alway the greater numbers that win long term.

28th June 2019, 08:22 PM	#390
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 43,904	Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion?
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

28th June 2019, 08:57 PM	#391
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion? I have a theory about this.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/

28th June 2019, 10:57 PM	#392
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 19,681	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion? Hope springs eternal. If we explain it just one more time, the other side will get it, surely.

28th June 2019, 11:01 PM	#393
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 23,260	Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins Have you ever noticed how the threads that are the most active are the ones that never get anywhere in the discussion? That's why they're the most active - groups of people talking right past each other, repeating themselves ad nauseum.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

29th June 2019, 03:58 AM	#394
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia, Greece Posts: 25,579	Originally Posted by d4m10n I have a theory about this. AHEM! Is it yours?
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

29th June 2019, 05:40 AM	#395
d4m10n Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 4,390	Originally Posted by GlennB AHEM! Is it yours? I may well have appropriated it.
	__________________ I'm a happy SINner on the Skeptic Ink Network! Background Probability: Against Irrationality, Innumeracy, and Ignobility http://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/